Samardzija

[Tim]

Anyone else notice that he's actually turning into a decent reliever? On the season, his walks are WAY too high, but he's actually gotten much better with that as the season has gone along. He's got 6.2 IP in June without a free pass. He's also sharpened his slider to the point where it is a legit strikeout pitch.

 

He's taken a long time to develop (and he still has more to work on), but he's actually fairly promising at this point.

[Guest]

Yeah, after a crummy first 2 weeks of the season, he's basically been Marmol-lite. Very nice to see, because I get the impression by this time next year we're going to have our eye on when Marmol starts his TJS rehab.

[jersey cubs fan]

Yeah, he's had a few nice outings. Still safe to assume a bumpy road ahead for the guy though.

[BeerHere]

I was thinking the same thing last night. His slider had some bite to it, I think it was Lucroy that looked overmatched. FB was at 93-95 with some sink. Hopefully he's turned a corner or sorts. Definitely need to keep the walks down but I like the trend for him.

[davell]

We have club options for the next 2 seasons on him at around 3 mill per season. Is he worth that, if he continues his current season? I can't say that I know what I'd do next year if I were the Cubs.......

[Guest]

What is the deal exactly with his contract? He signed a MLB contract, but he doesn't even have the service time for arbitration. Is there some sort of implication that he goes straight to FA at contract's end like many of the Japanese imports? I'm not familiar with the endgame for MLB contracts to draftees.

[CubColtPacer]

I thought the club option was for 6.5 next year which was just an impossible number for the Cubs to even think about. Learning the 6.5 was spread out over two different club options (3 next year and 3.5 the year after) makes me think he at least has a chance of being re-signed. Really though I have no idea what the Cubs have in him. He gave up HR's in 3 straight outings and hasn't given up one the rest of the season. The walks have been way, way down the last month and a half. And the strikeouts have been pretty consistently strong all season long.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Dare I say Farnsworth Jr.?

[Guest]

Dare I say Farnsworth Jr.?

He's a totally different pitcher than Farnsy.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Does Reagins get credit if he keeps doing well?

[BeerHere]

Dare I say Farnsworth Jr.?

I can't hear the name Farnsworth and not think of the HR that he gave up to Dunn several years ago at Wrigley. The ball flew directly over my head (I was standing against the fence in right) landed on the sidewalk across Sheffield and hit a building on one bounce. Huge homer and has to come close to the rooftop shot from cromagnon man a few years prior.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Dare I say Farnsworth Jr.?

I can't hear the name Farnsworth and not think of the HR that he gave up to Dunn several years ago at Wrigley. The ball flew directly over my head (I was standing against the fence in right) landed on the sidewalk across Sheffield and hit a building on one bounce. Huge homer and has to come close to the rooftop shot from cromagnon man a few years prior.

 

I think back more to him tackling some guy who charged the mound. forget who. I think it was a Red.

[jersey cubs fan]

What is the deal exactly with his contract? He signed a MLB contract, but he doesn't even have the service time for arbitration. Is there some sort of implication that he goes straight to FA at contract's end like many of the Japanese imports? I'm not familiar with the endgame for MLB contracts to draftees.

 

I don't think there is a clause like that. I'm assuming that if they pick up his options, and he finishes up this contract without the necessary service time for free agency, then they will have the option of offering him arbitration or not. If they don't offer, he will be a free agent.

[SouthSideRyan]

Yeah, he's had a few nice outings. Still safe to assume a bumpy road ahead for the guy though.

 

You know feline AIDS is the number one killer of domestic cats.

[SouthSideRyan]

What is the deal exactly with his contract? He signed a MLB contract, but he doesn't even have the service time for arbitration. Is there some sort of implication that he goes straight to FA at contract's end like many of the Japanese imports? I'm not familiar with the endgame for MLB contracts to draftees.

 

I don't think there is a clause like that. I'm assuming that if they pick up his options, and he finishes up this contract without the necessary service time for free agency, then they will have the option of offering him arbitration or not. If they don't offer, he will be a free agent.

 

That's not the arbitration he was talking about, he was asking if he'd still be under team control. I'm pretty sure he would be.

[jersey cubs fan]

What is the deal exactly with his contract? He signed a MLB contract, but he doesn't even have the service time for arbitration. Is there some sort of implication that he goes straight to FA at contract's end like many of the Japanese imports? I'm not familiar with the endgame for MLB contracts to draftees.

 

I don't think there is a clause like that. I'm assuming that if they pick up his options, and he finishes up this contract without the necessary service time for free agency, then they will have the option of offering him arbitration or not. If they don't offer, he will be a free agent.

 

That's not the arbitration he was talking about, he was asking if he'd still be under team control. I'm pretty sure he would be.

 

That is the arbitration I am talking about. He will be under team control, as long as they offer him arbitration. He will have ~4 years of major league service time, but no contract.

[Guest]

Cot's has him with barely over a year of service time entering this year. If he's still under team control, if theyr'e declined, then the options aren't an issue to me.

