+ Reply to Thread
Results 16 to 28 of 28
09-18-2008 11:15 AM #16
09-18-2008 11:26 AM #17
Last edited by geschinger; 09-18-2008 at 11:28 AM.
09-18-2008 02:30 PM #18
KG explains it better than I do:
Two key points to the union's argument could be:
1. We've Been Here Before, And To No Avail. Because we have been. On multiple occasions, MLB has been brought in front of an arbitrator due to the draft. Time and time again, the arbitrator has ruled in favor of the union, and at the same time has provided little or no real remedy to the situation, other than repeated stern warnings to not do it again. Yet, they did do it again, and the union will argue that the teams, in conjunction with MLB, decided to go this extension route with full knowledge that they were in violation of the CBA, and that they didn't care, as the arbitrator's response to such action in the past has been little more than a slap on the wrist. In other words, the crime was pre-meditated because when weighed against the expected punishment, it would be well worth it. One goal here is to anger the arbitrator, and to show that MLB has no respect for his judgment or for the process—and as anyone who has been through a legal proceeding knows, you do not want to be on the wrong side of a judge who feels that she or he is not receiving proper respect.
2. The Concept Of 'Best Interests Of All Parties' Is A Farce. MLB has all but admitted to providing extensions in this year's draft, but they have argued that doing so was in the best interest of both sides. On the surface that makes sense: it's good for the team to sign their draft picks, it's good for the player to get his career going, and it's good for MLB to add more talent to the pool. However, the union will argue that there are a pair of key issues in the granting of an extension that proves that such an action was not in the best interest of the union.
If MLB was so convinced that granting extensions was an innocent act in the best interests of all parties, why did they at no time call the MLBPA and inform them of the decision? If it was such a no-brainer, the union would have surely agreed to it, correct? Wrong, as the union understands that extensions add imbalance to negotiations once the deadline becomes a moving target with only one side having real knowledge of when that new deadline expires, and only one side having the ability to get such extensions in the first place.
The second that the extensions were granted, MLB took the right of representation away from the players. Agents are not part of the union, but they are certified by them, and that certification requires agents to follow the rules of collective bargaining in their dealings with a team. That means that technically they could not negotiate on behalf of their clients after midnight without breaking their own rules. Now what happened between the Pirates, Boras ,and Alvarez, only those three parties truly know, but the union has a pretty compelling case on this issue, and there is little argument that Pedro Alvarez agreed to the deal, and that the Pirates were no longer talking to Boras (who was with Alvarez in his California office) when the deal was agreed upon.
Another open question involves the connectedness of other players, primarily number three overall pick Eric Hosmer. Stories here differ, as some believe that the union will claim that Hosmer agreed to terms before the deadline, but that the deal was not communicated until after the deadline, while other versions of Hosmer's night point to him signing well after the deadline. MLB will stick to that side of the story in order to provide the linkage. While Alvarez has been placed on the restricted list, Hosmer's status within MLB's eBIS information system is "pending active," which is normally reserved for players who have agreed to terms but have not had their contract approved by the commissioner's office.
09-18-2008 04:15 PM #19
If the arbitrator does rule against MLB and applies sanctions it'll be fun to see how he tries to dance around the Hosmer situation. It seems to me whether or not Hosmer's deal was agreed to before the deadline should not be a factor in the decision since the rules state that the commisioners office has to be notified of a deal before midnight. Giving an extension on the negotiation or giving an extension on the communication of an agreement are both either a change of the rules that required negotations or they aren't. It's illogical IMO to claim one is and one isn't.
09-22-2008 08:28 AM #20
Pirates and Alvarez Reach a Deal
According to Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus:
"In case you missed it, the Pirates and Pedro Alvarez have reached a deal tonight, one that pays him $6.355 million and makes him the highest paid player in the 2008 draft. So a little more money, and this time it’s a major league deal. The grievance hearing will likely be dropped with this development, and we’ll have a post-mortem this week. "
09-22-2008 08:38 AM #21
09-22-2008 09:02 AM #22
09-22-2008 10:06 AM #23
09-22-2008 10:09 AM #24
If he didn't sign, there would have at least been a chance that he fell to the O's.
Also, sitting at 6 or 7 wouldn't be so bad with Crow, Alvarez and Hosmer adding to the already nice talent pool at the top of the draft.
09-22-2008 10:51 AM #25
What a terrible outcome
I'm disappointed in the Pirates and MLB... What a ridiculous outcome. Avoid determining whether or not the CBA was violated by violating the CBA in a way that Boras and the Players Association is willing to accept.
09-22-2008 10:56 AM #26Plus Member Hall of Fame
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
- New Jersey
It also goes to show, as much as people want a hard slot, not just how much leverage the players have, but, more important, how much these prospects are really worth to the teams involved.
09-22-2008 11:38 AM #27
09-22-2008 11:39 AM #28