Tuesday, February 09, 2010

The Hudson Provision?

Remember the "Ramirez Provision"? Yeah, turns out that's pretty much been killed by lawyers. Remember the Dodgers not offering Orlando Hudson arbitration? Turns out that eventuality has very much been on the O-Dog's mind. From Ken Rosenthal at FOXSports.com:

[Hudson's] deal includes a stipulation that the Twins cannot offer him salary arbitration if he is a Type A free agent, ensuring that a team can sign him next off-season without losing a draft pick.

Obviously, the next question is: Did Ned Colletti and Hudson have a similar clause in his 2009 contract with the Dodgers? We'll never know for sure, but this "no arbitration" provision could become very popular for players signing short-term contracts. That players can now get it in writing ensures nothing will get in the way of the maximum number of teams bidding for their services after their current contract ends. Score another one for the agents.


Greg Hao said...

If you click over to Jon's blog where he just put up his monster writeup of his interview with McCourt on 29 Jan, then the answer seems to be no, Hudson didn't have such a provision with the Dodgers. At the same time, Hudson's deal with the Dodgers last year was also $3MM more than the one he just signed, so one can make the argument (not that I am) that Hudson paid $3MM to buy out arbitration.

Greg Finley said...

I find this very intriguing. It spurred a post and some SoSG links at my long-winding and boring economics blog.