A player traded for himself? Did I read that right? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

AVoiceOfReason · 07-08-2005, 04:17 AM

When looking at the career numbers of Curt Flood at http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/floodcu01.shtml I saw this entry, explaining how Flood came to finish his career with the Senators:

"November 3, 1970: Traded by the Philadelphia Phillies with a player to be named later to the Washington Senators for Greg Goossen, Jeff Terpko, and Gene Martin. The Philadelphia Phillies sent Jeff Terpko (April 10, 1971) to the Washington Senators to complete the trade."

So the Phillies got Terpko in November, and then he was the player named later to complete the trade?

Has anyone else ever been traded for themselves?

I don't go to bars, but I suspect you could win a few bar bets with this info.

dylanmarsh · 07-08-2005, 08:42 AM

It's happened a few times over the years and in different sports. Most of the time when it happens it's usually a method for clubs to retain players without releasing them. A favor given between clubs.

For example:

The Mets trade Tom Glavine and cash to the Royals for a player to be named later.

The Mets' GM does this because David Wright is out of minor league options and would qualify as a free agent if the Mets designate him for assignment. In addition, the Mets are on the hook for Brian Daubach's $15M and cannot trade or release him but his contract expires at the end of the season. The Mets' GM wants to keep both Wright and Glavine but decides Wright is more valuable pinch hitting than Glavine is pitching. Fortunately for the Mets' GM, the Royals are hurting for pitching and veteran leadership. So, the Mets trade Glavine and enough money to cover half his remaining salary for the season to the Royals for a PTBNL. Two months later, the Mets re-acquire Glavine as the player to be named later. So, the Mets keep the players they want, Daubach never plays for the Mets again, and the Mets save money by "renting-out" Glavine to the Royals.

Obviously, this scenario would probably never happen as the MLBPA would file a grievance on Wright's behalf because the Mets are controlling his rights. But, this example should give you a pretty good idea as to why weird deals like being traded for yourself happens.

AVoiceOfReason · 07-08-2005, 11:09 AM

That is a good example. Given this took place in 1971, before free agency (remember, Curt Flood was involved) I didn't think about the club possibly running out of options. I envisioned something like this:

GM for Washington in November: We'll give you Terpko in the deal for Flood

GM for Philley in April : How about Terpko as the PTBNL?

GM for Washington in April: Hmmmm, didn't he used to pitch here? Oh well, OK, that'll work.

And honestly, Washington could have had a player get injured, retire, or made another trade where all of a sudden Trepko was needed on their staff again.

It just looked odd.

dylanmarsh · 07-08-2005, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason

That is a good example. Given this took place in 1971, before free agency (remember, Curt Flood was involved) I didn't think about the club possibly running out of options.

I don't have a full understanding of the history of Flood, but this deal may have been the catalyst for him leading the way towards the beginning of free agency. If that's that case, that's real interesting.

pan6467 · 07-08-2005, 02:19 PM

It was the trade that sent him looking at F/A.

As for Terpko, Goosen and Martin, I believe all were minor leaguers.

Dylan gave a great scenario but this didn't affect play as the trades were in Nov and the very start of the season.

A guess at what could have happened is when all 3 Minor leaguers were traded the teams couldn't agree on which 2 the Senators would get. So they made a deal that during Spring Training the players would be watched and the one least valuable to Phillies would go back to the Washington.

So in this scenario Terpko may have been the one that didn't make the roster so he was sent back.

Trades like this for minor leaguers used to happen a lot before the Rule 5 draft. Teams couldn't decide on exactly what minor leaguer they wanted so they'd take 2-3 and make the decision and then send the other back.

djtestudo · 07-08-2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dylanmarsh

I don't have a full understanding of the history of Flood, but this deal may have been the catalyst for him leading the way towards the beginning of free agency. If that's that case, that's real interesting.

Actually, the trade that brought him to Philadelphia from St. Louis is the one that did it.

