that implies he’s got a valid point. The CBA states that the club declining to offer arbitration loses all rights to compensation of said player.

I know that the statement doesn’t prove anything but common sense would lead one to believe that the Giants are still eligible to go after rated FA’s as the typeA/B ranking would go out the window. It is meant only to be a protection for the “former Club” and if they decline that protection the Type A/B designation is no longer relevant in FA dealings.

What I originally meant is that, at least if you take “electing free agency” literally, only the signing of players who became free agents by declining arbitration (thereby “electing free agency”) is limited.

But, now I remember that even players who weren’t offered arbitration still have to file for free agency, which is also a way of electing it, so they’re not really different from those who declined arbitration.

It does, however, explain why player who were non-tendered don’t count – they’re the ones who really didn’t get to choose.

first of all the wording of the cba leads me to believe that all free agents are counted, not just type A/Bs. It says “the number of signings permiited shall be related to the number of players electing free agency.” the ‘such players’ in the section you quoted is referring to the sentence from the cba i just quoted.

also i’m not sure how you came up with the ranges for 4 and 5 type A/Bs per team. the only thing i can find in the cba is that it says that if there are more than 62 free agents the club quotas shall be increased accordingly.

i count around 182 free agents according to mlbtraderumors.com. if thats the case than it seems quite possible to me that they just lift the limit since that number is so much larger than the 62 they talk about in the cba

Uttered by Donald Sutherland , ah dew buhleeve.
I may not have quoted precisely , but that’s the gist.