Is this within MLB rules?

[PSUColonel]

Basically I have a player who isn't cost effective to release (I would eat 7 million, but I don't want him on my active roster either...so,I waived & designated for assignment....he also won't accept an assignment to the minors. ok that will work for 7 days. After this I got the bright Idea to simply re-assign him to the active roster after the DFA period expired, and then simply rinse and repeat. So I am assuming (theoretically) I can do this over and over again as a means to keep him off of the active roster.


This feels like a cheat to me.

Any thoughts?

[Matt Arnold]

Yes, it is cheating. In MLB, when you waive and DFA, if a player refuses the minor league assignment, I believe you have to release them (not positive on that rule, but I'm almost certain you can't bring them back to the active roster officially). Or if not, if a player is DFA-ed a 2nd time in the same season, they have the right to request a release instead (although in that case, I'm not positive if you have to pay out their contract).

Basically, in MLB terms it's illegal for one of those 2 reasons, but they're a little more complicated to deal with so unfortunately we don't have those in the game. Yet...

[PSUColonel]

Might be something to consider for version 19...if not the exact rules, then at least something which will prevent this.

[Cryomaniac]

The very fact that we are having this discussion about a nuance of DFA rules shows how far along this game is at this point lol

[dpd376]

I think in MLB if a player refuses assignment and he clears waivers the player becomes a free agent with the team not having to pay him a cent more (unless he accepts assignment then). Not sure though.

[PSUColonel]

We need LGO for this.

[Cod]

When a player is DFA'd, there are 3 options: trade, release, or waive. Let's focus on each.

1) A trade is pretty self-explanatory.

2) If a player is released outright, the releasing team owes the entire salary unless the individual signs with another team. If this happens, the releasing team owes nothing.

3) If the player is waived and is claimed, the claiming team is responsible for the league minimum (~$400k) while the team that put the individual on waivers is responsible for the rest of the contract. So in your case, if he was claimed, you'd still be on the hook for ~$6.6 million. However, if a player is waived and doesn't accept a minor league assignment, he must be released if he refuses the assignment.

If you have any questions, let me know. Regretfully, I've spent a lot of time in my life studying MLB roster / transaction rules.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Cod

When a player is DFA'd, there are 3 options: trade, release, or waive. Let's focus on each.

1) A trade is pretty self-explanatory.

2) If a player is released outright, the releasing team owes the entire salary unless the individual signs with another team. If this happens, the releasing team owes nothing.

3) If the player is waived and is claimed, the claiming team is responsible for the league minimum (~$400k) while the team that put the individual on waivers is responsible for the rest of the contract. So in your case, if he was claimed, you'd still be on the hook for ~$6.6 million. However, if a player is waived and doesn't accept a minor league assignment, he must be released if he refuses the assignment.

If you have any questions, let me know. Regretfully, I've spent a lot of time in my life studying MLB roster / transaction rules.

Please elaborate on #2. If a team releases a player, they pay him what they owe him and he's an FA. In a couple of weeks, another team signs him and he now must give back what the original releasing team paid him? That doesn't make sense. Is there a time limit on the signing with a new team thing?

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Please elaborate on #2. If a team releases a player, they pay him what they owe him and he's an FA. In a couple of weeks, another team signs him and he now must give back what the original releasing team paid him? That doesn't make sense. Is there a time limit on the signing with a new team thing?

Yeah, I thought the only way they don’t have to pay his salary is if another team claims the player off waivers.

[Cod]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Please elaborate on #2. If a team releases a player, they pay him what they owe him and he's an FA. In a couple of weeks, another team signs him and he now must give back what the original releasing team paid him? That doesn't make sense. Is there a time limit on the signing with a new team thing?

The player is paid by the releasing team until he signs with another team. So in your example, the releasing team will pay the salary for the few weeks the player is unsigned. Then, once he's signed, the releasing team can remove the player from their payroll. No money has to be returned to the releasing team.

An example is Carl Crawford. The Dodgers released Crawford in 2016; however, in 2017, he was still paid $21.9 million by the Dodgers since he never signed with a new team. Let's pretend Crawford signed with another team (type of deal doesn't matter). From the day he signs with a new team, the Dodgers wouldn't owe any more money to Crawford and he would come off their books.

All this is different when money is guaranteed. I'm still not sure how guaranteed money works when a player signs with a new team.

Hope this all makes sense. If not, let me know and I'll try to elaborate more.

[Cod]

I forgot to mention that MLB players are paid twice a year (every 6-months). I'm not sure how salaries are prorated when all this goes down.

[TomVeal]

Originally Posted by Cod

When a player is DFA'd, there are 3 options: trade, release, or waive. Let's focus on each.

1) A trade is pretty self-explanatory.

2) If a player is released outright, the releasing team owes the entire salary unless the individual signs with another team. If this happens, the releasing team owes nothing.

3) If the player is waived and is claimed, the claiming team is responsible for the league minimum (~$400k) while the team that put the individual on waivers is responsible for the rest of the contract. So in your case, if he was claimed, you'd still be on the hook for ~$6.6 million. However, if a player is waived and doesn't accept a minor league assignment, he must be released if he refuses the assignment.

If you have any questions, let me know. Regretfully, I've spent a lot of time in my life studying MLB roster / transaction rules.

