DFA Hughes

[Doomtints]

 

No, it is fully guaranteed. 

 

I'm not disputing that it is fully guaranteed, nor am I asking for soliloquys which repeat what I clearly already am aware of. The question is does anyone have the full text of the rule to confirm which team is on the hook for multiple years in these situations?

[yarnivek1972]

Here is the current CBA.

 

I read parts of it.  I saw nothing that indicates that any other team would have to pay part of a salary of released player, other than minimum.

[Doomtints]

 

Here is the current CBA.

 

I read parts of it.  I saw nothing that indicates that any other team would have to pay part of a salary of released player, other than minimum.

 

That's not the current one, but the new one isn't very different. What section do you see this? I don't see it.

[yarnivek1972]

That's not the current one, but the new one isn't very different. What section do you see this? I don't see it.

That's wierd that it isn't the current one. I took it straight from the mlbpa website. I looked at the sections regarding termination pay and assigning contracts.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I'm not disputing that it is fully guaranteed, nor am I asking for soliloquys which repeat what I clearly already am aware of. The question is does anyone have the full text of the rule to confirm which team is on the hook for multiple years in these situations?

Do you have any example where that hasn't been the case? Or a news report that the rule has changed? I think the burden of proof is on you. You are the only one who is asserting something different from what is commonly understood.

 

The rule you are suggesting doesn't even seem to make logical sense. Some team was mad that they released a guy and had to pay him to play elsewhere? So the league and players association allegedly agreed to punish players released in such a manner? Because putting a high price on tag on such players is a clear detriment to their future opportunities.

[Doomtints]

 

 I think the burden of proof is on you. 

 

I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking for any text on this rule whatsoever.

[Doomtints]

 

That's wierd that it isn't the current one. I took it straight from the mlbpa website. I looked at the sections regarding termination pay and assigning contracts.

 

The MLB stated that the new one "Isn't typed up yet" -- but there are copies floating around. I got a copy from a fellow SABR member. It's not very different from the copy you found, but I can't find the section discussing this in the new one either.

[gocgo]

I think we owe the remainder of the contract to Hughes.  What I'm curious about is whether we insured it and what the terms of the policy were (e.g. right arm must fall off while executing a pitch).

[Richie the Rally Goat]

 

I am aware of this, but I believe this is only for the 1st year that another team picks him up. Can anyone confirm?

 

it depends if Hughes has no trade rights, per The Cub Reporter

 

Outright Release Waivers

Submitted by Arizona Phil on Sun, 09/02/2012 - 1:38am

 

Outright Release Waivers are irrevocable and cannot be withdrawn once they are requested.

While a player claimed off Outright Assignment Waivers costs $20,000 (or $25,000 for a Rule 5 or Draft-Excluded player), a club can claim a player off Outright Release Waivers for the minuscule sum of $1. However, a club that claims a player off Release Waivers is responsible for paying 100% of the player's remaining salary, whereas if the same club waits until the player clears Release Waivers, the club can sign the player for the MLB minimum salary (or prorated portion of the MLB minimum salary), with the player's former club responsible for the balance.

A player who is claimed off Outright Release Waivers has the option to decline the assignment and become a free-agent (he has up to five days to decide). For most players, refusing an Outright Release waiver claim means the player's contract is terminated with no severance and his former club owes him nothing (same as an Article XX-D minor league FA who refuses an Outright Assignment), but for a player with "no trade" rights who refuses an Outright Release waiver claim, the player is owed his full salary for the balance of the contract, same as if he had not been claimed.

 

http://www.thecubreporter.com/outright-release-waivers

[Doomtints]

 

it depends if Hughes has no trade rights, per The Cub Reporter

 

Outright Release Waivers

Submitted by Arizona Phil on Sun, 09/02/2012 - 1:38am

 

Outright Release Waivers are irrevocable and cannot be withdrawn once they are requested.

While a player claimed off Outright Assignment Waivers costs $20,000 (or $25,000 for a Rule 5 or Draft-Excluded player), a club can claim a player off Outright Release Waivers for the minuscule sum of $1. However, a club that claims a player off Release Waivers is responsible for paying 100% of the player's remaining salary, whereas if the same club waits until the player clears Release Waivers, the club can sign the player for the MLB minimum salary (or prorated portion of the MLB minimum salary), with the player's former club responsible for the balance.

A player who is claimed off Outright Release Waivers has the option to decline the assignment and become a free-agent (he has up to five days to decide). For most players, refusing an Outright Release waiver claim means the player's contract is terminated with no severance and his former club owes him nothing (same as an Article XX-D minor league FA who refuses an Outright Assignment), but for a player with "no trade" rights who refuses an Outright Release waiver claim, the player is owed his full salary for the balance of the contract, same as if he had not been claimed.

 

http://www.thecubreporter.com/outright-release-waivers

 

Yes, but this says nothing about who pays what if the player is signed by another team.

 

We know that in the first year the cutting team is responsible.  What about other years?

I know you're trying to be helpful but we are going around in circles.  

[drjim]

Hughes to the 60 day DL, Breslow! up.

 

I approve of one of those moves.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Hughes to the 60 day DL, Breslow! up.

 

I approve of one of those moves.

 

is that an idea, or did that just happen?

 

edit: ugh. nm. just saw it.

 

buy, hey, don't worry, they'll cut Breslow or Belisle if they are bad, really....

[KirbyDome89]

 

Santana vs Hughes are two very different decision trees.

