Arbitration Mystery

[RchW]

I traded Tijerina before arbitration because I was going to non-tender him anyway. Somehow he ended up on Detroit's 40-man roster but he did not go through arbitration or become a free agent. Arbitration happened more than 10 days after the trade so it's not because he was DFA.

He had a major league contract, was eligible for arbitration and had options left. Detroit must have placed him on the 40-man roster but there is no record of it in the transactions log.

I've long suspected a bug that favors AI teams by helping them keep players who should end up FA or Rule 5 or on waivers. It seems he was in limbo for some time.

How did he bypass arbitration? Do you have to be on the 40-man roster to be offered arb?

[jaysdailydose]

I'm unsure if OOTP models arbitration requirements exactly as MLB does, but if they do, then I have your answer:

From MLB.com:

"A player with at least two but less than three years of Major League service shall be eligible for salary arbitration if he has accumulated at least 86 days of service during the immediately preceding season"

Your screenshot shows him with 0 days of MLB service in the immediately preceding season.

[jaysdailydose]

Found this as well from another site:

MLB Salary Arbitration

As defined within the current CBA

(12) Criteria

(a) The criteria will be the quality of the Player’s contribution
to his Club during the past season (including but not limited to his
overall performance, special qualities of leadership and public
appeal), the length and consistency of his career contribution, the
record of the Player’s past compensation, comparative baseball
salaries (see paragraph (13) below for confidential salary data),
the existence of any physical or mental defects on the part of the
Player, and the recent performance record of the Club including
but not limited to its League standing and attendance as an indication
of public acceptance (subject to the exclusion stated in
subparagraph (b)(i) below). Any evidence may be submitted
which is relevant to the above criteria, and the arbitration panel
shall assign such weight to the evidence as shall appear appropriate
under the circumstances. The arbitration panel shall,
except for a Player with five or more years of Major League service,
give particular attention, for comparative salary purposes, to
the contracts of Players with Major League service not exceeding
one annual service group above the Player’s annual service
group. This shall not limit the ability of a Player or his represen-
tative, because of special accomplishment, to argue the equal relevance
of salaries of Players without regard to service, and the
arbitration panel shall give whatever weight to such argument as
is deemed appropriate.

(b) Evidence of the following shall not be admissible:

(i) The financial position of the Player and the Club;

(ii) Press comments, testimonials or similar material bearing
on the performance of either the Player or the Club, except
that recognized annual Player awards for playing excellence
shall not be excluded;

(iii) Offers made by either Player or Club prior to arbitration;

(iv) The cost to the parties of their representatives, attorneys,
etc.;

(v) Salaries in other sports or occupations.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

I'm unsure if OOTP models arbitration requirements exactly as MLB does, but if they do, then I have your answer:

From MLB.com:

"A player with at least two but less than three years of Major League service shall be eligible for salary arbitration if he has accumulated at least 86 days of service during the immediately preceding season"

Your screenshot shows him with 0 days of MLB service in the immediately preceding season.

The only reason I don't think this applies is that Tijerina was on my arbitration list (menu) before the trade. I made the decision to non-tender then traded him. Based on that he should have been on Detroit's list.

I wish OOTP did follow that rule.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by RchW

The only reason I don't think this applies

It doesn't apply for another, much more important, reason. The quote begins:

"A player with at least two but less than three years of Major League service..."

Tijerina does not have "at least two but less than three years" of service; he has more than 4 years of service.

It does seem that you've uncovered a bug here. Had you kept the player, he would have gone to arbitration, so he should with his new team as well.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

I'm unsure if OOTP models arbitration requirements exactly as MLB does, but if they do, then I have your answer:

From MLB.com:

"A player with at least two but less than three years of Major League service shall be eligible for salary arbitration if he has accumulated at least 86 days of service during the immediately preceding season"

Your screenshot shows him with 0 days of MLB service in the immediately preceding season.

That 86-day requirement is only for players qualifying for arbitration as so-called 'Super-Two' players (those with more than two but less than three years of major league service). All other players are arbitration-eligible once they hit three years of service, and I don't think the amount of service time the prior season matters. (Though as a practical matter if he has no recent major league service he won't have much in the way of major league stats to bolster his salary request.)

[hefalumps]

Can you post a screen of the guy's history? You're right - I can't envision a scenario where he wouldn't have been arbitration eligible for Detroit, unless somehow the Tigers were able to convince him to sign a minor league contract extension prior to the arbitration period. Which obviously makes no sense for the player to agree to, so it's probably a bug either way.

When the player was traded, OOTP placed him in Detroit's DFA spot. He presumably had a major league contract in 2065, so he would have had to be placed on the 40-man roster before arbitration hit and contracts renewed. Unless you traded him on the day of the arbitration hearings and unintentionally found some loophole. If he was off the 40-man roster when contracts renewed, I think he would have automatically been assigned a minor league contract. Then he could have been added to the 40-man roster after that, and he won't be upgraded to a league minimum major league contract until opening day.

