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

[Roll Tide]

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

MLB would view it as collusion.

[Roll Tide]

FROM ESPN

It's not as if LaRoche has zero leverage, though, as the Baltimore Orioles are legitimately interested in him -- and may be willing to give him the three-year contract he covets.

Interesting .... Doubt it happens though.

[DrungoHazewood]

FROM ESPN

Interesting .... Doubt it happens though.

Let's hope it doesn't. What a ridiculous thought, giving the guy coming off a massive career year at 32 a 3-year deal when they couldn't spring for a one-year deal at 1/3rd or less the cost for Reynolds. You can guarantee LaRoche will want to be paid like he's going to continue to have career years at 33, 34, and 35. You can probably count the historical examples of first basemen who peaked in their mid 30s on one hand.

[Number5]

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.

No.

Washington's advantage is that they give up no draft pick to sign him AND that they receive an additional pick if someone else does. Nothing more. If they are unwilling to pay fair market for the player, they get the compensation. To make it that they can force the player to be unable to sign with another team that is offering more is patently unfair and clearly well beyond the scope of the CBA.

If the Commissioner were to step in and void a player's signing, thereby causing him harm, he would be clearly exceeding his powers. The player, agent, and union would clearly have a case against the Commissioner and the League. Again, he might rule that the trade could be voided, but not the signing. That is obvious. Simply no legitimate reason to void a legal signing made under the CBA. None. He would, if he were to void the trade, need to clearly show that this trade would be more detrimental to baseball that the sign and trade deals he has already allowed, such as the Rafael Soriano Atlanta-Tampa Bay deal in 2009, or the many dump trades he has allowed, such as the Miami-Toronto deal this year. His powers are far-reaching, but he cannot show bias. He can't rule one way in one case and another in the same type of case.

The crux of your argument seems to be your incorrect assumption that I am pro-player. I am not, as it happens, but that is totally and completely irrelevant to whether the Commissioner can arbitrarily make rulings voiding legal transactions and causing financial harm to a player.

[Can_of_corn]

No.

Washington's advantage is that they give up no draft pick to sign him AND that they receive an additional pick if someone else does. Nothing more. If they are unwilling to pay fair market for the player, they get the compensation. To make it that they can force the player to be unable to sign with another team that is offering more is patently unfair and clearly well beyond the scope of the CBA.

If the Commissioner were to step in and void a player's signing, thereby causing him harm, he would be clearly exceeding his powers. The player, agent, and union would clearly have a case against the Commissioner and the League. Again, he might rule that the trade could be voided, but not the signing. That is obvious. Simply no legitimate reason to void a legal signing made under the CBA. None. He would, if he were to void the trade, need to clearly show that this trade would be more detrimental to baseball that the sign and trade deals he has already allowed, such as the Rafael Soriano Atlanta-Tampa Bay deal in 2009, or the many dump trades he has allowed, such as the Miami-Toronto deal this year. His powers are far-reaching, but he cannot show bias. He can't rule one way in one case and another in the same type of case.

The crux of your argument seems to be your incorrect assumption that I am pro-player. I am not, as it happens, but that is totally and completely irrelevant to whether the Commissioner can arbitrarily make rulings voiding legal transactions and causing financial harm to a player.

No. Washington's advantage is that another team will have to spend a draft pick to sign him.

As for the Soriano deal that was the team that would gain the pick signing him, not a third party.

Two teams can not collude with one another to damage a third team.

[DrungoHazewood]

If the Commissioner were to step in and void a player's signing, thereby causing him harm, he would be clearly exceeding his powers. The player, agent, and union would clearly have a case against the Commissioner and the League.

When's the last time someone brought a case against a Commissioner on the basis of him overstepping his bounds in using the "best interests" clause? And if you can come up with such a case, can you find one where they won? I certainly don't know of any.

Which is not to say that it couldn't succeed, I just don't think it ever has before.

[Number5]

When's the last time someone brought a case against a Commissioner on the basis of him overstepping his bounds in using the "best interests" clause? And if you can come up with such a case, can you find one where they won? I certainly don't know of any.

Which is not to say that it couldn't succeed, I just don't think it ever has before.

This is an unreasonable question, Drungo, since no Commissioner has voided a legal free agent signing, that I know of. I'll throw that back at you, what player has had his legal free agency signing voided, costing him money, that has passed his physical?

My point is that to void such a signing would certainly be financially harmful to the player, and would, in my view give the player a case against the Commissioner and the League that would seem to be hard to defend. What would make you think otherwise?

[Number5]

No. Washington's advantage is that another team will have to spend a draft pick to sign him.

As for the Soriano deal that was the team that would gain the pick signing him, not a third party.

Two teams can not collude with one another to damage a third team.

Washington would receive the compensation due them and is unhurt in any way. Washington also clearly has the right to come close, match, or better any offer any other team(s) might make, and the player can choose the offer that suits him best. That is how it should be. Your continued claim that Washington would be harmed is simply unsubstantiated. The only "harm" even you have attempted to throw out there is a lesser ability for Washington to force a less-than market contract on a free agent. That is not "harm."

