Yes. I limited the dead money here to guaranteed salaries for the 2013 season. When the Mets released Bonilla in 1999, he agreed to defer his $5.9 million salary for 2000 at 8 percent interest. He received the first of 25 annual payments of $1.193 million in 2011. Details are not always public, but deferrals are not uncommon - Albert Pujols, Scott Rolen, Ryan Dempster, Andruw Jones are just a few players who have agreed to similar arrangements in the past. Most clubs can manage the money in a such a way that it works for both sides.

Good catch. Howard should slot in at $9.09 million, just behind Danks and ahead of De La Rosa.

Strasburg clocked in north of 95 mph, but with just 159 IP, he didn't make the list of qualified starters.

I'm sure both player and agent were part of the discussion when the 160-inning decision was made, though it's not as if they had a vote. But in arbitration, if playing time is going to be part of the club's case - and it should be - it's inevitable that pitch count & innings limits come up, too. All's fair in love and arbitration.

Those are good suggestions. I'll run them by the technology experts.

Ah, I misunderstood. The database does not include information on optional assignments (though random option details might turn up for a few players). I generally go to MLB.com > Players > Transactions whenever I'm trying to chase down dates of optional assignments. There's really not a good resource for comprehensive information on each player's three or four option seasons. As for the rating votes, tooltips or mouse bubbles, they should appear once the page has fully loaded, regardless of your choice in browsers or computers.

That's a good suggestion. I know a Cubs fan or two who wouldn't mind if Soriano's contract went missing.

If you mouse over any name on a team's compensation list for a specific year, you'll get a tooltip with a summary of the player's contract details, including any option information. You also simply can go to individual player cards and check the compensation section.

Salaries for managers and GMs are not as widely available as those for players. But going forward, we should be able to track hirings, extensions and contract length. When financial numbers are out there, we'll include those, too.

It's a slight overpay. But it's that, or include an ownership stake in the deal.

I agree on both points. They seemed committed to a holding pattern this past off-season, and that wasn't unreasonable. Obviously restocking the system begins with the draft in June, then possibly the trade market. They also have a little flexibility coming, so that will allow for some maneuvering.

Keeping young players at the minimum might save a club $100,000. Offering more simply helps keep the players happy. Even modest raises are good for morale.

I haven't seen figures on the Cardinals' 0- to 3-year guys yet. But I'm guessing Motte will get something in the $450,000 range. He won't be eligible for arbitration until after the 2011 season.

Yes, Kawakami is on Atlanta's books at $7.33 million at the moment.

The new cards will include both service-time figures and an agent listing, if available. The data will look much better here than it ever has at Cot's.

PECOTA doesn't love Barton, either, and a .245/.352/.367 slash line won't get a first baseman a long-term offer. But he's just 25, and there figure to be a number of spots to fill for 2012 and beyond.

There's a sliding scale based on years in the majors. Players with 10 years or more are entitled to full benefits, which right now top out at $160,000 a year once the player reaches 62. The owners and players finance the system jointly, so it's a part of each collective bargaining negotiation. With the game's revenues continuing to grow, it will be interesting to see how the system is tweaked in the next labor deal.

"Per team" should not be there. It's an average of six hearings per off-season for 2006-10. An average of 23 cases per off-season went all the way to hearing in 1986-90. Sorry for the confusion.

1) I would think the two sides would simply accept the single salary figure beforehand, happy to avoid the hassle of going before a arbitration panel. 2) I'd expect the player would find himself a new agent ASAP. He'd probably be faced with taking the club's offer, and I can't see the two sides going through the charade of a hearing in that instance. 3) The two sides are always free to replace an existing contract with a long-term extension. The players association might express concern if a new deal reduces the value an existing agreement. But it's unlikely a player and his agent would be willing to give back ground they already hold. When an extension replaces a one-year deal, it generally just builds on the existing agreement.

Yes, Wandy Rodriguez for 2009. (He came up earlier in the Mets comment in the Pelfrey discussion.)

You're right, sgturner. Garcia does not qualify. There has been confusion about his exact service-time figure for about a year now. Thanks for the heads-up!

