Can you see DD jumping through a loophole to get LaRoche (Signs two year with Nats)

[weams]

I'm not so sure that this "sign and trade" idea is really all that practical. Cleveland, for example, would have no reason to do it, unless they received a player or prospect in the trade that is a greater value than the early 3rd round pick the would give up. The other team in the trade, say the Orioles, would have no reason to do it unless the player or prospect they give up in the trade has less value than the first round pick they would give up if they were to simply sign the free agent. That is a pretty small value window that the traded player or prospect would have to fit into. In the Orioles' case this particular year, they do happen to own a 1st round supplemental pick that can be traded and would fit into that window. This is a rare situation, as draft picks are normally not eligible to be traded. In this rare case, I can see the possibility of the Orioles considering such an arrangement with Cleveland to give up the 1-S pick rather than pick 1.24, but otherwise it just seems to me that there just aren't that many players or prospects that both teams would agree fit into that window.

Has this ever happened before? Would Bud allow it in that it circumvents his new rules?

[Number5]

Has this ever happened before? Would Bud allow it in that it circumvents his new rules?

No idea what Selig may do, but the article linked in the OP indicates that it has been discussed by teams. Seems like the team losing the free agent still gets the same compensation, and both teams involved in the trade come out ahead. The player is helped, in that his getting a favorable contract is facilitated, whereas otherwise the team that wants him may decide they don't want the reduction in draft pool money and choose not to sign him. No real loser here, so I'm not sure what the grounds would be for disallowing it.

[JimDH]

It seems like it was a calculated mistake to let Reynolds get away. Now they should correct that mistake even it means spending more then they could have spent on Reynolds.

[weams]

No idea what Selig may do, but the article linked in the OP indicates that it has been discussed by teams. Seems like the team losing the free agent still gets the same compensation, and both teams involved in the trade come out ahead. The player is helped, in that his getting a favorable contract is facilitated, whereas otherwise the team that wants him may decide they don't want the reduction in draft pool money and choose not to sign him. No real loser here, so I'm not sure what the grounds would be for disallowing it.

Very Interesting. I look forward to seeing how it all goes down the first time it happens.

[Can_of_corn]

No idea what Selig may do, but the article linked in the OP indicates that it has been discussed by teams. Seems like the team losing the free agent still gets the same compensation, and both teams involved in the trade come out ahead. The player is helped, in that his getting a favorable contract is facilitated, whereas otherwise the team that wants him may decide they don't want the reduction in draft pool money and choose not to sign him. No real loser here, so I'm not sure what the grounds would be for disallowing it.

Very Interesting. I look forward to seeing how it all goes down the first time it happens.

Best interest of the game.

You can't trade draft picks (mostly) and you can't flaunt the new CBA.

[Number5]

Best interest of the game.

You can't trade draft picks (mostly) and you can't flaunt the new CBA.

I'm not so sure. If all 3 teams involved are not hurt and the player is not hurt, who is going to argue that it is not within the CBA? In fact, since disallowing it would likely harm the player, I would guess the players agent and the union would fight any such decision. No?

[weams]

I'm not so sure. If all 3 teams involved are not hurt and the player is not hurt, who is going to argue that it is not within the CBA? In fact, since disallowing it would likely harm the player, I would guess the players agent and the union would fight any such decision. No?

I am not a lawyer. Have no idea. Not even the jailhouse kind.

[Loophole]

I'd prefer it if he didn't.

[wildcard]

The player is in control here. He has the right to reject a sign and trade. If both teams and the player agree to the move I don't know why Selig would have a problem with it. It is within the rules of the new CBA.

[waroriole]

I'm not so sure. If all 3 teams involved are not hurt and the player is not hurt, who is going to argue that it is not within the CBA? In fact, since disallowing it would likely harm the player, I would guess the players agent and the union would fight any such decision. No?

Charlie Finkey couldn't sell players to the MFY. Commissioner at the time invoked best interests of the game, which is a broad power. If Bud wanted to stop it, and I bet he would, he'd have no problem doing so.

[Can_of_corn]

No idea what Selig may do, but the article linked in the OP indicates that it has been discussed by teams. Seems like the team losing the free agent still gets the same compensation, and both teams involved in the trade come out ahead. The player is helped, in that his getting a favorable contract is facilitated, whereas otherwise the team that wants him may decide they don't want the reduction in draft pool money and choose not to sign him. No real loser here, so I'm not sure what the grounds would be for disallowing it.

How are the Nats not the loser here? By all accounts they are interested in retaining LaRoche. Right now a signing team has to give up a first round pick to sign him, if this turns into talent equivalent to a 3rd round pick then the Nats' leverage with LaRoche is diminished.

[wildcard]

How are the Nats not the loser here? By all accounts they are interested in retaining LaRoche. Right now a signing team has to give up a first round pick to sign him, if this turns into talent equivalent to a 3rd round pick then the Nats' leverage with LaRoche is diminished.

True but across MLB the impact of the decrease in the draft pool when a player that was offered a qualifying offer is signed seems much great then anticipated. That could cause a correction in the policy.

[Can_of_corn]

True but across MLB the impact of the decrease in the draft pool when a player that was offered a qualifying offer is signed seems much great then anticipated. That could cause a correction in the policy.

Which will be addressed in the next CBA.

[harp6]

The player is in control here. He has the right to reject a sign and trade. If both teams and the player agree to the move I don't know why Selig would have a problem with it. It is within the rules of the new CBA.

Because it is Selig.

[Number5]

How are the Nats not the loser here? By all accounts they are interested in retaining LaRoche. Right now a signing team has to give up a first round pick to sign him, if this turns into talent equivalent to a 3rd round pick then the Nats' leverage with LaRoche is diminished.

Regardless of what pick the signing team gives up, the Nationals would receive the exact same compensatory pick. They would have no basis for a complaint. Your argument that the Nats would lose their ability to artificially hold down LaRoche's ability to negotiate his best deal on the open market is not one that would hold up as being in the best interest of baseball or within the spirit of the CBA.