Moneyball Baseball Contract Thread

by you using this 9.06 rule on Green, Winker, and Garrett does that mean you lose them after that season? or can you just continue to do this each year cuz they will be 4-year guys or 5-year guys with expiring contracts next year.

No, as players with under 6 years of service time I still control their rights.

Think of Rule 9.06 this way. Rule 9.06 is the parties "settling" before taking it to arbitration, as you often see in MLB. They agree on a year 4 contract, which in MLB usually means splitting the difference between their bargaining positions to avoid a hearing, but in our league it means extending the card salary forward one year as long at it exceeds the arb minimums.

You also could cut the player from your roster entirely, and not offer an extension, arbitration, or Rule 9.06 "settlement"

Or for 3-4 year guys, you can do the 4 year extension, and for 5 year guys you can do the rare 5 year extension if you want.

Finally, you can simply "take them to arbitration". Which means you're gambling that they'll put up a lower salary in 2020 than in 2019 and you'll get a cost savings. You're locked in to at least the minimum salary, but you're willing to gamble you'll owe less than you're paying him now.

So in your question, I have locked Garrett, with 3 years of prior service, into the minimum arb 1 (year 4) salary of $2M for 2020. After 2020 he'll have 4 years of service and I'll have to decide to settle, cut, buyout with the 4 year extension, or offer arbitration.

why couldn't you just do this again with Garrett again next year and again lock him in. He'd be under 6 years of service next year and again would be on an expiring contract.

as I see it, Garrett has 3 years of service so next year if you took him to ARB1 you'd either get him for 2Mil or his som card price whichever is HIGHER. by doing this you're saying you automatically "win" the ARB and get him for the 2 million. I don't get it...

So for next year I only get to lock Garrett in to the minimum arb 2 salary of $3M if his 2020 salary is $3M or under. If his salary exceeds $3M, I have to decide whether to settle at the current salary or gamble with arb that it will decrease.

And yes, Rule 9.06 explicitly says you can invoke the rule for the life of someone's arb eligible years. Applies across the board to all of us.

Per 9.05 the minimum "lock in" salary increases from years 1-6. So you never are allowed to lock someone in to the same salary. You must pay more.

yes but it has already been stated repeatedly that an ARB1 guy is either 2.0Mil per contract mins or his next SOM Card. so that means you automatically win arbitration. something is off.....

contract minimums (for arbitration purposes)

1 year = $500,000 per season ($0.50)
2 years = $1 million per season ($1.00)
3 years = $2 million per season ($2.00)
4 years = $3 million per season ($3.00)
5 years = $4 million per season ($4.00)
6 years = $5 million per season ($5.00)
7 years = $6 million per season ($6.00)

Yes, the rule is designed to give an advantage to teams that draft low-salary arbitration eligible players. They can "settle" and incur no risk. That's the letter of the rule, and nothing is "off" about it. You're putting a strategic choice to teams.

Draft high salary guys and play for now, or go cheap and try to lock in some guys with upside for later arbitration years when you're ready to try and win as a team.

"yes but it has already been stated repeatedly that an ARB1 guy is either 2.0Mil per contract mins or his next SOM Card. so that means you automatically win arbitration. something is off....."

This is for cases that you take to arbitration, not for cases you settle via 9.6

I understand that but by doing this you have essentially circumvented the process. and again I ask why not do it again the next year? Garrett will be a 4-year player (under 6 years of service) with an expiring contract so why not just re-sign him to the 9.06 rule again.

really trying to understand. That's why I haven't even attempted to list mine yet. Thought I had it but a couple of conversations here have really changed what I thought the contract rules were.