I've heard of this before, though I can't think of any specific examples off the top of my head.

AVoiceOfReason · 07-08-2005, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

It was the trade that sent him looking at F/A.

As for Terpko, Goosen and Martin, I believe all were minor leaguers.

Yes, they were. Well, Goosen had been up and down during the past six years for a total of 129 game appearances; he never played a ML game afer the trade. Trepko didn't get into the majors until 1974 and Martin had played in 8 games in 1968, but never again.

Flood played in 13 games for the Senators before he was either cut or quit.

I'd say that trade didn't help either club.

kutulu · 07-08-2005, 10:52 PM

Usually when this happens, it is a minor leaguer who is a throw-in on a deal that includes the "PTBNL" The team recieving the PTBNL will get to choose from a pool of candidates whose age and stats fall within a certain grouping.

The diamondbacks had a deal that ended up like that a couple years ago.

spongy · 07-09-2005, 01:07 PM

I heard that a PTBNL is named to the league office.. anyone know if this is true.. or if it was back then?

AVoiceOfReason · 07-09-2005, 09:42 PM

I don't know, but I've always thought the identity of the specific player was known to both sides, rather than it being "take one of these three." Kutulu thinks differently, and may well be right. The league is probably in on it, since they have to sign off on trades, don't they?

msf518 · 07-10-2005, 06:13 PM

From the 1962 New York Mets, Harry Chiti was also once traded for himself, with the Cleveland Indians.

kutulu · 07-11-2005, 12:58 AM

Here is a small background article on trades that include a PTBNL. It actually even mentions Harry Chiti:

Quote:

What Is a Player To Be Named Later?
Jeremy Derfner
Posted Thursday, Aug. 3, 2000, at 2:12 PM PT

Before Major League Baseball's trading deadline on Monday, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays traded pitchers Steve Trachsel and Mark Guthrie to the Toronto Blue Jays for minor leaguer Brent Abernathy and "a player to be named later." What is a player to be named later?

Teams often postpone the final terms of a trade 1) to better assess what positions their team needs to fill and 2) to better judge the other team's talent before closing the deal. When setting up a "player to be named later" transaction, the teams generally agree on a list of five to 10 players from which the final selection will be made. Players to be named are rarely of star caliber.

Two rules govern player-to-be-named-later transactions. The deal must close within six months and the player must change leagues (which is why most players to be named later are minor leaguers).

In 1962, the New York Mets traded backup catcher Harry Chiti to the Cleveland Indians for a player to be named later. Who was that player? Harry Chiti, traded for himself.

AVoiceOfReason · 07-11-2005, 12:42 PM

Thanks for the explanation of PTBNL, Kutulu. The part about changing leagues was something I'd never heard of. I guess changing from a minor league to a major league roster would count, or does it mean that if someone was in the Rockies' organization, he'd have to be traded to an AL club (or farm team)?

kutulu · 07-11-2005, 02:06 PM

Well, in the Chiti deal, he went from the NL tot he AL and back to the NL so I guess AL to NL works fine.

MikeyChalupa · 07-27-2005, 10:23 AM

Here's some great info from ESPN's Rob Neyer concerning Baseball transactions. A lot of these terms get thrown around this time of year and many people don't fully understand what they mean. So here's some clarification.

Quote:

A Transactions Primer
By Rob Neyer
ESPN SportsZone

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General managers don't know them, agents don't know them, players don't know them, writers don't know them . and fans don't know them.
What are "them"? Them are the rules governing baseball transactions, some of which are so convoluted that even when you think you know them, you don't.

All the ins and outs of transactions are covered, sometimes in excruciating detail, in a large loose-leaf binder titled, "The Official Professional Baseball Rules Book," something completely separate from the "Official Baseball Rules" (which cover only the game on the field).

Unfortunately, Major League Baseball doesn't make that loose-leaf binder available to the public. There's not really anything controversial or confidential in there, so maybe they just think we don't care and/or wouldn't understand the arcana contained within. And of course, MLB isn't famous for its public-relations acumen.

