Dillon Called Up, Turnbow DFA (Update: Turnbow reports to Nashville M 5/12... see reply #132)

[fondybrewfan]

It is also my impression, based upon several articles written about the situation that their are 3 possible scenarios

 

1. He goes unclaimed, reports to AAA and makes his 3.2 million salary

2. He goes unclaimed, refuses to go to AAA, forfeits his salary and his free to sign with anybody

3. He is claimed, the claiming team is responsible for the entire salary

 

That seems to be how TH and McCalvy explain it

[tristarscoop]

Article on it from ESPN.com

 

Also, there's an insider column on it, so if anyone is an insider and wants to give us the details, the link is in the sidebar of this article

Brewers jettison struggling ex-All Star Turnbow

[GAME05]

when we cut Hammonds, didn't the Giants pick him up right away and put him in AAA? naturally they wouldn't have picked up his whole salary.

[MJLiverock]

Article on it from ESPN.com

 

Also, there's an insider column on it, so if anyone is an insider and wants to give us the details, the link is in the sidebar of this article

Brewers jettison struggling ex-All Star Turnbow

The insider article doesn't really say anything new. It points out in his All -Star season he had 24 saves in the first half and zero in the second half, basically saying the wheels fell off the wagon then and how odd it must be to have that many saves in the 1st half and go to zero in the second.

The rest of the article talks about his control problems and need for a change of scenery since he gets booed everytime he is announced in Miller Park.

[thablingster]

Thanks for the good times and several walk induced stomachaches and headaches, Derrick.

 

I always believed Turnbow was a good guy, so it was tough to see him struggle as he often did, if we can sneak him to AAA hopefully he turns it around, and if not, hopefully the grass is greener on the other side for both parties.

[dpapo]

Doug Melvin just stated in an interview on ESPN540 that 3 teams have called the Brewers asking about Turnbow. Mentioned that he didn't have the chance to call them back yet. So, there are teams asking about Turnbow, but I don't expect that Brewers are going to be offered much. Don't want to speculate as this isn't the trade forum, but just wanted to mention that teams are calling the Brewers about Turnbow.

[BCZF]

This had to be done, you cant just let him take up a roster spot and let him rot.

[TooLiveBrew]

Doug Melvin just stated in an interview on ESPN540 that 3 teams have called the Brewers asking about Turnbow. Mentioned that he didn't have the chance to call them back yet. So, there are teams asking about Turnbow

My cynicism tells me this means Melvin has gotten (maybe) one call. Who knows, though -- maybe there's a team out there that thinks they can tweak what's most certainly a mechanics problem.

[BrewCrewForever]

I think getting anything for Turnbow wouldn't be bad right now. Just unload some of that salary.

[Tbadder]

I'd take his whole salary and throw in an extra 2 or 3 million for a young stud pitcher say at the high A level.

[LouisEly]

And the latest Cubs game where he walked 4 in 3 innings

 

He also struck out five, more than twice as many as any other pitcher in that game, Brewer or Cub, including Dempster who only struck out one in twice as many innings. McClung also only pitched 2/3rds of an inning less than Suppan, but Suppan gave up 11 hits to McClung's one. Shouse even gave up a hit and a run in the six pitches he threw. I'll take one earned run in three innings from a reliever any day of the week.

 

As for the Marlins game, the Brewers offense scored two runs on five hits in 10 innings in that game. McClung is not the one to point the finger at there.

[wOOgiE22]

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g83/woogie22/tbow.jpg

[TooLiveBrew]

As for the Marlins game, the Brewers offense scored two runs on five hits in 10 innings in that game. McClung is not the one to point the finger at there.

I don't think anyone was blaming him for the loss, instead pointing out that he pitched poorly.

 

Also, sure he struck out a bunch of guys at Wrigley, but isn't a BB more damaging than a K is positive?

[mastershake76]

I fully grant that today's move needed to be done, but I just don't understand the vitriol towards T-bow.

