In dave O'Brien's blog Hampton says he's "very open" to returning to the
Braves. I'm pretty sure they're "very open" to no longer having to deal
with Hampton's injuries. But supposing they were interested, are they
locked in to having to offer a contract with no more than a 20% pay cut?
Or is that some old and distorted version of the labor agreement in my mind?

Again, I think it's a moot point, just curious.

Colin

On Aug 29, 9:13 am, Colin William <colintwill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In dave O'Brien's blog Hampton says he's "very open" to returning to the
> Braves. I'm pretty sure they're "very open" to no longer having to deal
> with Hampton's injuries. But supposing they were interested, are they
> locked in to having to offer a contract with no more than a 20% pay cut?
> Or is that some old and distorted version of the labor agreement in my mind?
>
> Again, I think it's a moot point, just curious.
>
> Colin

I think this is the old version. Does not apply any more. I'm 99%
sure that unlike in the Maddux days the Braves can refuse salary
arbitration, Hampton becomes a free agent and then the Braves can
offer a contract (of any size and shape) without waiting until May
15th or whatever the date used to be. The Braves are no longer
blocked from signing players that they refuse arbitration to.

This has been discussed and I think someone posted the CBA but I did
not look for the link or the official details.

Shining the Light,
Marty Winn

"Marty Winn" <marty.winn@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:435b2829-6644-41b7-8595-232013e86e32@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 29, 9:13 am, Colin William <colintwill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In dave O'Brien's blog Hampton says he's "very open" to returning to the
>> Braves. I'm pretty sure they're "very open" to no longer having to deal
>> with Hampton's injuries. But supposing they were interested, are they
>> locked in to having to offer a contract with no more than a 20% pay cut?
>> Or is that some old and distorted version of the labor agreement in my
>> mind?
>>
>> Again, I think it's a moot point, just curious.
>>
>> Colin
>
> I think this is the old version. Does not apply any more. I'm 99%
> sure that unlike in the Maddux days the Braves can refuse salary
> arbitration, Hampton becomes a free agent and then the Braves can
> offer a contract (of any size and shape) without waiting until May
> 15th or whatever the date used to be. The Braves are no longer
> blocked from signing players that they refuse arbitration to.
>
> This has been discussed and I think someone posted the CBA but I did
> not look for the link or the official details.
>
> Shining the Light,
> Marty Winn

That is correct, the Braves could refuse to offer arbitration, and then
offer the league minimum with incentives, or anything else, if they wanted
to. The new CBA is below.

http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf

Joe Schmoe pisze:
> "Marty Winn" <marty.winn@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:435b2829-6644-41b7-8595-232013e86e32@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 29, 9:13 am, Colin William <colintwill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> In dave O'Brien's blog Hampton says he's "very open" to returning to the
>>> Braves. I'm pretty sure they're "very open" to no longer having to deal
>>> with Hampton's injuries. But supposing they were interested, are they
>>> locked in to having to offer a contract with no more than a 20% pay cut?
>>> Or is that some old and distorted version of the labor agreement in my
>>> mind?
>>>
>>> Again, I think it's a moot point, just curious.
>>>
>>> Colin
>> I think this is the old version. Does not apply any more. I'm 99%
>> sure that unlike in the Maddux days the Braves can refuse salary
>> arbitration, Hampton becomes a free agent and then the Braves can
>> offer a contract (of any size and shape) without waiting until May
>> 15th or whatever the date used to be. The Braves are no longer
>> blocked from signing players that they refuse arbitration to.
>>
>> This has been discussed and I think someone posted the CBA but I did
>> not look for the link or the official details.
>>
>> Shining the Light,
>> Marty Winn
>
> That is correct, the Braves could refuse to offer arbitration, and then
> offer the league minimum with incentives, or anything else, if they wanted
> to. The new CBA is below.
>
> http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf

Healthy Hampton is at least an average starter. The average starter
makes these days $9-10M per year. Minimum plus $250k for every start?
Vesting option for next season?