Interesting stuff... any chance you have a backup just before arbitration that you could restore? Make the trade again, and just closely watch his status day-to-day and see what happened?

[The Wolf]

Yes. Please post a screenshot of his history screen.

[RchW]

The problem is that player history doesn't show detail like roster assignments. The transaction log shows me putting McQueen on the active (and 40-man) roster. No entry exists for Tijerina.

Edit; he has a minor league contract. That's another concern. He was slated to get $892,000 esimated via arb and asked for $1.1M on an extension before I traded him.

It makes no sense for him to sign a minor league contract.

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by injury log

It doesn't apply for another, much more important, reason. The quote begins:

"A player with at least two but less than three years of Major League service..."

Tijerina does not have "at least two but less than three years" of service; he has more than 4 years of service.

It does seem that you've uncovered a bug here. Had you kept the player, he would have gone to arbitration, so he should with his new team as well.

But the thing is, he has no performance for the previous season at zero days... hence, there is nothing to arbitrate. I quoted that part of the rule, but I'm pretty sure you have to have the 86 days to have your case heard period, but I will try to confirm that.

It does make sense with no performance to arbitrate...

EDIT: I see LGO's post on the topic... so while the player may be eligible under MLB rules, perhaps OOTP just puts him off as he has no performance for his case... or, it could be a bug.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

But the thing is, he has no performance for the previous season at zero days... hence, there is nothing to arbitrate. I quoted that part of the rule, but I'm pretty sure you have to have the 86 days to have your case heard period, but I will try to confirm that.

It does make sense with no performance to arbitrate...

Not so. I understand that's maybe how it should be but he was already set for arbitration in-game before the trade. Rightly or wrongly wrt any rule in or out of game I had to decide in-game not to submit a number or he would have been making approx $900,000. Based on that fact he should have appeared on Detroit's arbitration list.

About the only thing I can think of was that he was placed on waivers, cleared waivers, was removed from the 40-man roster then offered and accepted a minor league contract. That's far fetched IMO. I can't imagine why he would since he was aware enough to ask for $1.1M in a contract negotiation the day he was traded.

Edit;

You don't have to play at all to be eligible for arbitration. Dustin McGowan missed all of 2009 and 2010 and was eligible for arb in 2010 and in 2011 where he appeared in only 5 games.

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by RchW

Not so. I understand that's maybe how it should be but he was already set for arbitration in-game before the trade. Rightly or wrongly wrt any rule in or out of game I had to decide in-game not to submit a number or he would have been making approx $900,000. Based on that fact he should have appeared on Detroit's arbitration list.

About the only thing I can think of was that he was placed on waivers, cleared waivers, was removed from the 40-man roster then offered and accepted a minor league contract. That's far fetched IMO. I can't imagine why he would since he was aware enough to ask for $1.1M in a contract negotiation the day he was traded.

Edit;

You don't have to play at all to be eligible for arbitration. Dustin McGowan missed all of 2009 and 2010 and was eligible for arb in 2010 and in 2011 where he appeared in only 5 games.

Yeah, I edited in after I saw LGO's post. I went to my softball doubleheader so I didn't have time to do more research.

I don't necessarily think your scenario is all that far-fetched. If he's not on a roster at all, he doesn't get arbitration... they might have just been ready to cut him (or did and its just not logged)...

With what you and LGO have said about the rest of the rule, I would say this should be submitted for a look at least. Sorry I can't be of more help!

[injury log]

You can't get out of arbitration commitments by waiving players and taking them off your 40-man roster. That would be absurdly exploitable. If the AI somehow got around arb in this guy's case, it's a bug, unless he somehow ended up accepting a minor league extension. Most useful thing to look at would be the AI team's transactions log.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by injury log

You can't get out of arbitration commitments by waiving players and taking them off your 40-man roster. That would be absurdly exploitable. If the AI somehow got around arb in this guy's case, it's a bug, unless he somehow ended up accepting a minor league extension. Most useful thing to look at would be the AI team's transactions log.

I've gone through everything and there is no record of Tijerina signing a minor league contract. I've confirmed that other players signing minor league contracts have that action recorded in transactions and in player history.

[hefalumps]

That's why I think it was an unintentional loophole.

Here is something I discovered...

I had some players with auto-renewable contracts that I didn't really want on my major league squad, and my team was cash strapped, so five league minimum players could give me enough money to go get one or two better players in free agency. But I could use them as minor league depth, so I didn't just want to release them.

So what did I do? At the start of the offseason (before arbitration and free agency), I DFAed/waived them. After they cleared waivers, I put them in the minors.

And when the free agency filing date rolled around (which is when auto-renewable contracts renew), these guys got minor league contracts. And since they're off the 40-man roster, they won't get upgraded to major league contracts come opening day.

Now, granted none of these players were arbitration eligible - if they were, I would've had to pay them even if they were off the 40-man and in the minors, presumably. So I definitely think there's a bug somewhere - I'm just stating that I think it's related to the fact that the guy may not have been on a 40-man roster when the auto-renew occurred, and the game got "confused".

