If a guy is on is on the waiver wire has been released.  However, he was in the 2nd year of a 5mill per year contract.  If I claim him am I reponsible for .327 in the first year and then 5 mill per in the next two?  Or would it be .327 for a all three?  or rental for the rest of the season?   VERY confused.

Prorated $327k for the rest of this season.  Full $327k for all the remaining seasons.  If the player had a team or mutual option for the last season of the contract, it will automatically be declined (with the original releasing team paying the buyout), so you might only have him through season 4 of his contract.

So the releasing team would be responsible for 4.7 ish of the contract for the entire contract whil I am responsible for 327 in all three seasons.  This is happening before the rule 5 draft.  It sounds like it'd be crazy for any team to release a player ever with years left on contract and crazy for me not to scoop him up even if he is a 25th man or possible 6th man in the rotation thats sitting in aaa.

Releasing players under contract for more than the minimum is stupid. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2012 6:06:00 PM (view original):
Releasing players under contract for more than the minimum is stupid. 

personal opinion; a team could benefit from a business or strategy perspective just depends situation

Yes, paying a player to be on another team while getting nothing in return is a winning strategy.  


I guess.

Posted by mcolrico on 2/12/2012 7:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2012 6:06:00 PM (view original):
Releasing players under contract for more than the minimum is stupid. 

personal opinion; a team could benefit from a business or strategy perspective just depends situation

Please describe a situation in which a team can benefit from this.

I suppose if you're butted up against the salary cap and the $327K might free up a promotion to the big leagues.

That's hardly "benefiting from a strategy perspective".  That's doing something to spite yourself to get out of a mess of your own creation.

Seems like making a trade, for practically nothing, beats paying one or more years of full salary, less pro-rated 327, to free up that space.   Or waiving a player.

I will consider releasing a guy in his last contract season if he is doing terrible and I need to make room to promote his replacement.  And only after at least half a season by which time I would know he is not coming back.

Why?   Waive him, designate him then send him to AAA and de-activate him if you can't trade him or no one will claim him.    There's no reaon to pay a player to play for another team.

to me, what's the difference?  He's either rotting away on my inactive list or playing terribly on someone else's team (which could be a benefit).  No matter what, at that point he's not going to help my team compete.

If he's a terrible player in the last year of his contract, and I only release him after I've played him half a season, how much am I really saving by keeping him around? It's useless cash at that point.  Say he was under contract for $4 million...halfway through he's now only due $2 million.  After the transaction deadline am I really going to find a use for that $2 million I could save by trading him?

If your world is filled with owners dumb enough to replace a current starter with a worse option, then you have bigger problems than trying to save $300K.

Posted by bigal888 on 2/13/2012 12:25:00 PM (view original):
to me, what's the difference?  He's either rotting away on my inactive list or playing terribly on someone else's team (which could be a benefit).  No matter what, at that point he's not going to help my team compete.

If he's a terrible player in the last year of his contract, and I only release him after I've played him half a season, how much am I really saving by keeping him around? It's useless cash at that point.  Say he was under contract for $4 million...halfway through he's now only due $2 million.  After the transaction deadline am I really going to find a use for that $2 million I could save by trading him?

The difference?  You obviously felt he could play at some point or your wouldn't have signed him.   Did his ratings drop off so badly that he can't be a 5th option out of AAA due to injury/fatigue?   If so, you really screwed yourself when you signed him to the deal.    If you did something that stupid, I can see why releasing the guy might seem like a good idea. 

But it's not.