So we've consulted a variety of sources, including that elusive "Rules Book," and come up with a "Transactions Primer" which should answer at least some of your questions

Disabled Lists
There are two Disabled Lists, the 15-day and 60-day. The only real difference between them is that players on the 60-day DL don't count against a team's 40-man roster.

To be placed on either Disabled List, a player must be certified disabled by a doctor. That said, such certifications generally aren't particularly difficult to acquire.

Players can be disabled retroactively, up to a maximum of 10 days, beginning with the day after the last day on which they played.

A player on the 15-day Disabled List may be shifted to the 60-day DL at any time.

According to the Rules, players on a Disabled List "may be assigned to a Minor League Club for the purpose of injury rehabilitation for a maximum of 20 days in the case of non-pitchers and 30 days in the case of pitchers."

"Options"
After three years as a pro, a player must be protected on a team's 40-man roster, or he is eligible for the Rule 5 draft (more on that later). Once he's served those three years, and assuming he is added to the 40-man roster, his club then has what are called "options" on him.

When a player is on the 40-man roster but not on the 25-man Major League roster, he is on "optional assignment." One common misconception about the rules is that a player may only be "optioned out" three times. Actually, each player has three option years, and he can be sent up and down as many times as the club chooses within those three seasons.

When you hear that a player is "out of options," that means he's been in the majors during three different seasons, beginning with his fourth as a pro, and to be sent down again he'll have to clear waivers (more on those below).

Waivers
Waivers just might be the most complicated single aspect of the rules. In the rule book, a waiver is defined as "... a permission granted for certain assignments of player contracts or for the unconditional release of a Major League player ..."

If a player placed on Major League waivers is not claimed by another team during the three business days after waivers have been requested, then the players is said to have "cleared waivers," and the team has secured waivers for the remainder of the waiver period.

And what does that mean? Essentially, the team can do with the player's contract as it pleases. This generally means one of three things:

(1) They can send him to the minors (subject to his consent, if he's a "Veteran Player," more on that below).

(2) They can release him, which makes the player a free agent and thus available to sign with any team.

(3) They can trade him to another team, even if the so-called "trading deadline" has passed. Any trades made after July 31 may only involve players who have cleared waivers.

If a player doesn't clear waivers -- in other words, if he's claimed by another team or teams -- the club requesting waivers may withdraw the waiver request.

If the club doesn't withdraw the waiver request, the player's contract is assigned in the following manner:

(A) If only one claim is entered, the player's contract is assigned to that claiming club.

(B) If more than one club in the same league makes claims, the club currently lower in the standings gets the player.

(C) If clubs in both leagues claim the player, preference shall always go to the club in the same league as the club requesting waivers.

There are other, more esoteric rules involved here. For example, during the first 30 days of the season, the previous season's final standings are used to determine claim order, rather than the current standings.

Designated for Assignment
You'll sometimes read that a player has been "designated for assignment."

What does this mean? Essentially, it allows a club to open up a roster spot while it figures out what it's going to do with a player. As we'll see below, there are certain situations in which a team needs a player's permission to either trade him or send him to the minors. So rather than force the player to make a quick decision, the team can simply designate him for assignment while he decides.

More commonly, a player is designated for assignment so the club can open up his roster spot while they're waiting for him to clear waivers, which can take four or five days. Occasionally, a club will designate a player for assignment while they're trying to trade him. That's what happened to Hideo Nomo this past June.

"Called Up" vs. "Contract Purchased"
When a player is summoned from the minors to the majors, you'll see that he was either "called up" or his "contract was purchased." For most practical purposes, this really doesn't make much difference. If he's already on the 40-man roster, he's called up. If he's not on the 40-man roster, then his contract is purchased (for a nominal fee) from the minor-league team.

However, the player must be added to the 40-man roster when his contract is purchased, which often necessitates dropping another player from the 40-man roster, whether by release or trade.

