J.D. Davis

J.D. Davis’ time with the Giants ended in unceremonious fashion when the team placed him on release waivers yesterday. He’ll go unclaimed and become a free agent, at which point his camp will look for other opportunities before Opening Day.

It’s a financially motivated move for the Giants, who bumped Davis from the starting lineup when they signed Matt Chapman. Their incumbent third baseman had previously prevailed in an arbitration hearing and was slated for a $6.9MM salary. Barring a surprising successful grievance on Davis’ behalf, the release means he’ll receive a fraction of that from San Francisco. The collective bargaining agreement provides that arbitration-eligible players released more than 15 days before the start of the season “for failure to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability” are entitled to 30 days termination pay — slightly more than $1.1MM, in Davis’ case.

The most recent CBA introduced a new provision that arb-eligible players who settle without a hearing would be entitled to their full salary in the event they were released before Opening Day. That does not apply to players who go to a hearing — the provision incentivizes players on the fringe of rosters to settle — which makes Davis’ choice to proceed with a hearing consequential in retrospect.

Davis’ agent, Matt Hannaford of ALIGND Sports Management, criticized the team’s process leading up to the exchange of filing figures — implying that the team didn’t leave the player with much choice. “In my 22 years in the business, I’ve never seen a club in arbitration make their one and only offer less than an hour before the exchange deadline that ended up hundreds of thousands of dollars below their filing number,” Hannaford told reporters (link via John Shea and Susan Slusser of the San Francisco Chronicle).

“The way the Giants negotiated gave J.D. no choice but to go to a hearing, which he did, and which we won. It’s unfortunate the club has handled things the way they have, but I’m confident in the player J.D. is and the value he will bring to his next team. I know he will end up in a better situation when all is said and done.”

The Giants’ official filing figure was $6.55MM. In response to Hannaford’s comments, president of baseball operations Farhan Zaidi told Andrew Baggarly of the Athletic and other reporters the team first offered “just slightly under $6.4MM.” Zaidi indicated the Giants did not consider that the team’s best and final offer and said that Davis’ camp replied that the number for a settlement “has to start with a 7.” Zaidi did not address the timing of the team’s offer but said ALIGND’s response came roughly 10 minutes before the time when teams and players are required to submit filing figures.

“They then filed at 6.9, and several hours after the deadline, called looking to engage in a settlement,” Zaidi said of Davis’ camp. “We said that out of fairness to our other negotiations and to maintain credibility with our policy going forward, we were not in a position to negotiate once the exchange deadline had passed.”

Nothing in the rules precludes teams and players from continuing to negotiate a settlement beyond the filing deadline. However, as a matter of policy, virtually every team declines to discuss one-year arbitration terms after the exchange date. Clubs view this as a way to deter players from anchoring future negotiations by submitting a filing figure that is higher than what they might expect to win at a hearing. (Teams sometimes get around their own “file-and-trial” policies by discussing multi-year deals, but that’s not always the case.)

Whether there was room for further negotiation before the filing exchange date, Zaidi didn’t deny Hannaford’s assertion that the team’s lone official offer was indeed below the rate at which they eventually filed. That makes it easy to understand why Davis declined that proposal.

One can debate whether his camp should have been more motivated to settle based on the possibility that the Giants may look to get out of the contract in Spring Training, but that’s far easier to say with the benefit of hindsight. While San Francisco had clearly viewed Chapman as a target all winter, they didn’t land him until well into Spring Training. The signing of Jorge Soler to a three-year deal to serve as designated hitter, blocking another path to playing time for Davis, also occurred after the filing exchange.

In any case, the chain of events seems likely to cost Davis some money. All 29 other teams passed on the opportunity to take his $6.9MM salary off outright waivers over the weekend. Zaidi said the Giants unsuccessfully looked for a trade partner between signing Chapman and cutting Davis loose. Hannaford tells Shea and Slusser that he’s hopeful that Davis will sign fairly quickly, but it’s not likely that he’ll make up the nearly $5.8MM difference at this stage of the offseason.

It’s possible his camp and the MLB Players Association will consider a grievance in an attempt to recoup some of that money, essentially arguing that Davis hadn’t failed to demonstrate sufficient skill. There’s no recent precedent for a successful grievance of that ilk, however. Davis’ release was not tied to a work-related injury, which would have been the basis for retaining his full salary.

Cases like this are rare, but it’s possible the Davis saga becomes a point of contention in the next round of CBA negotiations. Giants outfielder Austin Slater, a member of the MLBPA executive subcommittee, tells Shea and Slusser that fully guaranteeing arbitration salaries was a goal of the union’s the last time around.

“That was something we fought for, and we got. However, the league wasn’t willing to guarantee it if you went to a hearing. That remained the same. It was technically a win. Obviously, this is a very odd situation. And so there’s maybe more light brought onto it than previous years,” Slater told the Chronicle. “You never want to see something like that happen, but if there was a bright side out of it, it’s that guys are engaged and noticed that’s something that shouldn’t happen from a players’ union standpoint. Obviously, we love to have Chappy here. We’re thinking of J.D. as a person.“