[CubColtPacer]

Cot's has him with barely over a year of service time entering this year. If he's still under team control, if theyr'e declined, then the options aren't an issue to me.

 

I think declining either option would lose team control. That's probably why they were put in the initial contract-to make sure that he would have to have enough experience to go to arbitration by the end of the options. Even if the Cubs hadn't started his major league career until he ran out of options in 2011, that would still have left him going to arbitration by the time the club options ran out.

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure (~90%) that the Cubs can turn down those options and still have Samardzija under normal team control. I don't think he'll even be a super-two, so the Cubs could theoretically offer him anything they want in 2012 as an auto-renew contract.

 

The options were put into his original contract with the idea that if he made the majors quickly and would be heading into his arbitration year that the team would be covered from a cost-control point of view.

 

As things stand, that's not a concern.

 

The only way that's not the case would be if there's a specific clause in his contract that calls for the team to non-tender him if the options are not picked up. I don't remember hearing about a clause like that for him and it would be an unusual stipulation for any initial contract of a USA, drafted player.

[Guest]

Cot's has him with barely over a year of service time entering this year. If he's still under team control, if theyr'e declined, then the options aren't an issue to me.

 

I think declining either option would lose team control. That's probably why they were put in the initial contract-to make sure that he would have to have enough experience to go to arbitration by the end of the options. Even if the Cubs hadn't started his major league career until he ran out of options in 2011, that would still have left him going to arbitration by the time the club options ran out.

 

Why would they keep control through arbitration after the options, but not if they didn't pick up the options? Maybe there's some specific wording in his contract, but that logic is inconsistent.

[SouthSideRyan]

What is the deal exactly with his contract? He signed a MLB contract, but he doesn't even have the service time for arbitration. Is there some sort of implication that he goes straight to FA at contract's end like many of the Japanese imports? I'm not familiar with the endgame for MLB contracts to draftees.

 

I don't think there is a clause like that. I'm assuming that if they pick up his options, and he finishes up this contract without the necessary service time for free agency, then they will have the option of offering him arbitration or not. If they don't offer, he will be a free agent.

 

That's not the arbitration he was talking about, he was asking if he'd still be under team control. I'm pretty sure he would be.

 

That is the arbitration I am talking about. He will be under team control, as long as they offer him arbitration. He will have ~4 years of major league service time, but no contract.

 

Mea culpa, read your post too quickly.

[CubColtPacer]

I'm pretty sure (~90%) that the Cubs can turn down those options and still have Samardzija under normal team control. I don't think he'll even be a super-two, so the Cubs could theoretically offer him anything they want in 2012 as an auto-renew contract.

 

The options were put into his original contract with the idea that if he made the majors quickly and would be heading into his arbitration year that the team would be covered from a cost-control point of view.

 

As things stand, that's not a concern.

 

The only way that's not the case would be if there's a specific clause in his contract that calls for the team to non-tender him if the options are not picked up. I don't remember hearing about a clause like that for him and it would be an unusual stipulation for any initial contract of a USA, drafted player.

 

Even if the Cubs can decline that option and still have him under team control (which I'm still not sure of because I don't know that you can decline an option and then still be able to tender a contract) I don't think the Cubs will be able to offer him anything they want. The 80% rule still applies in this case. Every site seems to be different on exactly how much Samardzija is making this year though so it's unclear on how much that 80% number would be.

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure (~90%) that the Cubs can turn down those options and still have Samardzija under normal team control. I don't think he'll even be a super-two, so the Cubs could theoretically offer him anything they want in 2012 as an auto-renew contract.

 

The options were put into his original contract with the idea that if he made the majors quickly and would be heading into his arbitration year that the team would be covered from a cost-control point of view.

 

As things stand, that's not a concern.

 

The only way that's not the case would be if there's a specific clause in his contract that calls for the team to non-tender him if the options are not picked up. I don't remember hearing about a clause like that for him and it would be an unusual stipulation for any initial contract of a USA, drafted player.

 

Even if the Cubs can decline that option and still have him under team control (which I'm still not sure of) I don't think the Cubs will be able to offer him anything. The 80% rule still applies in this case. Every site seems to be different on exactly how much Samardzija is making this year though so it's unclear on how much that 80% number would be.

Isn't the 80% rule specific to arbitration eligible players? I was under the impression that the players on auto-renew contracts were entirely at the team's mercy. I guess I can't recall a situation anything like this one, though.

[Guest]

The 80% rule applies to pre-arbitration? I'm not sure about that. Probably a moot point since I doubt they would want to piss Samardzija off by slashing his salary so his arbitration years scale better for the team, though.

 

Back to the options, players who have team options for their 6th year can still be offered arbitration even if they are declined, so I don't see why this wouldn't be the same case(again, unless the contract dictates it).

[CubColtPacer]

From Cots:

 

In tendering a contract to a player (or renewing the contract of a player not yet arbitration-eligible), a club’s salary offer may not be less than 80% of the player’s salary and performance bonuses the previous year or less than 70% of his salary and performance bonuses from two years earlier.

 

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2003/01/transactions-glossary.html