Regarding #3: If the player is released after refusing a minor league assignment, does #2 then apply (that is, the releasing team continues to pay him unless and until he signs with another team)?

[B1gpupp]

Originally Posted by Cod

The player is paid by the releasing team until he signs with another team. So in your example, the releasing team will pay the salary for the few weeks the player is unsigned. Then, once he's signed, the releasing team can remove the player from their payroll. No money has to be returned to the releasing team.

An example is Carl Crawford. The Dodgers released Crawford in 2016; however, in 2017, he was still paid $21.9 million by the Dodgers since he never signed with a new team. Let's pretend Crawford signed with another team (type of deal doesn't matter). From the day he signs with a new team, the Dodgers wouldn't owe any more money to Crawford and he would come off their books.

All this is different when money is guaranteed. I'm still not sure how guaranteed money works when a player signs with a new team.

Hope this all makes sense. If not, let me know and I'll try to elaborate more.

This isn't quite correct. Your scenario with Crawford is correct only if the player is claimed off of waivers. When a player clears waivers he will be owed his full contract by the releasing team minus any money earned in another contract.

This is actually playing out right now with Pablo Sandoval. Pablo is guaranteed $19M for the next few years. Since the Giants signed him, and he can't play for them for free, they will pay him the league minimum, and the Red Sox would pay the remaining $18.5ish million.

[B1gpupp]

Just to point something else out....A player has to have 5+ years of service time in order to be able to refuse an assignment to the minors and still be paid the remaining year's on his contract.

Funny enough this also happened in the Red Sox system the last few years with both Allen Craig and Rusney Castillo. Both of those players were DFA'ed, passed through waivers and we're given the option to accept the assignment. They both accepted, because rejecting the assignment would have meant forfeiting the rest of their remaining contract.

[Cod]

Originally Posted by B1gpupp

Just to point something else out....A player has to have 5+ years of service time in order to be able to refuse an assignment to the minors and still be paid the remaining year's on his contract.

The way I understand the rule is a player can only be DFA'd and outrighted w/o their consent once in their career, regardless of service time. For example, if a rookie gets outrighted in his first year, then if he's outrighted again in year 3, he can refuse the assignment. Keep in mind, being optioned to the minors and DFA'd are two completely different discussions.

I'll have to do some more research.

[Cod]

Originally Posted by TomVeal

Regarding #3: If the player is released after refusing a minor league assignment, does #2 then apply (that is, the releasing team continues to pay him unless and until he signs with another team)?

Correct. So it comes down to how much you really want to play again if you're released. If I was going to get paid $37 million over two years to sit on my rear-end, I'd seriously consider not playing again.

What I'm trying to figure out is how contracts work if a released player still under contract in the MLB goes to play in Japan, Independent, etc. Is the MLB team still on the hook to pay the guy? Even if he's getting paid to play in another league?

Something to look into...

[B1gpupp]

Originally Posted by Cod

The way I understand the rule is a player can only be DFA'd and outrighted w/o their consent once in their career, regardless of service time. For example, if a rookie gets outrighted in his first year, then if he's outrighted again in year 3, he can refuse the assignment. Keep in mind, being optioned to the minors and DFA'd are two completely different discussions.

I'll have to do some more research.

You're correct that players can only be outrighted once. I'll try to clarify: my post was referencing players who have a long term contract but whose teams no longer want them on the 40 man roster.

If a player gets a chance to refuse an assignment, and has 5+ years of service time, the player can refuse the assignment and still receive his contract in full. If a player gets a chance to refuse an assignment, but has less than 5 years of service time, the player must accept the assignment to still be eligible to receive his contract in full. If he were to refuse the assignment he would forfeit his remaining contract.

Keep in mind that this is not something that comes up often. Not many players receive long term contracts and turn bad enough to want to release before their fifth year of service. Off the top of my head Rusney, Craig and Jon Singleton are the only ones I can think of that this has come up with (although I'm sure there are more).

[Drstrangelove]

Originally Posted by Cod

The way I understand the rule is a player can only be DFA'd and outrighted w/o their consent once in their career, regardless of service time.

This is not correct.
http://m.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/outright-waivers

"If a player has more than three years of Major League service time or was previously outrighted in his career (by his current club or another club), he is eligible to reject the outright assignment and instead opt for free agency. Players with more than three but less than five years of Major League service time must forfeit any remaining guaranteed money on their contract if they reject an outright assignment. Conversely, those with five or more years of Major League service time are still owed any guaranteed money remaining on their contract, should they elect free agency following an outright."

So, once you have 3 years of MLB service time, it doesn't matter if you have not been outrighted before.

[ederemer]

Originally Posted by Cod

Correct. So it comes down to how much you really want to play again if you're released. If I was going to get paid $37 million over two years to sit on my rear-end, I'd seriously consider not playing again.

What I'm trying to figure out is how contracts work if a released player still under contract in the MLB goes to play in Japan, Independent, etc. Is the MLB team still on the hook to pay the guy? Even if he's getting paid to play in another league?

Something to look into...

MLB contracts are fully guaranteed. If they sign with any other team the contracts off-set. The player in your hypothetical example is going to get his $37 million no matter what.