Good point on the salaries for all three. They're not going to blow a hole in the budget, even for a club with a modest payroll. Young and LaRoche make for nice hedges against any bumps in the road that might arise with Pedro Alvarez and Neil Walker. But that might be said of most any replacement-level/utility type fresh from Triple-A.

Given age and talent, Milledge probably will return. Some potential is still there, obviously. He was something of a project when Pittsburgh acquired him, and it might be short-sighted to bail on him now. And he's probably not in line for much more than $1 million. However, this is the season he begins to get expensive, and it's not clear the production will be there to justify the cost. If Doumit and his guaranteed deal are part of the outfield mix, it's suddenly more crowded out there. And Tabata and McCutchen aren't going anywhere. Will Milledge realize his potential if he can't get regular playing time? Do you want a reserve outfielder with issues on the bases and in the outfield? At 25, he already has been traded twice. So a trade or non-tender wouldn't shock me.

I think both Hardy and Capps fit into the category of players who deserve an offer to return, but at or near the Twins' number. Hardy's defense alone might be enough for the Twins to consider a two-year contract - on their terms. But I don't see him getting a top-of-the-market deal from Minnesota. Capps serves as a nice hedge against Nathan's health and the potential departures of Rauch and Fuentes. Anything north of $5 million might make Capps a luxury the Twins can't afford.

If the two sides settle before hearing, they're free to work out any sort of agreement they like - guaranteed, non-guaranteed or a split contract paying one salary in the majors and a lesser amount in the minors.

Both the player and club are free to use any stats they can sell to the arbitration panel. So it's highly selective, with both sides using any number that makes their argument look persuasive. UZR or WARP might bolster your case, but you run the risk of having to explain them. And, as the saying goes, if you're explaining, you're losing.

An agent would argue he's simply trying to get the best deal for his client. And a player has to trust that his agent is doing all he can to represent his interests and not tying him to another client. That said, certain clubs work well with certain agents - and not so well with others. But you'd probably be hard-pressed to find anyone admitting to a quid pro quo.

Penalties have not been made public, but I'd imagine they'll start with a warning, then a slap on the wrist, then become more severe from there, depending on how blatant the violation is. The idea seems to be to prevent one club effectively put a ceiling on a free agent's value by allowing its best offer to become public, which could serve as a signal to other clubs to keep their offers in the same neighborhood. Agents have voiced concerns about that happening with veterans looking for one-year deals in the $1 million range or minor-league deals with spring training invitations.

I'm guessing an extension gets done relatively quietly and smoothly this off-season, even if Jeter goes through the motions of filing for free agency. His situation has much more in common with the 2008-09 Andy Pettitte contract talks (which resulted in an incentive-laden deal) than the circus and brinksmanship that surrounded ARod's 2007 opt-out. My guess is the Yankees overpay -- two years at $14 million per - slotting him in between Rivera at $15 and Posada at $13.1. But it wouldn't surprise me if he goes year-to-year, like Pettitte. As for ownership, even a 1% stake is worth something on the order of $16 million, if Forbes' valuation is in the ballpark. So that would surprise me.

Yes, a waiving team can pull the player back from trade waivers if it doesn't like the offer of the claiming club with priority. But a player claimed on outright waivers automatically goes to the claiming club. Just this week, two players went to new teams on outright waiver claims: Cleveland lost Wes Hodges to Colorado and Detroit lost Jeff Larish to Oakland.

An award - or votes for an award - always helps. There's no hard and fast scale, but any accomplishment that distinguishes a player from others in his service-time class gives him additional leverage in negotiations or in front of an arbitration panel. But more important than wrangling a spot as an All-Star reserve is putting up strong, productive numbers over the course of a full season.

Again, it depends on the calendar. An outright waiver is valid for only 7 days in the off-season and during the first 30 days of the season. An outright waiver secured after the 30th day of the season is valid through July 31. An outright waiver secured after July 31 is valid through the end of the season. To use Chad Moeller as an example again, he was DFA'd and outrighted twice in 2008 - once in April and again in July. Each time, he cleared and was sent outright to AAA. However, after being outrighted once in his career, a player has the right to reject a second outright assignment and elect free agency immediately or after the season. (LA's June outright of Haeger was his second, but he accepted the assignment.)