They're 2 players who have/had performed poorly for years and hurt the team. Seemingly the only reason for keeping either was/is to fill a role on the team that in the worst case scenario any waiver claim could perform at the same level. 

 

They each lived/are living off one good season in the distant past. Hopefully the new FO handles the Hughes situation as proactively as DSan's. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

 

Yes, but this says nothing about who pays what if the player is signed by another team.

 

We know that in the first year the cutting team is responsible.  What about other years?

I know you're trying to be helpful but we are going around in circles.  

he's owed by his contracted team his full salary for the duration of the contract

[KirbyDome89]

 

Holding onto a pitcher who has been successful in MLB is not comparable to a pinch runner.  The Twins need pitching and are looking at every avenue.  The fact they keep claiming pitchers should tell you all you need to know.

It's comparable when the success each had was 3 seasons ago. The Twins are claiming pitching precisely because of players like Hughes. 

[drjim]

They're 2 players who have/had performed poorly for years and hurt the team. Seemingly the only reason for keeping either was/is to fill a role on the team that in the worst case scenario any waiver claim could perform at the same level.

 

They each lived/are living off one good season in the distant past. Hopefully the new FO handles the Hughes situation as proactively as DSan's.

They've now bounced him for the rest of the season. I suspect they'll give him one more shot in the spring, and won't hesitate to either dfa or 60 day dl.

[Mike Sixel]

 

They've now bounced him for the rest of the season. I suspect they'll give him one more shot in the spring, and won't hesitate to either dfa or 60 day dl.

 

I am not surprised he's on the 60 day. This FO does do some things better than the last one for sure. The DL usage seems better to me, for example. 

[drjim]

is that an idea, or did that just happen?

 

edit: ugh. nm. just saw it.

 

buy, hey, don't worry, they'll cut Breslow or Belisle if they are bad, really....

Of all the things the front office has done, none have baffled me as much as continuing to hold on to Breslow. Everything else is at least minimally defensible.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Of all the things the front office has done, none have baffled me as much as continuing to hold on to Breslow. Everything else is at least minimally defensible.

 

Agreed. It's the one move I doubt anyone can make a good argument for at this point. I might not like some other moves, but I can at least see the arguments on the other side.

[Otto von Ballpark]

The full sequence of moves:

 

Hughes to 60-day DL

Vargas optioned

Breslow activated

Colon added

[yarnivek1972]

So, I saw an earlier report on this site that Gee was DFA. Is that not accurate?

[Otto von Ballpark]

So, I saw an earlier report on this site that Gee was DFA. Is that not accurate?

I believe you correct, Gee is still on the 40-man. Hughes going to the 60-day meant the likely DFA of Gee was unnecessary.

[Danchat]

So, I saw an earlier report on this site that Gee was DFA. Is that not accurate?

This doesn't seem to be happening. Gee is probably staying in case Colon implodes.

 

What does Busenitz need to do to get past Breslow? He's already dominating AAA. Breslow has struggled in low leverage innings. I am a fan of the FO's usage of the DL, but relying on mediocre veteran relievers is not good.

[Mr. Brooks]

 

What does Busenitz need to do to get past Breslow?

Probably learn to throw with his left hand?

[ShouldaCouldaWoulda]

 

Hughes to the 60 day DL, Breslow! up.

 

I approve of one of those moves.

We weren't looking at option #3, which is the best of all with Hughes.

[darin617]

Wouldn't the only thing that would help if the Twins insured his contract & they can prove that he won't be able to pitch again they could get some of the money back from insurance? Hughes would still get all his money and the Twins would get some money to put towards the Sano mountain of money it will take to get a long term deal done for him.

[Mr. Brooks]

Wouldn't the only thing that would help if the Twins insured his contract & they can prove that he won't be able to pitch again they could get some of the money back from insurance? Hughes would still get all his money and the Twins would get some money to put towards the Sano mountain of money it will take to get a long term deal done for him.

Well the Twins don't carry any savings over to following years- that is not speculation, it's been reported. And, Sano will be relatively cheap for the next 2 years, even with an extension.

So any savings on Hughes really doesn't have much to do with spending on Sano.

 

Now, as for cash in hand, I'm sure the Pohlads would love to get some of that money back.

 

 

Disclaimer: I haven't actually spoken to the Pohlads. It's a personal assumption that he'd like to get money back. As unbelievable as it is, I'm not actually reporting that as a first hand statement of fact.

[yarnivek1972]

Just as an addendum, this still doesn't relieve pressure on the 40 man this offseason. The first act of the offseason will be removing Hughes (and May and O'Rourke) from the 60 day DL. I have no idea what rules there might be to releasing Hughes at that time. I know he can't be released while on the DL - hence Sandoval being activated and then released. But there is no DL in the offseason.

[nicksaviking]

Dang, that's crushing for Hughes.

 

I would have assumed the entire rib would have been removed originally. At this point I hope the procedure is quality of life related. There just hasn't been much to show it can rescue a career at this point.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Just as an addendum, this still doesn't relieve pressure on the 40 man this offseason. The first act of the offseason will be removing Hughes (and May and O'Rourke) from the 60 day DL. I have no idea what rules there might be to releasing Hughes at that time. I know he can't be released while on the DL - hence Sandoval being activated and then released. But there is no DL in the offseason.

Actually release waivers can be requested on an injured player anytime:

 

http://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3534

 

Outright Release Waivers cannot be requested on a player while he is on the Bereavement List, Military List, Suspended List, Disqualified List, or Ineligible List

Sandoval was DFA'd. And it's possible they may want to outright him to the minors (with his permission), which can't be done to an injured player.