 |
|
|
| |
« Did Red Sox Make Offer To Varitek? | Main | Rule 5 Draft »
Beltre Adds Twins To No-Trade Clause
Yesterday, La Velle E. Neal of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune heard about no-trade problems for the Twins with Mariners third baseman Adrian Beltre. Today, Geoff Baker of the Seattle Times has further detail:
When [the Twins] attempted to investigate a possible deal, they discovered that -- since the last time they'd looked into Beltre during the season -- he'd added the Twins to a list of teams on his limited no-trade clause. Twins officials were somewhat surprised, though it's not unusual. When a player sees a team showing public interest in trading for him, they will sometimes amend their no-trade to include that club and then use it as a bargaining chip down the road. Usually, some kind of cash settlement is needed.
If players can freely swap out or add teams to their partial no-trade clause, why do such clauses exist? Did Scott Boras negotiate some type of flexible no-trade clause, or are all partials like this? I don't have the answers, but Baker says this is a "workable" scenario in regard to the Twins and Beltre. He seems to be the best available third baseman. Any team acquiring him gets him for one year plus probable Type A draft pick compensation if he's offered arb and leaves.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e20105365c4fcc970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Beltre Adds Twins To No-Trade Clause:
Comments
Top Stories
Search MLBTR
MLBTR Features
Recent Posts
Rumors By Team
Monthly Archives
Live Chats
Tuesdays at 2 p.m. CST
Very strange, I had no idea players could do this.
Posted by: UtleyFan | December 11, 2008 at 02:15 PM
I'd guess his is flexible and he can rework it a bit in the offseason.
Makes sense as a team you might not want to play for at the beginning of a deal could be different at the end. Perhaps they can swap out one team per offseason or something?
Posted by: CubbyFan23 | December 11, 2008 at 02:16 PM
i wish walt would trade for beltre but i havent seen the reds linked to beltre in any kind of talks.
Posted by: redsfan | December 11, 2008 at 02:18 PM
I've definitely never heard of this either. I'm sure it's legal and someone would file a grievance if the Twins try to challenge it. I'm not sure why Beltre would prefer to play in Safeco over Metrodome anyway.
One more thing: Does Mike Lowell become the best available 3B when/if the Sox sign Teixeira, or will his injuries make teams wait to see if he can bounce back in the spring?
Posted by: cmac1973 | December 11, 2008 at 02:19 PM
I feel like I have read before that some of those partials involve choosing a certain number of teams each year. Maybe last year beltre did not choose the twins and decided to this offseason but I could be way off on this.
Posted by: walkoffblast | December 11, 2008 at 02:19 PM
agree with walkoffblast. i've read about some contracts where the player submits a new list annually.
Posted by: dmb60614 | December 11, 2008 at 02:22 PM
I'm curious as to what the M's are asking for him. The last time Beltre had a contract year, it resulted in an extremely productive season. Has anyone heard what has been rumored to be the price for his services?
Posted by: Jason F | December 11, 2008 at 02:24 PM
Good news for the Twins. lol
Posted by: IFiredScottBoras | December 11, 2008 at 02:25 PM
Go make a deal for Wigginton.
Posted by: IFiredScottBoras | December 11, 2008 at 02:27 PM
In many negotiated partial no-trade clauses, it includes stipulations where they get the chance to alter the teams listed in such a NTC annually. He probably did this shortly after last season ended.
Posted by: AdropOFvenom | December 11, 2008 at 02:28 PM
Players can often change their list of teams on an annual basis, perhaps on the anniversary date of when the deal was signed. Beltre signed in December of '04, so perhaps he is allowed to change his 8 teams each December.
As for whomever questioned why he'd rather play in Safeco than the Metrodome, I believe the original blog post has a good read on it. Beltre knows the Twins are interested, so he adds them to his list. It may not at all mean he doesn't want to play there, just that he sees a chance to get a few more million from forcing MIN to buy out his NTC.
Posted by: LastTrain | December 11, 2008 at 02:28 PM
Sucks for the Twins.
Go make a deal for Wigginton.
Posted by: IFiredScottBoras | December 11, 2008 at 02:27 PM
Sounds like the only thing they can do now.
Posted by: DCSportsGuy | December 11, 2008 at 02:30 PM
"I'm curious as to what the M's are asking for him. The last time Beltre had a contract year, it resulted in an extremely productive season."
*cough* STEROIDS *cough*
Posted by: tsizzle | December 11, 2008 at 02:30 PM
"i wish walt would trade for beltre but i havent seen the reds linked to beltre in any kind of talks.
Posted by: redsfan | December 11, 2008 at 02:18 PM"
Beltre for EE makes soooooo munch sense to me.
Posted by: maximumpotential | December 11, 2008 at 02:32 PM
Redsfan, I'm with you 100%. Let the Mariner Fire Sale begin.
Beltre is a much better player than Dye for the same money, and not only can hit in the middle of the order, he is a huge upgrade defensively. I'd then play the best defensive outfielders and see what happens.
I think he'd light it up at GABP.
Could E5 and Bailey get it done? C'mon Walt.
Posted by: bweav44 | December 11, 2008 at 02:34 PM
"I'm curious as to what the M's are asking for him. The last time Beltre had a contract year, it resulted in an extremely productive season. Has anyone heard what has been rumored to be the price for his services?"
