Brewers can still do that, unless the contract they signed with Gamel that included that option says differently. Eric Thames had such a provision in his contract, he was at 4 years service time when the option was declined last year, or would've been at 5 if he had been kept on, but Brewers couldn't have offered him arbitration. If I remember right, when they signed Thames, he had something in his contract that specifically said the Brewers wouldn't be able to offer him arby if his option wasn't executed. I believe that if they do not execute Gamel's option, they could offer him arby. If MLBtraderumors is accurate, then that may be the way the Brewers go. I believe Thames contract was similar to a Japanese player and the reason that clause existed was mostly so he could hit FA after the contract was over. The way it was set up I think we could have controlled him at least another year (maybe two) even had we picked up all the options. Thames didn't want to be controlled 6 years. I actually thought (at least at one point) such clauses in the contract didn't actually exist because they weren't technically allowed. I thought it was just a gentlemen's agreement between the two parties that arbitration wouldn't be offered.