I really think a lot of the problem was that he was just terrible at dealing with the media and made himself look bad. Last year after his meltdown he made a comment to the Journal (I forget the reporter) along the lines that he didn't like getting booed and he would like to be traded. After stinking out loud and costing the Brewers several games in a row there at one point, I think a lot of fans expected him to be a little more humble than that.

 

Then, more of the same this year. He stinks out loud - again - and then makes a bunch of off-putting comments that he doesn't like being relegated to mop-up duty. Well, Derrick, that's kind of what happens when your ERA starts approaching your jersey number. I don't want to put words in other people's mouths, but I kept getting the feeling that Turnbow felt he was "being dealt a bad hand" somehow, and that none of his troubles were self-inflicted.

Did he owe the fans humility? No, he doesn't owe anyone anything. But I think by the same token we fans don't owe him anything either. He's a big boy and is paid well, and in my opinion did nothing from 2006 to the present to endear himself to fans. I too wish him well, but he will not be missed.

[LouisEly]

Also, sure he struck out a bunch of guys at Wrigley, but isn't a BB more damaging than a K is positive?

 

I think the 11 hits that Suppan gave up in 3.2 IP were a lot more damaging than the 4 BB McClung gave up in 3.0 IP. To answer your question, if you only give up one hit in three innings then no, the BB is not more damaging than the K. Only one of those walks came in to score in three innings. If the Brewers pitchers would have done that over the entire game they would have won 5-3.

 

I'll take one hit, 4 BB, and one run in 3 innings any day of the week. All things being equal, the walks aren't going to be damaging if you don't give up hits and strike guys out.

[jeffy]

It is also my impression, based upon several articles written about the situation that their are 3 possible scenarios

 

1. He goes unclaimed, reports to AAA and makes his 3.2 million salary

2. He goes unclaimed, refuses to go to AAA, forfeits his salary and his free to sign with anybody

3. He is claimed, the claiming team is responsible for the entire salary

 

That seems to be how TH and McCalvy explain it

Here: http://milwaukee.brewers.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080501&content_id=2625623&vkey=news_mil&fext=.jsp&c_id=mil

McCalvy says otherwise regarding option 3

The Brewers have 10 days to trade Turnbow, release him or pass him through waivers and assign him to the Minors. Given his $3.2 million salary, a trade would be difficult, and the Brewers seem intent on not releasing Turnbow and paying the roughly $2.65 million left on his contract.

That leaves the final option as a possibility. The Brewers have until Day 7 of the 10-day window, which began Friday, to place Turnbow on irrevocable waivers, a necessary step if they try to assign him to Triple-A Nashville. Any of the 29 clubs could claim Turnbow and pay him a prorated portion of the Major League minimum -- $400,000 -- leaving the Brewers on the hook for the rest.

 

If this version is accurate, I'm sure some team will pick him up for $400K, should they not manage to pull off a trade.

[endaround]

Also, sure he struck out a bunch of guys at Wrigley, but isn't a BB more damaging than a K is positive?

 

I think the 11 hits that Suppan gave up in 3.2 IP were a lot more damaging than the 4 BB McClung gave up in 3.0 IP. To answer your question, if you only give up one hit in three innings then no, the BB is not more damaging than the K. Only one of those walks came in to score in three innings. If the Brewers pitchers would have done that over the entire game they would have won 5-3.

 

I'll take one hit, 4 BB, and one run in 3 innings any day of the week. All things being equal, the walks aren't going to be damaging if you don't give up hits and strike guys out.

No McClung didn't lose those games, that was never the point. The point is that he pitched poorly in those games. The fact that he walked 4 but only gave up one run is more luck than skill. McClung is still just as walk happy as ever and that makes a poor long reliever because you never know when he's going to have a 40 pitch inning.

 

[PeaveyFury]

If this version is accurate, I'm sure some team will pick him up for $400K, should they not manage to pull off a trade.

