Najera contract

[FGump]

Najera's contract has this detail listed at Sham's site.

"Last two years are both all but $500,000 guaranteed, and become fully guaranteed if Najera is not waived on or before June 30th 2010."

Sham, can you verify that the wording is accurate there? Your typical style is to say $X is guaranteed - while this does the converse and has thereby caused some confusion as some think the guarantees are relatively weak.

My understanding is if his team has him on the roster past 6/30/10 they will owe him back-to-back years of $3M, $2.75M. But if he is waived prior, Najera still gets paid $2.5M, $2.25M - providing very little incentive to waive him. Am I reading that correctly?

[Dunkenstein]

My understanding is if his team has him on the roster past 6/30/10 they will owe him back-to-back years of $3M, $2.75M. But if he is waived prior, Najera still gets paid $2.5M, $2.25M - providing very little incentive to waive him. Am I reading that correctly?

My sources agree with Sham's. You are reading it correctly. If Najera is waived prior to 7/1/10, the team that waives him only saves $1M.

[FGump]

Thanks a million.

[Three34]

It's definitely done the stupid way around. Maybe Kiki had had a drink that day and thought he'd negotiated the opposite.

[Three34]

By the way, you know how we've debated more than once whether a team can instantaneously waive an incoming player so as to avoid waiving someone they already have to accommodate them? Well, I think this trade proves that no you can't.

[FGump]

By the way, you know how we've debated more than once whether a team can instantaneously waive an incoming player so as to avoid waiving someone they already have to accommodate them? Well, I think this trade proves that no you can't.

I didn't know that was still floating around as an issue in anyone's mind because I'm fairly certain we've seen this demonstrated in the past. The trade of Kidd from NJ to Dallas almost 2 years ago comes to mind where NJ had to take a lot of pieces they really didn't want to make the numbers work (given the size of Kidd's salary) and probably had to clear out roster room to be able to do so.

[Three34]

Right, but you know we both whiffed on that.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=762378

[FGump]

I don't tend to recall threads like that long after the fact ... once we finish and settle the topic, as far as I'm concerned it's facts we know - and have always known

[Three34]

I hadn't realised we'd settled it. I knew in a previous thread we'd concluded what I wrote in that one I just linked it, which is why I was so staunch and decisive in my wrongness. But that's only because, in the first thread, JHamm mentioned an instance where an incoming player was waived, so we all ran with that. (That was the thing Larry references at the end.) So it's his fault. I might kill him now.