Any club may claim on a player. If multiple teams make a claim, priority depends on the type of waiver and the calendar. For a player on release, option or outright waivers, priority goes to the team with the lowest winning percentage, regardless of league. (In the off-season and the first 30 days of the season, won-lost records from the previous season are used. After that, records from the current season are used.) But for trade waivers, priority goes to the team with the lowest winning percentage within the same league. So American League clubs have priority for AL players, and National League clubs have priority for NL players.

Once added to the 40-man roster, a player has 3 option seasons during which his club may to move him to and from the minors without exposing him to other clubs. During an option season, there's no limit to the number a times the club may move the player up and down. After the 3 options are used, the player is out of options. Beginning with the next season, he must clear waivers before he may be sent to the minors again. Also, a player with 5 years in the majors must consent to be sent down on an optional assignment. A player may get a 4th option season if he has been optioned in 3 seasons but does not yet have 5 full seasons of professional experience.(A full season is 90 days on an active pro roster.)

Philadelphia simply could have pulled Mathieson back & made another move or gone with 24 players for a day or two. Also, there is something of a gentlemen's agreement not to make optional waiver claims. I'm not aware of even one example of a claim being made - probably because the corresponding move usually involves a bench player or the 10th or 12th man on the pitching staff. A "blocking" claim is more likely when a club in the race is trying to acquire a difference-maker in August. But that's a risky strategy because of the chance the claiming team actually gets the player and his contract. The Padres learned that lesson in 1998, when they claimed Toronto's Randy Myers on trade waivers to prevent him from going to Atlanta. The Jays simply let Myers go to San Diego, making the Padres the proud owners of a $13 million reliever they hadn't really wanted.

The rule change applied to players already in a club's system. It resulted in another year of protection for a number of players who would have been eligible for the December 2006 Rule 5 draft.

Ah, yes. That's right. But new Yankee Stadium was well on the way.

I don't have concrete details on any pressure from the union forcing Wakefield and the Red Sox to drop the perpetual option. My sense was that his October back surgery was the primary motivation for the change. The $4M was obviously below market and the recurring option was unique, to put it nicely. But the MLBPA approved it, and Weiner certainly had stature within the union leadership at the time to at least raise an objection. Wakefield's age, tenure in the majors and time as a union player rep probably helped as well. That said, union approval might not have been forthcoming had Wakefield signed the same deal with, say, the Marlins.

Fair points all, Peter. I'd peg the Nationals' likely savings at $12 mil. But, at least in theory, the difference could be more if Strasburg qualified as a Super Two, filed for 8 figures and won, then proceeded to go year-to-year. In that sense, Lincecum was conservative in settling after filing for $13 last February. But, as you suggest, a decision with 8-figure implications is not insignificant, whether it turns out to be $10 million something much more.

Like most every other union, the players' association is committed to the concept of seniority. Players earn additional rights and benefits (pensions being the most prominent example) based on years and days in the majors, regardless of age. Setting a new age-based milepost would upset that framework, even if all sides could agree on a specific age. Unless someone finds a magical way to legislate away the chance a team manipulates the rules, each front office will have the right to promote players when it sees fit.

The low point for the cutoff was 2 years, 128 days in 1991. The cutoff was 2 years, 139 days last off-season and has been 2 years, 140 days in four of the last seven years. So the cutoff seems to have settled into a fairly predictable range. My sense is that it's not so much that clubs are changing their behavior as the process has become more public. Also, for every club that might decide to hold a player down, there's a club forced to make an early decision because of injury or need. The best laid plans ...

Yes, a player promoted in September earns service time. Posey's 2009 September call-up got him 33 days, for example. But September service does not affect a player's status as a rookie the following season. A player is no longer a rookie if he has 1) more than 130 ABs or 50 IP in the majors or 2) more than 45 days on an active roster in April through August. Posey had 17 ABs with the Giants in '09, so he'll still be a rookie when he gets to San Francisco.

You're right. Victorino had not been outrighted previously, so he did not have the right to become a free agent when the Phils offered him back to the Dodgers in 2005. To be fair to LA, any other club could have claimed Victorino on waivers before he was offered back to the Dodgers - either in 2003 or 2005.