 

Well, apparently Cots and FTJ were right, assuming McCalvy is accurate (as he almost surely is). I can't say I've ever heard this before, as I've always heard that the claiming team picks up the salary.

[dpapo]

"Any of the 29 clubs could claim Turnbow and pay him a prorated portion of the Major League minimum -- $400,000 -- leaving the Brewers on the hook for the rest."

 

From everything that I have read and heard, I believe Adam is wrong here. Any team claiming Turnbow off of waivers, will also be claiming his contract. Unless, Turnbow clears waivers and the Brewers just let him go, in which case the Brewers will be responsible for his contract. Or, if Turnbow refuses to accept an assignment to the minors, in which case he becomes a free agent and his contract with the Brewers is voided.

[jeffy]

This certainly indicates the salary has to be paid by whoever claims a player:

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=1650707

 

In trying to find out what the rules are, also ran across something indicated waivers to send a player to minor can not happen during the 1st 30 days of the season. This would explain the timing.

[Fatter than Joey]

I can't say I've ever heard this before, as I've always heard that the claiming team picks up the salary.

 

I have tried over the years to keep waivers straight -- there are a few different types of waivers which account for different salary situations. Also the time of the year makes a difference.

 

For example after the trade deadline a few years ago, the Dodgers claimed Loazia from the A's and had to eat his salary for that year and the next. That was after the trade deadline and was revocable waivers. The A's normally would have pulled Loazia off the table, but because he sucked and had a hefty contract they let the Dodgers have at him. This scenario makes sense to me as it works as a honesty check for teams that would claim players willy-nilly to block all potential trades.

 

Now this time of year, it's a different scenario. Obviously the Brewers want to cut ties with Turnbow and that's why he is on waivers. The Brewers aren't trying to trade him to make a playoff run. These waivers are irrevocable, which if you think about it makes sense in a 10 day DFA period. The DFA period exists to give the team and player a 10 day "limbo" to figure out what is going to happen w/o tying up a roster spots. Things need to conclude at the end of the DFA period, and irrevocable waivers makes sure that this will happen.

 

From a labor union standpoint -- Turnbow would be screwed if he could not get the opportunity to resume his career with another team, -- therefore it makes sense to me that the claiming team only pay the league minimum, that way Turnbow's contract will not prohibit him from getting more work.

 

At the end of the day, DM has very little leverage here. The best case scenario would be if there were multiple teams interested in Tbow. In all likelihood there is probably only one, and rather than make a trade for Tbow, they will just claim him on waivers and tell DM to pound sand.

[Fatter than Joey]

This certainly indicates the salary has to be paid by whoever claims a player:

 

Again, this was done in the off-season, different waivers, and different waiver rules -- plus there was a new labor agreement since 2003, so other things may have changed as well.

 

EDIT: -- The other difference is, we are trying to send Turnbow to AAA, Ramirez wasn't going to be sent to AAA.

[LouisEly]

If a team releases a player and another team signs him, then the team that signs him is only responsible for the ML minimum (~$400K) and the original team pays the rest of the salary.

 

If a team waives a player and another team claims him, then the team that claims him takes on his entire salary/contract.

 

Semantics.

[Fatter than Joey]

If a team waives a player and another team claims him, then the team that claims him takes on his entire salary/contract.

 

This is not true, when a player is put on irrevocable waivers when they are sent to the minors.

 

Semantics.

 

There are different waivers for different situations, and different points in the season.

[jeffy]

The Ramirez thing was in the off season and several years ago...but the whether the intent was to send him to AAA is not a factor (I think).

 

How irrevocable waivers work

 

Q: What are irrevocable waivers typically used for?

A: These type of waivers are usually used to move a player off the 40-man roster and outright him to the minor leagues. They are also used to release players.

Would the Brewers actually think there is any possibility of keeping Turnbow and sending him to AAA, if another team can pick him up for $400K?

 

 

(code repairs --1992)