"Veteran Players"
Any player who has been in the major leagues for five full seasons may not be assigned to a minor-league team without his written consent. This sometimes puts the team in a bad position, because a player with five years has every right to say, "I don't want to go to New Orleans. You can either release me and keep paying me, or keep me on the major league roster and keep paying. Your choice."

Also, a player with five years of service time who is traded in the middle of a multi-year contract may demand another trade prior to the start of the season following the one in which he was traded.

Any player with at least 10 years of Major League service, the last five of which have been with one Major League Club, may not be traded to another Major League Club without his written consent. This is commonly known as "the five-and-ten rule."

Player To Be Named Later
Quite often, you'll read that a player has been traded to another team for "a player to be named later."

There are two restrictions at work here. First, the transaction must be completed within six months. And second, the player named later can't have played in the same league as the team he's being traded to. That's why the player named later is almost always a minor leaguer.

And what if the teams can't agree on who that player will be? This happens rarely, but if no names are agreed upon initially, the clubs will agree on a price to paid in lieu of a player.

Sometimes, at the time of the deal the team receiving the player will provide the other club a list of minor leaguers, and later the club will have their pick of the players on that list. This list is negotiated at the time of the trade. In recent years, the Minnesota Twins lost Enrique Wilson this way. When it came time for Cleveland to make their choice, the Twins did what they could to "hide" Wilson, but the Indians found him anyway.

Finally, sometimes "Player to be named later" is used to trade players on the Disabled List, since technically teams aren't allowed to trade players on the DL.

The Rule 5 draft
First off, note that it's not the "Rule V Draft," but the Rule 5 draft. It's called the Rule 5 draft because the section of the Official Rules that covers the draft just happens to be Rule 5 in the book.

Eligibility: A player not on a team's Major League 40-man roster is eligible for the Rule 5 draft if: the player was 18 or younger when he first signed a pro contract and this is the fourth Rule 5 draft since he signed, OR if he was 19 or older when he first signed a pro contract and this is the third Rule 5 draft since he signed..

A player drafted onto a Major League roster in the Rule 5 draft must remain in the majors (on the 25-man active roster or the DL) for all of the subsequent season, or the drafting club must attempt to return him to his original club. However, since a returned Rule 5 player must first be placed on outright waivers, a third club could claim the player off waivers. But of course, that club would then also have to keep him in the majors all season, or offer him back to his original club.

Occasionally, the drafting club will work out a trade with the player's original team, allowing the drafting club to retain the player but send him to the minors.

-Mikey

AVoiceOfReason · 07-27-2005, 02:10 PM

Thanks, Mikey, that was very informative. And just why MLB doesn't want us (the fans) to know and understand these rules is beyond me.

fightnight · 07-27-2005, 07:37 PM

This is awsesome, I had never even considered the possiblity!!!

07-08-2005, 04:17 AM	#1 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	A player traded for himself? Did I read that right? When looking at the career numbers of Curt Flood at http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/floodcu01.shtml I saw this entry, explaining how Flood came to finish his career with the Senators: "November 3, 1970: Traded by the Philadelphia Phillies with a player to be named later to the Washington Senators for Greg Goossen, Jeff Terpko, and Gene Martin. The Philadelphia Phillies sent Jeff Terpko (April 10, 1971) to the Washington Senators to complete the trade." So the Phillies got Terpko in November, and then he was the player named later to complete the trade? Has anyone else ever been traded for themselves? I don't go to bars, but I suspect you could win a few bar bets with this info. __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

07-08-2005, 11:09 AM	#3 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	That is a good example. Given this took place in 1971, before free agency (remember, Curt Flood was involved) I didn't think about the club possibly running out of options. I envisioned something like this: GM for Washington in November: We'll give you Terpko in the deal for Flood GM for Philley in April : How about Terpko as the PTBNL? GM for Washington in April: Hmmmm, didn't he used to pitch here? Oh well, OK, that'll work. And honestly, Washington could have had a player get injured, retire, or made another trade where all of a sudden Trepko was needed on their staff again. It just looked odd. __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

