Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Thanks to R Billie for alerting us in another thread. Kelvim Escobar is among 35 players who wasted no time filing for free agency. This doesn't mean he's gone -- yet -- because he can still negotiate with the Jays, along with every other club. But it suggests that the "fair" offer J.P. currently has on the table isn't going to be enough to keep Escobar in Toronto.

Teams must offer salary arbitration by December 7, or they lose the right to negotiate with their former player until May 1. Players must respond by December 19. If they accept, the arbitration process is binding. If they decline, there's a window (until January 8) during which they can still work something out with their current club. From ESPN.com, here's the complete list of 230 players eligible to file over the next two weeks.


Only Kelvim and his agent Peter Greenberg know what their plans are, but since neither is a regular poster here, we'll have to guess. If they are looking for $20 million over three years, that's too rich for the Jays. So it may be time to talk about compensation.

The following are the definitions from the CBA:

Type A Players: A Type A Player shall be a Player who ranks in the upper thirty percent (30%) of his respective position group.

Type B Players: A Type B Player shall be a Player who ranks in the upper fifty percent (50%) but not in the upper thirty percent (30%) of his respective position group.

Type C Players: A Type C Player shall be a Player who ranks in the upper sixty percent (60%) but not in the upper fifty percent (50%) of his respective position group.


The rankings are based on the combined stats for the last two seasons, according to a formula from the Elias Sports Bureau, MLB's official statisticians. There is a very good chance that Kelvim will be an "A" player; he was when he was a reliever, so the bar isn't set too high. If he signs with a good team, they would probably have to surrender their first-round pick to the Jays:

If the signing Club is among the first half of selecting Clubs, then the choice to be assigned for the highest ranking free agent Player signed by such Club shall be its second choice, with choices in the next following rounds to be assigned as compensation for the signing of the other Players in descending order of ranking. If the signing Club is among the second half of selecting Clubs, then such compensation shall begin with the Club’s first choice.

The Jays would also get a "sandwich pick" between the first two rounds if Escobar makes the "A" list; if he is ranked as Type B, they still get the signing club's first pick (or second, depending on draft order) but not the supplemental pick. If it's all still clear as mud, here's a Baseball America summary from last year to help you sort it out.

It's unlikely that J.P. will offer arbitration to Cory Lidle, unless he's 100% certain that Lidle and his wife hate Canada so much they would refuse it. Greg Myers might sign before December 7, but if he wants to test the waters, or relocate to California, he is almost sure to be a Type A catcher (it's determined by position, not overall value) and would bring two nice picks in return if he signs elsewhere.

These rules also affect the Jays' shopping list. Because they are right at the top of "the second half of selecting Clubs," if they want to sign Keith Foulke, or some other A or B player, it's going to cost them the 16th overall pick. However, if the Jays lose Kelvim, Cory and Crash, they could end up with a handful of extra picks and decide to pursue a Type A guy of their own. Of course, there could be an announcement tomorrow that Escobar has signed with Toronto, or he could accept arbitration, so it's premature to rule out his return.



Escobar Files For Free Agency | 15 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Pistol - Monday, October 27 2003 @ 10:40 AM EST (#87050) #
So when is the day when FAs can sign with other teams? I want to say that it's between when teams offer arbitration and when players can accept.

Greg Myers might sign before December 7, but if he wants to test the waters, or relocate to California, he is almost sure to be a Type A catcher (it's determined by position, not overall value) and would bring two nice picks in return if he signs elsewhere.

The 'Types' are based on the last 2 years. I don't know that Myers has enough counting stats to be in the 'A' list. And if he is there's little to no chance any team would give up compensation to sign him - 'A' or 'B'; this is someone that didn't generate much interest last offseason, or at the trading deadline. If the Jays offer him arbitration he'll be back with the team.

Escobar is a no brainer to offer arbitration to. A 1 year deal doesn't hurt the team, and if he leaves compensation is nice to have over nothing.

If Lidle is offered arbitration there'll need to be drug testing implemented in the Jays' front office.
_Jonny German - Monday, October 27 2003 @ 10:44 AM EST (#87051) #
Regarding Greg Myers, are there realistically any clubs would be willing to give up a first round pick in order to sign him? Is there a precedent for clubs declining to offer arbitration to a respected veteran, so as to not ruin the player's value on the market? A sign-and-trade deal could work well, but I can't recall this ever happening in baseball. Is there a rule against it?

