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

[OsHon]

Nats are holding out to see if anyone is willing to give him a three year deal and also give up a pick. Nats have all the leverage because so far nobody is willing to do either. I see a deal getting done for two years with an option and Morse traded to Orioles for Patton.

[BrunoCherrytown]

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

Hypothetical here...

Purely FantasyLand Assumptions:

1.) O's think the draft is weak in the first round and definitely at their spot.

2.) O's think there are some big impact overslots to be had later that normally would go to school.

3.) O's think they can draft a heavily underslot 1st rounder and save the cap space for later for one of their overslot targets.

4.) O's like LaRoche alot and the contract/years/money isn't a sticking point.

5.) LaRoche would sign with the O's.

So...

O's trade Patton to the Indians and receive LaRoche in a sign and trade back.

I'm not sure if the Indians are in need of relievers. Losing Patton is a tough hit, but we have a surplus of relievers. And if Patton would be the price for one year of Morse let's say, is it such a hit anyways? Of course if one-year of Morse = $13 million qualifying offer to net a 1st round comp pick = different story. But that's probably a longshot.

Would this be a reasonable deal under this loophole? I'm not a LaRoche fan, but it seems to me that he'd have the higher likelihood of being a better fielder at first than Davis. So we'd keep Davis and his power at DH. LaRoche, solid defender and hitter at first (hopefully stays healthy). His contract is not some budget buster although it's probably not ideal given his age. But at this point, options are getting slim on the FA market. And our pitchers, due to their "potential" and not "actual" value seem to be not bringing in the offers the F.O. would like yet. So we'd get to keep all of them, we keep our draft pick, minimal damage on the trade. Seems like an overall win.

[Mayor McCheese]

Per MLBTR:

WEDNESDAY: MLBTR's Tim Dierkes says (on Twitter) teams would not be permitted to make sign-and-trade deals to avoid the draft pick compensation rules. MLB would view it as collusion.

Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/#tiHfKV8PAGh8Yvrp.99

[Can_of_corn]

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.

You are obviously not an owner and it is exactly in the spirit of the CBA.

[Can_of_corn]

Per MLBTR:

Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/#tiHfKV8PAGh8Yvrp.99

Completely expected.

[wildcard]

Per MLBTR:

Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/#tiHfKV8PAGh8Yvrp.99

I'll need to read more than Dierkes opinion. He runs a nice websites but his opinion without backup is no better than mine.

[Number5]

I suppose that the commissioner could rule on the trade part alone as being one-sided and collusive. (In other words LaRoche, or whoever the signed player may be, is ruled to be worth more than a 1-S pick or Patton or whatever player is given up in the trade. As to the signing and compensation portion, it would be within the CBA and do harm to no one. In that event, the signing and compensation pick would stand, but the trade could be voided. Cleveland, in this example, would have to keep LaRoche and pay him. There would be no basis to harm the player by voiding the signing.

[Number5]

Per MLBTR:

Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/#tiHfKV8PAGh8Yvrp.99

Olney comments in disagreement with Dierkes on SAME LINK.

Buster Olney ‏@Buster_ESPN

@timdierkes It wasn't collusion in this case;it had approval of MLB/PA. Which is what some teams/agents are exploring. http://arizona.diamondbacks.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090216&content_id=3837264&vkey=news_ari&fext=.jsp&c_id=ari …

[Number5]

You are obviously not an owner and it is exactly in the spirit of the CBA.

No, neither of us are, and no, it isn't.

[Can_of_corn]

No, neither of us are, and no, it isn't.

Part of the idea behind compensation for free agents is to give the team the player was most recently under contract to an advantage in resigning them. This scheme undermines that.

You view is pretty clearly pro-player which is what I meant when I said you are not an owner.

[Can_of_corn]

Olney comments in disagreement with Dierkes on SAME LINK.

Buster Olney ‏@Buster_ESPN

@timdierkes It wasn't collusion in this case;it had approval of MLB/PA. Which is what some teams/agents are exploring. http://arizona.diamondbacks.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090216&content_id=3837264&vkey=news_ari&fext=.jsp&c_id=ari …

And this is not relevant to the situation in Washington where the team wants to retain the services of the player in question.

[Number5]

I guess the question is, would Selig rule that trading a recently signed qualified free agent for a value between a first round pick and a third round pick is more one-sided or collusive than a trade such as the one Miami and Toronto completed earlier in the off-season? Interesting. I think he would face some serious questions and have a real challenge backing up such a decision.

I think the greater question is whether or not teams kind actually find a trade that works. Baltimore is in a pretty unique position, in that they happen to own a rare, trade-able draft pick that happens to have a value between the two picks involved. Otherwise, it would be challenging to find a player or prospect that both teams would agree fall in that range. The whole point may be moot, as the Orioles may have no greater desire to lose the 1-S pick than the 1.24 pick.

[Number5]

Part of the idea behind compensation for free agents is to give the team the player was most recently under contract to an advantage in resigning them. This scheme undermines that.

You view is pretty clearly pro-player which is what I meant when I said you are not an owner.

The Nationals would still have the advantage you talk about under the CBA. All they would need to do is match the offer. LaRoche might even take less from the Nationals. The purpose of the CBA is NOT to unfairly bind a player to a team. Quite the contrary. The only transaction that the Commissioner could rule on is the trade, not the signing, as Washington would receive the compensation due them.

[DrungoHazewood]

I'll need to read more than Dierkes opinion. He runs a nice websites but his opinion without backup is no better than mine.

Well, except that your idea basically is an end-run around the recently negotiated CBA, which anyone would expect to be viewed extremely harshly by the powers-that-be. It's totally expected that MLB would veto that kind of thing, and that no team would try it.

[Can_of_corn]

The Nationals would still have the advantage you talk about under the CBA. All they would need to do is match the offer. LaRoche might even take less from the Nationals. The purpose of the CBA is NOT to unfairly bind a player to a team. Quite the contrary. The only transaction that the Commissioner could rule on is the trade, not the signing, as Washington would receive the compensation due them.

Like I said before, you are obviously strongly pro-player.

The Nationals, under the CBA have an advantage in retaining the services of LaRoche, it is not a matter of "unfairly binding him". Another team wishing to retain his services must surrender a draft pick to do so. For a third team to become involved and artificially lower the cost to the signing team is clearly not within the spirit of the CBA.

The Commissioner can also rule on the signing or the trade since his powers under the "best interest of the game" umbrella are exceedingly far reaching.