Posting System Question

[yamminonemo6]

The deadline for the Rangers to sign Darvish is 4 PM today. If they can't reach an agreement, the posting fee is not paid to his Japanese team.

Do the Rangers have to deal with any type of penalty for not signing him? I ask this because I wonder what would hold a team back from bidding an exorbitant amount for a posting fee, and then low-ball the contract offer knowing that he won't sign.

A team could do this to make sure their competition isn't able to sign him.

I'm sure there is something to stop this, but what is it? Once a team wins a bid, can no other team get a chance to negotiate if the winner's negotiation falls through?

Thanks.

[Can_of_corn]

The deadline for the Rangers to sign Darvish is 4 PM today. If they can't reach an agreement, the posting fee is not paid to his Japanese team.

Do the Rangers have to deal with any type of penalty for not signing him? I ask this because I wonder what would hold a team back from bidding an exorbitant amount for a posting fee, and then low-ball the contract offer knowing that he won't sign.

A team could do this to make sure their competition isn't able to sign him.

I'm sure there is something to stop this, but what is it? Once a team wins a bid, can no other team get a chance to negotiate if the winner's negotiation falls through?

Thanks.

There is no penalty but I imagine things would not go well for a team that did not negotiate in good faith.

[PaulFolk]

There's no penalty that I know of. The reason teams don't purposely game the posting system to block other teams is, well, because it's a jerk move. They would find it difficult to deal with other teams after pulling a stunt like that.

No other team gets a chance to negotiate with a player if the winning team doesn't sign him. The player goes back to Japan for at least one more season.

[yamminonemo6]

There's no penalty that I know of. The reason teams don't purposely game the posting system to block other teams is, well, because it's a jerk move. They would find it difficult to deal with other teams after pulling a stunt like that.

No other team gets a chance to negotiate with a player if the winning team doesn't sign him. The player goes back to Japan for at least one more season.

I understand that it would be "bush league" to pull a stunt like this.

But it'd be somewhat difficult to prove a team's true intentions. How can anyone be sure that the Rangers aren't doing this exact thing?

This is just another reason why the posting system is flawed.

[Can_of_corn]

I understand that it would be "bush league" to pull a stunt like this.

But it'd be somewhat difficult to prove a team's true intentions. How can anyone be sure that the Rangers aren't doing this exact thing?

This is just another reason why the posting system is flawed.

Why would the Rangers, a team that has been to the last two World Series, who recently signed a large cable deal, saw a division rival strength themselves, and who lost a starting pitcher to free agency not be negotiating in good faith with Darvish?

[PaulFolk]

I understand that it would be "bush league" to pull a stunt like this.

But it'd be somewhat difficult to prove a team's true intentions. How can anyone be sure that the Rangers aren't doing this exact thing?

This is just another reason why the posting system is flawed.

I guess in some cases you can't prove it, but certainly this isn't one of those cases. The Rangers desperately need to make a big splash after the Angels' mega-signings, and they certainly have the money to afford Darvish. I'd be shocked if the only reason the Rangers bid on him was to block him from other teams.

[yamminonemo6]

Why would the Rangers, a team that has been to the last two World Series, who recently signed a large cable deal, saw a division rival strength themselves, and who lost a starting pitcher to free agency not be negotiating in good faith with Darvish?

I never said they weren't and I'm not just targeting this instance. But it's hard to prove that a team wouldn't be.

And what would you say is "good faith." A team could win the posting with a fair bid, but refuse to pay a certain contract. That's their choice and right to do so. But the one failure shouldn't mean failure for the rest of the league.

[Can_of_corn]

I never said they weren't and I'm not just targeting this instance. But it's hard to prove that a team wouldn't be.

And what would you say is "good faith." A team could win the posting with a fair bid, but refuse to pay a certain contract. That's their choice and right to do so. But the one failure shouldn't mean failure for the rest of the league.

I have come to the conclusion that you are not actually interested in a discussion and your initial question was in fact a statement of what you perceive to be fact.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I would imagine an anti-trust suit or something of that nature would arise if this were to happen.

But that's just my opinion.

[yamminonemo6]

I have come to the conclusion that you are not actually interested in a discussion and your initial question was in fact a statement of what you perceive to be fact.

Actually, my questions were were all answered. I wasn't looking to start a discussion about the Rangers.

Do the Rangers have to deal with any type of penalty for not signing him? I ask this because I wonder what would hold a team back from bidding an exorbitant amount for a posting fee, and then low-ball the contract offer knowing that he won't sign.

Q1: I'm sure there is something to stop this, but what is it?

A1: There is no penalty but I imagine things would not go well for a team that did not negotiate in good faith.

Q2: Once a team wins a bid, can no other team get a chance to negotiate if the winner's negotiation falls through?

A2: There's no penalty that I know of.

I never asked if anyone thought the Rangers were doing something wrong. I said that I thought they were either.

[Frobby]

I would imagine an anti-trust suit or something of that nature would arise if this were to happen.

But that's just my opinion.

Have you read Flood v. Kuhn? I doubt anyone is going to test the prior rulings that baseball is exempt from the antitrust laws, even though those rulings make no sense.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Have you read Flood v. Kuhn? I doubt anyone is going to test the prior rulings that baseball is exempt from the antitrust laws, even though those rulings make no sense.

No I have not. I'll check it out. Does that only apply to Major League Baseball I assume. Maybe an astute anti-trust attorney could find a loophole since there is a japanese team involved in the proceedings....

[sangar]

I've read that the NPB team posting the player does not know which teams placed which bids. I've also read that the NPB team has no obligation to accept the highest bid as a protection against teams who do not bargain in good faith. What possible reason would a team have for rejecting the highest bid if they don't know which team placed it? These two points seem mutually exclusive so I'm inclined to believe the former is inaccurate.

[square634]

I've read that the NPB team posting the player does not know which teams placed which bids. I've also read that the NPB team has no obligation to accept the highest bid as a protection against teams who do not bargain in good faith. What possible reason would a team have for rejecting the highest bid if they don't know which team placed it? These two points seem mutually exclusive so I'm inclined to believe the former is inaccurate.

Based on my understanding, I would say that both points are inaccurate on technicalities.

For the first point, the Japanese team only receives one single number -- the highest bid. They don't know which team made the bid, or how many other teams bid.

As for the second point, while the Japanese team is under no obligation to accept the highest bid, they don't have a choice of bids, so it is not a protection against teams that do not bargain in good faith. They can either accept the highest bid or take the player back.

[mikegallo]

I really think the posting system is something that can really help this team if they would embrace it...

1. It takes away are most distinct problem in getting players in that all we have to do is bid more than anyone else and we are the only game in town and they most likely would not forgo signing with our team because we stink like every other free agent.

2. The bids can be paid for with some type of creative fiancing through a loan of some sort...We could get the guy we want without paying however much the bid is up front...Some type of longterm loan of some sort could really make premium FA's cheap in the short term and pay hugely (contention anyone?)....I just think if we could get a little creative we can turn this system into a huge boon for our confederate dollar dishing franchise.