A lot.
GMZ is very scout minded. He will value defense highly. Just look at the Putz haul. You're going to have to pay for Beltre's defense, which is phenomenal. And, with Blake signed, and Crede injury prone, Beltre is the most attractive available 3B. Hello monopoly.
And no, I'm not saying this as a Mariners homer. I've seen him play quite a bit as an A's fan, and for the sake of the haul Z is capable of getting for him, I hope Beltre is not traded.
Posted by: melonis rex | December 11, 2008 at 02:35 PM
walt jockety is the best gm in baseball... extremely smart guy, he knows what he's doing over there in Cinci...
Posted by: MVPujols | December 11, 2008 at 02:35 PM
It's probably not anything against Minnesota in particular, but like most players with limited no-trade clauses, Beltre can pick a new set of teams at the end of every year. In this case, he would have added Minnesota because he knew it was one of the teams most likely to pull off a deal for him. That gives him control over the situation and potentially allows him to demand an extension if talks do progress.
Posted by: Matty D | December 11, 2008 at 02:37 PM
Yeah Beltre and Steroids resulted in 45+ HRs. I'm glad you caught that.
Posted by: IFiredScottBoras | December 11, 2008 at 02:40 PM
I don't really get the logic in this-
You can go to the dome, which is an easier place to hit, earn the same amount of money, and play for a winner.
OR you can stay at safeco, play for a loser who has little fan support, and play with guys who aren't the greatest of all-time which would make most guys frustrated.
Great f*cking logic Adrian. Gee if he doesn't like Minnesota THAT much, then why bother.
The guy seems more like a tool than ever now.
Posted by: twinsfan | December 11, 2008 at 02:43 PM
still think Wigg would be the better pickup, cheaper, less propspects, and he has been outstanding offensively. We need a strong power 3b rh bat, not the great defense. why do you think they are handing LNP that job at short. he has the defense to cover 3rd. I see Wigg or Kouz coming to MN, not beltre.
Posted by: patsfanatic83 | December 11, 2008 at 02:44 PM
Wigginton is making 10 million dollars, so...yea...
Posted by: B3NG4L | December 11, 2008 at 02:49 PM
so? 2 million less the beltre. and the cheapness is the fact that they could get wigg without giving up half the system, while the m's are looking at young plus. 4 years of young for one of beltre, plus the m's want an mlb ready pitcher and another prospect?!
Thats horrible.
Posted by: patsfanatic83 | December 11, 2008 at 02:52 PM
The Mariners are not going to get a huge haul for one year of Beltre, end of story. They can either ask an outrageous amount, and get nothing, or they can be reasonable, and help the rebuilding process. It's up to them.
Posted by: jehu | December 11, 2008 at 02:58 PM
Thats a pretty dumb move if your Beltre...You'd rather stay on a 100 loss team then go to a contending team.
Posted by: JT89 | December 11, 2008 at 03:44 PM
Typical Scott Boras move, IMO. Beltre is likely still available for trade to Minnesota. Get on the phone, Bill Smith. You have to make up for this Nick Punto BS and trading for Adrian Beltre is about the only way to do it at this point.
Posted by: Deviation | December 11, 2008 at 04:18 PM
Read closer: it's a bargaining chip, not a desire to play one place over another. If he actually didn't want to play in MN he would have had it on his list last year. It's on there now so he can sell it to MN as part of their trade. He'll either force an extension or get his option picked up or simply ask for cash or other considerations.
Posted by: Cris E | December 11, 2008 at 04:21 PM
Are the Reds one of the eight teams he has on his limited no trade clause. We could get him straight up for ED E because of the salary.
Posted by: Robert | December 11, 2008 at 04:27 PM
Anything can be negotiated in a contract from a personal massage therapist to flexibility in no-trade teams to ridiculous things like the type of food a player has available to them in the locker room. I'm sure there are also contracts that exist which allow a player to add team(s) to a no trade clause each year but not change the teams currently on the list.
Lawyers (aka agents) can come up with virtually anything they want in a contract so this isn't suprising especially since it obviously favors their clients ability to cash in and subsequently make more money themselves.
I wonder what the most bizarre thing in any contract has ever been?
Posted by: KangarooBoxer26 | December 11, 2008 at 05:18 PM
just another note on No Trade Clauses.
Most players who have them tend to pick the best teams to put on their list; unless of course there is just someplace they can't stand and don't want to go.
They do this because come the trade deadline each year; when teams who are in contention are looking to make trades, the player knows they can offer to "waive" their no trade clause in return for additional compensation.
Putting a lousy team on the list is pointless to a player who has a no trade clause; afterall usually the players that get no trade clauses are top tier guys and paid well so the lousy teams wouldn't look to acquire them and their salary anyways.
Posted by: KangarooBoxer26 | December 11, 2008 at 05:22 PM
What was the nasty comment about Beltre being on steroids??? Can't a man just play good baseball or are we suspicious of all good players?? I think he needs to stay in Seattle,where he is loved and respected as a great player.he is fun to watch
Posted by: Couch potato | December 12, 2008 at 08:35 AM
Let's do a three team trade. Twins get Beltre, the Mariners get Ryan Zimmerman, and the Nationals get Joe Nathan! Sounds great!!!
Posted by: Joseph | December 19, 2008 at 01:21 PM