You say Washington deserves more advantage than what the CBA calls for and to the player's detriment. I disagree for the reasons I have outlined. It is clear that you either cannot or will not show how voiding the signing by Cleveland would be possible within the CBA and the Law of the Land. I have agreed that the Commissioner could void the trade transaction, although I think he would be standing on thin ice trying to defend such a move in light of all of the other transactions he has allowed that would seem to be at least as questionable as to the best interest of baseball, if not more-so. The signing itself, however, would have no basis on which to be voided, no matter how much you may want to not allow the player to negotiate in a fair marketplace or leave his present team.

Cleveland might hesitate to enter into such a deal if they were to believe that the Commissioner might void the trade transaction. I would guess that they really would not want to take on another big contract, having just signed Reynolds, not to mention Swisher. Once the free agent signing is finalized, the player is now on the signing team. Any trade thereafter is reviewed on its own merit.

Nothing more to be gained here by us both repeating our views, but it would be interesting to hear if you can make a case for voiding the signing transaction.

[DrungoHazewood]

This is an unreasonable question, Drungo, since no Commissioner has voided a legal free agent signing, that I know of. I'll throw that back at you, what player has had his legal free agency signing voided, costing him money, that has passed his physical?

My point is that to void such a signing would certainly be financially harmful to the player, and would, in my view give the player a case against the Commissioner and the League that would seem to be hard to defend. What would make you think otherwise?

Because no player has ever signed a free agent deal with the specific intent of colluding with several teams to explicitly subvert the CBA. Of course no player/agent/team combination would sign up for such a scheme, and of course if they did the commish would void it.

[wildcard]

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.

I really don't know how this one turns out. However, I want to hear something more official. A lot of the stuff floating around is just opinions including the tweet from Tim Dierkes

[Can_of_corn]

Washington would receive the compensation due them and is unhurt in any way. Washington also clearly has the right to come close, match, or better any offer any other team(s) might make, and the player can choose the offer that suits him best. That is how it should be. Your continued claim that Washington would be harmed is simply unsubstantiated. The only "harm" even you have attempted to throw out there is a lesser ability for Washington to force a less-than market contract on a free agent. That is not "harm."

You say Washington deserves more advantage than what the CBA calls for and to the player's detriment. I disagree for the reasons I have outlined. It is clear that you either cannot or will not show how voiding the signing by Cleveland would be possible within the CBA and the Law of the Land. I have agreed that the Commissioner could void the trade transaction, although I think he would be standing on thin ice trying to defend such a move in light of all of the other transactions he has allowed that would seem to be at least as questionable as to the best interest of baseball, if not more-so. The signing itself, however, would have no basis on which to be voided, no matter how much you may want to not allow the player to negotiate in a fair marketplace or leave his present team.

Cleveland might hesitate to enter into such a deal if they were to believe that the Commissioner might void the trade transaction. I would guess that they really would not want to take on another big contract, having just signed Reynolds, not to mention Swisher. Once the free agent signing is finalized, the player is now on the signing team. Any trade thereafter is reviewed on its own merit.

Nothing more to be gained here by us both repeating our views, but it would be interesting to hear if you can make a case for voiding the signing transaction.

No. The market is whatever the market will bear. There is a set value that is assigned to draft picks. Washington deserves the advantages afforded to them under the CBA. You are trying to take those advantages away so the player can receive more income.

Simple, the signing would part of an act of collusion by two teams to hurt a third team. Instead of forcing a team to pay a player they had no intention of keeping the signing is voided so the teams actually interested in his services may sign him.

[Number5]

Because no player has ever signed a free agent deal with the specific intent of colluding with several teams to explicitly subvert the CBA. Of course no player/agent/team combination would sign up for such a scheme, and of course if they did the commish would void it.

First, let me say that, from the beginning here, I have said that such a sign-and trade event is, for the most part, impractical, as finding compensation in the trade portion may prove to be difficult, given the small talent/value window between the draft picks involve. The Orioles happen to have a very rare trade-able draft pick that lies between the 2 picks involved, making this even a remote possibility, in my mind. The Orioles may, in fact, have no desire to trade their 1-S pick, anyway, and Cleveland may not really want to get involved at all, anyway.

I tend to avoid saying that my opinion of what might happen is "of course" what would happen. I don't know. It seems to me, as I have stated, that were it to happen, the Commissioner would appear to have no legal grounds to void the signing. It is the trade that follows the signing that the Commissioner might decide to step in on, although that is not the most solid of ground for him, either, IMO.

It would appear to me that the specific intent would be to lessen the cost of the player for the team trading for him, while harming no one. The player's former team receive the exact compensation due under the CBA. The signing team forfeits exactly the draft pick prescribed in the CBA. The player is financially better off. How, exactly, is the CBA being subverted? There have been sign-and-trade deals before. To allow one, it seems to me, makes it seem arbitrary if another were not allowed.

[Mayor McCheese]

I really don't know how this one turns out. However, I want to hear something more official. A lot of the stuff floating around is just opinions including the tweet from Tim Dierkes

Right I believe I heard teams before tried to do sign and trade type deals before, but I believe nothing came out of it.

I sure hope nothing like this comes about... I mean what is this... the NBA :scratchchinhmm:

[scOtt]

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

I'm two pages behind but I imagine Selig would allow it if it benefited management side. Not the union. The union would have something to say as well. Interesting situation.

[scOtt]

Finally finished the whole thread. The main argument for Selig blocking this is it's two teams colluding to harm another. What I can't see is who is getting harmed? Not DC, they can sign him or get their compensation. Whether we straight sign LaRoche or do this sign and trade. No harm no foul.