I've read both Smoltz and Glavine want to return for incentive laden
contracts. There's a problem of budgeting all of that, and I don't
believe Glavine has anything left in the tank, but Smoltz and Hampton?

pzdr

TRad

Tomasz Radko wrote:
> Healthy Hampton is at least an average starter.

Healthy hampton is as mythical as the Loch ness monster.

> The average starter
> makes these days $9-10M per year. Minimum plus $250k for every start?
> Vesting option for next season?

I imagine some team will offer an easier incentive package than that.
Never underestimate the capacity for foolishness with contracts in MLB.

Colin

Colin William pisze:
> Tomasz Radko wrote:
>> Healthy Hampton is at least an average starter.
>
> Healthy hampton is as mythical as the Loch ness monster.
>
> > The average starter
>> makes these days $9-10M per year. Minimum plus $250k for every start?
>> Vesting option for next season?
>
> I imagine some team will offer an easier incentive package than that.
> Never underestimate the capacity for foolishness with contracts in MLB.

I agree, but then I'd wish him best luck.

pzdr

TRad

Tomasz Radko wrote:
>> I imagine some team will offer an easier incentive package than that.
>> Never underestimate the capacity for foolishness with contracts in MLB.
>
> I agree, but then I'd wish him best luck.

Indeed. never held their contracts against jaret wright and russ ortiz,
more power to them in milking money from stupid people.

Colin

On Aug 29, 9:13 am, Colin William <colintwill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In dave O'Brien's blog Hampton says he's "very open" to returning to the
> Braves. I'm pretty sure they're "very open" to no longer having to deal
> with Hampton's injuries. But supposing they were interested, are they
> locked in to having to offer a contract with no more than a 20% pay cut?
> Or is that some old and distorted version of the labor agreement in my mind?

They were never required to anyways. Even under the old CBA, the
Braves could offer whatever contract they would have wanted to Hampton
up until, I want to say 30 days after the start of the FA period but
think it may have been 40. If the Braves wnated to continue
negotiating beyond that 30-day period, they would have had to offer
arbitration, otherwise they wouldn't be able to re-sign Hampton until
May 1 of the next year. If Hampton accepted arbitration (meaning the
team and player are now headed for a hearing), the team could offer no
less than a contract with a 20% pay cut from the year's previous
salary.

It was one of the primary reasons the Blue Jays didn't offer Carlos
Delgado arbitration. If I recall correctly, a series of 1-year
contracts, each at a 20% discount from his original salary would have
wound up being more lucrative than the contract he ultimately got from
Florida. At a minimum, it was awfully close.

All of that is now completely moot, I believe. Well, I'm not entirely
sure if there remains a minimum offer for arbitration. The rule about
negotiating after the deadline is gone, I'm pretty sure.

Jon

In article <c8fd6684-6c1b-4923-97d3-3a87718cb004
@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, jonrichardson@rogers.com says...
> On Aug 29, 9:13 am, Colin William <colintwill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In dave O'Brien's blog Hampton says he's "very open" to returning to the
> > Braves. I'm pretty sure they're "very open" to no longer having to deal
> > with Hampton's injuries. But supposing they were interested, are they
> > locked in to having to offer a contract with no more than a 20% pay cut?
> > Or is that some old and distorted version of the labor agreement in my mind?
>
> They were never required to anyways. Even under the old CBA, the
> Braves could offer whatever contract they would have wanted to Hampton
> up until, I want to say 30 days after the start of the FA period but
> think it may have been 40. If the Braves wnated to continue
> negotiating beyond that 30-day period, they would have had to offer
> arbitration, otherwise they wouldn't be able to re-sign Hampton until
> May 1 of the next year.

But Hampton would then miss all of April!

:)

--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net

"Dale Hicks" <dgh1138@southernbell.com> wrote
> If the Braves wnated to continue
> negotiating beyond that 30-day period, they would have had to offer
> arbitration, otherwise they wouldn't be able to re-sign Hampton until
> May 1 of the next year.
>>But Hampton would then miss all of April!

Well played!

Colin