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

[Mayor McCheese]

Yankees tried it twice:

I have learned that the team was going to be the Diamondbacks, who essentially would have signed Pavano and then traded him to the Yankees for prospects. And that makes sense because the new Arizona GM, Kevin Towers, worked as a special assistant to Yankees GM Brian Cashman last year. One of Towers’ jobs was to assess the Yankees farm system, so he spent a lot of time watching Yankees prospects.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/601922-yankees-tried-sign-and-trade-with-dbacks-for-pavano

Via Buster Olney, the Yankees tried to work out a sign-and-trade scenario with an unknown team that would have netted them Grant Balfour. Joe covered this exact idea back in December, though it was framed around Rafael Soriano. Basically, some team with a protected pick would sign Balfour and them trade him to the Yankees for a prospect that is equal to or greater than the value of the pick they gave up. Balfour would have had to consent to the trade per MLB’s rules since it would have occurred so soon after he signed.

http://riveraveblues.com/2011/01/olney-yankees-tried-a-sign-and-trade-for-balfour-41250/

[Number5]

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.

Yes, "The market is whatever the market will bear," that is precisely what I am saying and is counter to what you are saying.

Yes, "There is a set value that is assigned to draft picks. Washington deserves the advantages afforded to them under the CBA," that is precisely what I am saying and is counter to what you are saying.

No, "You are trying to take those advantages away so the player can receive more income," is a false statement that runs counter to the preceding 2 sentences you just said. Washington would receive exactly the compensation prescribed by the CBA. No more, no less. Washington is unharmed, period.

No, repeating that "Simple, the signing would part of an act of collusion by two teams to hurt a third team," over and over does not make it true. Washington is unharmed in any way. They receive exactly the compensation due them under the CBA. No more, no less. They also still have every right to sign the player without losing a draft pick and is unimpeded in doing so. Washington is unharmed. After all, remember your statement that: "The market is whatever the market will bear."

No. "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," holds no water. The League would not force the team to pay the player, the contract they sign with him would. If the Commissioner were to void any trade they might make, they are contractually bound to pay the player. Attempting to void the contract would be very shaky grounds for the Commissioner, IMO, as it would cause the player financial harm. Which brings us back to the unanswered question I asked you. Can you make a case for the Commissioner voiding a legally signed player contract?

I think you need to remember that the CBA is a labor agreement between the owners and players. It is not by-laws for the group of owners. A sign-and trade arrangement is within the CBA, and does not harm the player. The teams involved would have operated, in every way, within the CBA. Now, if one or more owners in their "good ol' boys" network have a problem with it for some reason and the Commissioner steps in and tries to void it, the Commissioner would have to tread gently not to, himself, violate the CBA. Voiding the trade is a possibility, though still a bit difficult to defend in view of some other allowed trades,IMO; but voiding the legally signed player contract would seem far more in violation of the CBA than anything else, as far as I can tell.

[Can_of_corn]

OK, one more time and I will try and make it as simple as possible.

The Nats wish to retain LaRoche's services.

The CBA states that any other signing team must forfeit a first round pick to sign him.

Part of the reason for the forfeiture is so the Nats have an advantage in retaining his services, since the cost for another team will be greater then the cost for the Nats.

If the cost for the transaction is reduced from a first round pick to something less then a first round pick then the Nats are harmed.

[scOtt]

OK, one more time and I will try and make it as simple as possible.

The Nats wish to retain LaRoche's services.

The CBA states that any other signing team must forfeit a first round pick to sign him.

Part of the reason for the forfeiture is so the Nats have an advantage in retaining his services, since the cost for another team will be greater then the cost for the Nats.

If the cost for the transaction is reduced from a first round pick to something less then a first round pick then the Nats are harmed.

I don't know what it says about my simpleness... but I see what you mean now. Offering the daunting qualifying offer is supposed to give them an advantage to keep LaRoche.

[weams]

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?

The Free Agent signing part is a non issue. My question to you is what basis do you think that the trade part of the transaction would be approved in that it is clearly an attempt to circumvent the draft protocol outlined in the CBA?

[weams]

OK, one more time and I will try and make it as simple as possible.

The Nats wish to retain LaRoche's services.

The CBA states that any other signing team must forfeit a first round pick to sign him.

Part of the reason for the forfeiture is so the Nats have an advantage in retaining his services, since the cost for another team will be greater then the cost for the Nats.

If the cost for the transaction is reduced from a first round pick to something less then a first round pick then the Nats are harmed.

I don't know what it says about my simpleness... but I see what you mean now. Offering the daunting qualifying offer is supposed to give them an advantage to keep LaRoche.

Of course this hurts the Nationals. Who are currently in the commissioner's ear daily regarding MASN rights.

[Can_of_corn]

I don't know what it says about my simpleness... but I see what you mean now. Offering the daunting qualifying offer is supposed to give them an advantage to keep LaRoche.

Glad to have you aboard my friend!

[scOtt]

And just an aside aside... Why wouldn't LaRoche accept the 1/$13.3 mill? Why wouldn't Nick Swisher (to play for the Yankees) etc. etc. I think the player's side misjudged this little niche in the all-new CBA and are now seeing they messed up.

[scOtt]

Glad to have you aboard my friend!

I'm slow but diligent.

[Can_of_corn]

I'm slow but diligent.

I'm impressed you made it through all the posts. The urge to TLDR must have been strong.

[scOtt]

I'm impressed you made it through all the posts. The urge to TLDR must have been strong.

I called in sick for weather, got all night.

[Can_of_corn]

And just an aside aside... Why wouldn't LaRoche accept the 1/$13.3 mill? Why wouldn't Nick Swisher (to play for the Yankees) etc. etc. I think the player's side misjudged this little niche in the all-new CBA and are now seeing they messed up.

I think they put more weight into multi-year deals then you think they should. Also would that contract be guaranteed?

[scOtt]

I think they put more weight into multi-year deals then you think they should. Also would that contract be guaranteed?

The qualifying offer guaranteed? I don't know at all but kind of assumed...

What I'm thinking... A qualified player like Swisher or LaRoche could play out year to year. As I understand it it's always 13.3. A player could play year to year, one year deals like Harold Baines, and make a nice damn future for himself. Put up or shut up.

[Number5]

OK, one more time and I will try and make it as simple as possible.

The Nats wish to retain LaRoche's services.

The CBA states that any other signing team must forfeit a first round pick to sign him.

Part of the reason for the forfeiture is so the Nats have an advantage in retaining his services, since the cost for another team will be greater then the cost for the Nats.

If the cost for the transaction is reduced from a first round pick to something less then a first round pick then the Nats are harmed.

This is circular.

You apparently will not come off of this stance that Washington would be harmed in some way. You haven't shown any harm, however. If another team's cost is lower, it does not change Washington's compensation at all.

Washington can sign the player, and nothing prevents that. That is an absolute fact. If any other team signs the player, Washington receives a 1-S compensatory pick. That is an absolute fact. Those are the two alternatives.

Continued discussion is pointless. I will never see how Washington is harmed. You will apparently never see how they are not.

As I have said from the beginning, I don't see this as a likely scenario, in any case. The chances of 2 teams agreeing on compensation in a trade that falls in value between the 2 draft picks involved is not overly likely.

[weams]

"There is a set value that is assigned to draft picks. Washington deserves the advantages afforded to them under the CBA,"

And what you are saying is wrong. Washington is trying to sign it's own free agent. The advantage afforded to a team making a qualifying offer is that the teams competing with it give up a valuable pick. Not one lessened by collusion.