07-08-2005, 02:19 PM	#5 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	It was the trade that sent him looking at F/A. As for Terpko, Goosen and Martin, I believe all were minor leaguers. Dylan gave a great scenario but this didn't affect play as the trades were in Nov and the very start of the season. A guess at what could have happened is when all 3 Minor leaguers were traded the teams couldn't agree on which 2 the Senators would get. So they made a deal that during Spring Training the players would be watched and the one least valuable to Phillies would go back to the Washington. So in this scenario Terpko may have been the one that didn't make the roster so he was sent back. Trades like this for minor leaguers used to happen a lot before the Rule 5 draft. Teams couldn't decide on exactly what minor leaguer they wanted so they'd take 2-3 and make the decision and then send the other back. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

07-09-2005, 01:07 PM	#9 (permalink)
spongy Psycho	I heard that a PTBNL is named to the league office.. anyone know if this is true.. or if it was back then? __________________ The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed. Stephen King

07-09-2005, 09:42 PM	#10 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	I don't know, but I've always thought the identity of the specific player was known to both sides, rather than it being "take one of these three." Kutulu thinks differently, and may well be right. The league is probably in on it, since they have to sign off on trades, don't they? __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

07-08-2005, 08:42 AM	#2 (permalink)
dylanmarsh Sleepy Head	It's happened a few times over the years and in different sports. Most of the time when it happens it's usually a method for clubs to retain players without releasing them. A favor given between clubs. For example: The Mets trade Tom Glavine and cash to the Royals for a player to be named later. The Mets' GM does this because David Wright is out of minor league options and would qualify as a free agent if the Mets designate him for assignment. In addition, the Mets are on the hook for Brian Daubach's $15M and cannot trade or release him but his contract expires at the end of the season. The Mets' GM wants to keep both Wright and Glavine but decides Wright is more valuable pinch hitting than Glavine is pitching. Fortunately for the Mets' GM, the Royals are hurting for pitching and veteran leadership. So, the Mets trade Glavine and enough money to cover half his remaining salary for the season to the Royals for a PTBNL. Two months later, the Mets re-acquire Glavine as the player to be named later. So, the Mets keep the players they want, Daubach never plays for the Mets again, and the Mets save money by "renting-out" Glavine to the Royals. Obviously, this scenario would probably never happen as the MLBPA would file a grievance on Wright's behalf because the Mets are controlling his rights. But, this example should give you a pretty good idea as to why weird deals like being traded for yourself happens.

07-08-2005, 10:52 PM	#8 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Usually when this happens, it is a minor leaguer who is a throw-in on a deal that includes the "PTBNL" The team recieving the PTBNL will get to choose from a pool of candidates whose age and stats fall within a certain grouping. The diamondbacks had a deal that ended up like that a couple years ago.

07-10-2005, 06:13 PM	#11 (permalink)
msf518 Upright Location: New Hope, PA	From the 1962 New York Mets, Harry Chiti was also once traded for himself, with the Cleveland Indians.

07-11-2005, 12:42 PM	#13 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	Thanks for the explanation of PTBNL, Kutulu. The part about changing leagues was something I'd never heard of. I guess changing from a minor league to a major league roster would count, or does it mean that if someone was in the Rockies' organization, he'd have to be traded to an AL club (or farm team)? __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

07-11-2005, 02:06 PM	#14 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Well, in the Chiti deal, he went from the NL tot he AL and back to the NL so I guess AL to NL works fine.

07-27-2005, 02:10 PM	#16 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	Thanks, Mikey, that was very informative. And just why MLB doesn't want us (the fans) to know and understand these rules is beyond me.

07-27-2005, 07:37 PM	#17 (permalink)
fightnight Insane Location: The lovely Northeast	This is awsesome, I had never even considered the possiblity!!!