[PhilledUp]

Originally Posted by hefalumps

That's why I think it was an unintentional loophole.

So what did I do? At the start of the offseason (before arbitration and free agency), I DFAed/waived them. After they cleared waivers, I put them in the minors.

And when the free agency filing date rolled around (which is when auto-renewable contracts renew), these guys got minor league contracts. And since they're off the 40-man roster, they won't get upgraded to major league contracts come opening day.

I also do this. But I don't think it's necessarily a bug. The actual MLB pay structure is a bit more complex. Contracts for established MLB players and those who go through salary arbitration are guaranteed - that is, the club owes 100% of the salary if the player is released (arbitration players released in spring training get less than 100%, but that's its own process). Pre-arbitration eligible players have their contracts 'renewed'. These contracts are typically 'split contracts' in which they receive a rate near the minimum while on the MLB club and a separate rate, which depends on how much time they've spent on the 40-man roster in previous years, when they are on the minor league club. According to this http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...ster-guys.html, OOTP manages the split contract problem by charging 1/6 of the minimum salary for players on the 40-man in the minors.

For the players in your case, this applies: "If a player accrues at least one day of MLB Service Time in a season and then is outrighted to the minors prior to being tendered a Major League contract for the following season, the player's minor league monthly salary for the following season must be at least 80% of his final monthly salary from the previous season." I think that's probably a little too cumbersome to really enforce in OOTP, hence the plain 'minor league contract.'

Lastly, a player that is outrighted more than once has several options that can eventually lead to free agency. Because the terminology 'outrighted' is not used in OOTP, this is not taken into consideration. But it's a pretty minor point anyway.

This site does a good job of explaining all of the roster terms in normal English.
MLB Roster Rules Presented by Arizona Phil

[injury log]

Originally Posted by hefalumps

And when the free agency filing date rolled around (which is when auto-renewable contracts renew), these guys got minor league contracts.

Yes, as PhilledUp points out, that's not a bug; that's how things are supposed to work. It should not, however, be possible to avoid going to arbitration by DFA/waiving a player, and I agree, OOTP may be mishandling that situation. It shouldn't be too difficult an issue to test.

Originally Posted by PhilledUp

Lastly, a player that is outrighted more than once has several options that can eventually lead to free agency. Because the terminology 'outrighted' is not used in OOTP, this is not taken into consideration. But it's a pretty minor point anyway.

I may be in the minority, but I don't think it is all that minor a point. In real life, the second time a player is outrighted in his career, he can become a free agent. I'd guess about 95% of players do choose to become free agents when that happens (the exceptions are mostly players who would have to give up a big guaranteed salary). But in OOTP, those players stick around in your organization. And that makes offseason rosters in OOTP very different from those in real life. So in OOTP the Rule 5 draft pool always contains quite a lot of 33 year old guys with MLB experience the previous year, guys who were waived at the end of the season and removed from the 40-man roster. Those guys are all free agents at Rule 5 time in real life. And as a result, the average age of an OOTP Rule 5 pick is probably 5 years higher than it is in real life.

It's also all too easy to hoard depth in OOTP, because you aren't at enough risk of losing players. In real life, when waiving a veteran, teams take on a double risk of losing the player: he might be claimed on waivers (something that probably doesn't happen enough in OOTP) and if not, he might elect free agency.

[hefalumps]

Right... just to clear up, I wasn't saying that the whole DFA/waive 'em between start of offseason and free agency filing so they end up with minor league contracts thing was a bug - just using it as evidence why I think the AI might have unintentionally gotten the guy on a minor league contract even though he was arbitration eligible - going with the theory that he was still DFAed from the trade when free agents filed and that caused the mishap.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by hefalumps

Right... just to clear up, I wasn't saying that the whole DFA/waive 'em between start of offseason and free agency filing so they end up with minor league contracts thing was a bug - just using it as evidence why I think the AI might have unintentionally gotten the guy on a minor league contract even though he was arbitration eligible - going with the theory that he was still DFAed from the trade when free agents filed and that caused the mishap.

No the trade was made more than 10 days before FA started.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by PhilledUp

ILastly, a player that is outrighted more than once has several options that can eventually lead to free agency.

It's not just those players facing a second career outright who can elect free agency. It's also any player, regardless of whether they've been outrighted before or not, with three or more years of Major League service or those who have qualified for arbitration as "Super Two" players.*

Moreover, the player actually has some flexibility. He can either elect free agency immediately, or he can accept the outright assignment and then elect free agency between the end of the regular season and Oct. 15th if not returned to a 40-man roster prior to making his choice (excluding "Super Two" players; they cannot elect free agency after the conclusion of the regular season). On the negative side, if he elects free agency, his contract is immediately terminated and he is not eligible for any termination pay.

*The ability of "Super Two" arbitration eligible players to elect free agency in lieu of accepting an outright assignment started with the 2012 CBA.

Originally Posted by injury log

I may be in the minority, but I don't think it is all that minor a point ...

Agreed, especially in light of what I mentioned above.