"Rule 5" is one of the Major League Rules, an agreement among the clubs governing transactions between teams, drafts, post-season play, territorial rights and various other issues. For whatever reason, MLB tends to guard the ML Rules like a state secret, and I don't believe they're available to the public. But the 90-day requirement has come up in the reporting on a few players. I seem to vaguely recall seeing it when Josh Hamilton was selected.

Fontenot and Jones earned full seasons of major league service in 2008, but Owings earned only 139 days. So Owings is out. Fontenot earned 131 days in 2007, while Jones earned only 59 days. So Fontenot won the tie-breaker based on 2007. A player on the Major League disabled list does continue to earn service time, but Owings actually was optioned to the minors July 29 of 2008. So that's what cost him.

Beltre can exercise his 2011 option for $5 million (or up to $10 million, depending on his 2010 performance). Or he can choose to decline his option, take the $1 million buyout from Boston and file for free agency for 2011.

Wells actual 2012-14 salaries are $21 million. The $24.6 million figure represents his salary plus a pro-rated share of his signing bonus. Sorry for the confusion. He is Toronto's only player signed beyond 2011.

The tiebreaker is service time in the immediately preceding season. Both Jones and Cincinnati's Micah Owings lost out to Mike Fontenot of the Cubs. Each players had 2 years, 139 days of career service time, but only one spot was available.

Generally, no, amateur signing bonuses are not included. The Opening Day figure is for the 25-man roster at the start of the season. The year-end figure is for the 40-man roster and includes annual salary, a pro-rated share of any signing bonus, earned performance or award bonuses and buyouts of unexercised options. But a player like Alvarez with a Major League contract is included in the year-end figure because he's on the 40-man.

The reference is only to underscore the fact that the Cardinals' resources are finite. Any money spent on Pujols is money the club can't spend elsewhere. That's not to say he's not worth it, but at 20-25 percent of total payroll, it's an issue.

The exact figure for the present value is $113,580,723, according to the MLBPA's calculation, which discounts for the deferred money. Not sure of the interest rate used.

One year is defined as 172 calendar days on the active 25-man roster or Major League disabled list.

Gooden earned near minimum as a rookie, then $325,000 with $150,000 in bonuses for 1985, which was just short of a record for a second-year player. After his monster '85 season, he filed for arbitration, asking for $1.5 million, with the Mets offering $1.1. He settled before hearing at $1.32 million deal for 1986, which made him the fifth-highest paid starting pitcher. He also settled after the 1986 season, though some of his legal and off-field issues influenced that decision.

Hi, Will! Yes, a player may be traded after an arbitration decision. But salaries in arbitration are not guaranteed, so in theory a club could cut the player in spring training and pay a sixth or a fourth of the salary, depending on the date he's released. But he may not be cut because of his salary - only for lack of performance.

Players generally are compared to others at their position, but there is no rule preventing either side from pointing to a player with similar stats at another position. The three-person panel of arbitrators are provided official salary surveys which break down salaries by position and ML service. So obviously any comparison should have some grounding in those numbers. The "special accomplishment" rule gives Lincecum's side more leeway, but the panel still has to be convinced that the comparison is appropriate.

I expect to have a listing for current free agents to account for players who are not on 40-man rosters at the moment. There are pages for both free agent pitchers and position players now at Cot's, and I've kept them up year-round to account for players like Ben Sheets who sit out a year.

I believe an annual team-by-team archive is a possibility eventually, at least for 2000 to present.

Not sure about this one. But between researchers and fantasy leagues, I know there is a demand for it. So it's something I'm sure we'll consider.

Having next to no technical expertise, I'm following the lead of Kevin and the database experts on the integration and timetable. The basic format will be retained - team-by-team, with years, value and other details - but without the archaic 2004 feel you see over at Cot's now. My sense is that the information also will be incorporated into other existing features, such as statistics or player cards. The ability to sort and search will be a much-needed improvement, as will an archive to preserve contract details for former players like Randy Johnson. Thanks to everyone for the kind words.

I’d just like to thank all the readers and everyone at BP, especially Christina, Kevin, Will and Dave. I look forward to watching the contest play out. All the best to the remaining eight!

Contract details would be a great addition.