From Coach's summary of the compensation rules, I get the impression that if a club were to sign Millwood, Foulke, and Stewart they would give up their first round pick to Philly, 2nd round to Oakland, and 3rd round to Minnesota (assuming these three players would rank in this order). Is that correct? Would all three teams also get sandwich picks?
Mike Green - Monday, October 27 2003 @ 11:06 AM EST (#87052) #
One of the oddities of the free agent compensation rule for Type A players is some unusual incentives created. Say 2 teams have Type A free agent pitchers of equivalent value (let's call them Millwood and Pettite, who for the sake of argument we'll assume are precisely equivalent). If the Yankees re-sign Pettite and the Phils re-sign Millwood, no draft choices change hands. If the Yanks sign Millwood and the Phils sign Pettite, the Yanks get the Phil 1st round pick, the Phils get the Yanks 1st round pick and both end up with sandwich picks.

I know that owners have never colluded on anything, but surely baseball shouldn't tempt them by offering free sandwiches.
_the shadow - Monday, October 27 2003 @ 11:06 AM EST (#87053) #
Thanks Coach for helping clear the mud from my eyes on this issue,I would think the Red Sox and Orioles would be in pursuit of Kelvim in the AL
Lucas - Monday, October 27 2003 @ 12:25 PM EST (#87054) #
http://www.aarongleeman.com
And if he is there's little to no chance any team would give up compensation to sign him - 'A' or 'B'; this is someone that didn't generate much interest last offseason, or at the trading deadline.
----------------------
Regarding Greg Myers, are there realistically any clubs would be willing to give up a first round pick in order to sign him?


Some of you guys might be a little too young to remember this, but Billy Beane, JP Ricciardi, Paul DePodesta and various other brilliant people in the Oakland front office once gave up a first-round pick to sign Mike Magnante as a free agent from the Anaheim Angels. Seriously. S--- happens, I guess.
_R Billie - Monday, October 27 2003 @ 12:47 PM EST (#87055) #
That's true but I think for some reason they didn't believe Magnante required compensation to sign.
_Jacko - Monday, October 27 2003 @ 01:22 PM EST (#87056) #
Hijack:

According to Yahoo, Myers was resigned today for 900K.

IMO, pretty good move for both sides. Myers gets to catch and DH, and tutor Kevin Cash on the finer points of the game.
Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 27 2003 @ 01:29 PM EST (#87057) #
_Dylan B - Monday, October 27 2003 @ 02:29 PM EST (#87058) #
Jonny, a sign and trade could work in baseball, but would rarely if ever would happen. After a player is signed, the team has to keep him for 6 months(not sure might be just until July 1st), unless the player agrees to the trade.
_Jonny German - Monday, October 27 2003 @ 03:05 PM EST (#87059) #
After a player is signed, the team has to keep him for 6 months... unless the player agrees to the trade.

Thanks for the info Dylan. It's a moot point now as far as Myers go, but I don't see this as being a problem at all... The idea isn't to trick the player into signing a contract and then quickly ship him out, the idea is to make things work better for all 3 parties - The player goes where he wants, the team he's leaving gets reasonable compensation, and the team acquiring him gives up reasonable compensation. If the Jays had offered Myers arbitration, he would be handicapped as far as going somewhere else because the level of compensation required from a team signing him would be set higher than reasonable.
robertdudek - Monday, October 27 2003 @ 06:35 PM EST (#87060) #
The Pettitte-Millwood scenario would need the cooperation of both Millwood and Pettitte. It requires the cooperation of 4 parties, which is probably why it doesn't happen very often.
_Steve Z - Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 01:04 PM EST (#87061) #
First he files for free agency, and now he files his defence!.
Mike Green - Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 01:25 PM EST (#87062) #
A statement of defence involving an adult defendant and he's described by his first name? Jordan, Craig, what's goin' on?

Lugo, Escobar, Molitor. There's too much baseball in the gossip pages of the newspaper.
Craig B - Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 01:55 PM EST (#87063) #
Mike, that's what I would do if it were my client too.

You want to humanize him. "Mr. Escobar" sounds like the New York Times. "Escobar" sounds... well, let's just say it doesn't sound good. "The defendant" sounds like he did it.

The defence is *your* document. You want the whole thing, style, tone and all, to reflect your theory of the case. You humanize your client with "Kelvim"... you dehumanize Jane Doe by calling her "the plaintiff".

While I'm on the subject, WTF with calling her a Jane Doe!? This isn't a criminal case, it's a civil trial where she is seeking damages. Giving her some sort of privileged shield of anonymity in this instance is (in my view) outrageous.
Mike Green - Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 02:04 PM EST (#87064) #
Craig, I agree you want to humanize him, but don't you think using his first name makes him seem kind of infantile in the context (videotaped sex...). It's one thing in a family law case (Harry says that he and Sally....), but here? Oh, well, maybe I'm way out of the loop on this one.

About the anonymity issue, all I can say is that if the plaintiff is entitled to her privacy, then the defendant should be entitled to his as well. Nothing's been proven, and criminal charges have not been laid. Fair's fair.
Escobar Files For Free Agency | 15 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.