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

[weams]

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.

This is linear. I don't not think you know what a circle is. We shall see. If a team attempts to do this and if there are no repercussions, I will be very surprised. If I am Washington, I already have a clarification on this from the MLB. Just because a loophole is spotted, it does not mean that it can be exploited. Baseball is still a monopoly. They don't want their anti trust exemptions taken away in order to fulfill a fantasy three way orchestration.

[Number5]

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?

Again, I think we need to remember that the CBA is an agreement between the owners and the players. A sign-and-trade arrangement would not violate the CBA and involves two separate transactions. I hate repeating myself, but you are asking me, so I don't know how else to answer you. For the Commissioner to void the signing transaction would have direct impact on the player's compensation. That action might be viewed as a CBA violation and/or give the player a case. So I think you see how voiding that transaction would be problematic.

As I've said, the Commissioner may choose to review the trade transaction. For that reason, Cleveland, or whatever team is the signing team may give pause and elect not to do it.

The trade transaction would not be a CBA issue, as long as the player has approved the trade, but the Commissioner might decide to void the trade if he felt strongly enough that it was collusion and not in the best interest of baseball. It just seems that it would pretty much be a precedent to void all sign-and-trade deals from here on out, and possibly all three-or-more team trades in the future. To say a team cannot pick up one player and then trade him seems like dangerous ground to me. The teams prevented from doing so would have a legitimate cause to object to all future player movements by other teams that are dependent upon multiple team transactions. I don't really know.

I also am not sure that one can say that this trade would be any more collusive than a trade like the Toronto-Miami trade. Both teams are trying to accomplish certain goals and other teams are affected. You certainly cannot try to say that New York, Baltimore, Boston, and Tampa were not affected by that trade. They were all negatively impacted in a major way. It just seems hard to argue that the game as a whole would be hurt by a minor draft pick switching, but not by a trade like Miami-Toronto.

[Dark Helmet]

I'm not sure if this is true, but Phil Wood said last week that the O's would lose the 25th pick in the first round, then have the 35th pick I believe. He basically said the difference isn't big enough to warrant that being the main factor in the decision to sign LaRoche. Unless the O's just value having those two picks. He and DJ both said that players that late in the round, are a crapshoot anyhow. That said, my max offer to LaRoche would be 2/26M with an option based on incentives.

[Number5]

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.

In this case, Cleveland's draft pick forfeiture for signing LaRoche would not be lessened. Whether the Commissioner would want to review and/or void the ensuing trade is another question, but under the CBA, there is no violation and, in any case, Washington is neither prevented from signing LaRoche nor given a lesser compensation if they don't.

I really do understand what you are saying. If the Commissioner views it as a problem, he should make a ruling now, rather than after the fact. If he were to rule that such a trade cannot happen, the signing would most probably not occur, or even be negotiated, and the issue would not come up. By leaving it open, it seems to me that voiding it later would be quite problematic.

[scOtt]

I'm not sure if this is true, but Phil Wood said last week that the O's would lose the 25th pick in the first round, then have the 35th pick I believe. He basically said the difference isn't big enough to warrant that being the main factor in the decision to sign LaRoche. Unless the O's just value having those two picks. He and DJ both said that players that late in the round, are a crapshoot anyhow. That said, my max offer to LaRoche would be 2/26M with an option based on incentives.

To me, and I suspect more and more to DD... it's not about the difference between the 24th pick and the 35th. It's about securing the 24th AND the 35th pick. Two players into our system, not one.

[Can_of_corn]

To me, and I suspect more and more to DD... it's not about the difference between the 24th pick and the 35th. It's about securing the 24th AND the 35th pick. Two players into our system, not one.

And the cap money, don't forget the cap money.

[Number5]

To me, and I suspect more and more to DD... it's not about the difference between the 24th pick and the 35th. It's about securing the 24th AND the 35th pick. Two players into our system, not one.

This. I really don't see trading of the 1-S pick as all that likely, so it is all pretty much moot, IMO.

[DrungoHazewood]

I really do understand what you are saying. If the Commissioner views it as a problem, he should make a ruling now, rather than after the fact. If he were to rule that such a trade cannot happen, the signing would most probably not occur, or even be negotiated, and the issue would not come up. By leaving it open, it seems to me that voiding it later would be quite problematic.

I think that the most likely scenario is one where the office of the Commish has already told all the teams (or shortly will tell them, quietly) this kind of thing isn't going to happen, so just don't try.

[scOtt]

I think that the most likely scenario is one where the office of the Commish has already told all the teams (or shortly will tell them, quietly) this kind of thing isn't going to happen, so just don't try.

This or the office of the Commish never saw this coming... YMMV.

[section18]

I guess you've heard the Red Sox are now talking to LaRoche due to problems with Napoli's physical conditon. They apparently want to reduce Napoli's contract amount due to his condition. If they can't work it out they will look elsewhere. This explains why La Roche probably hasn't signed yet.

[weams]

I guess you've heard the Red Sox are now talking to LaRoche due to problems with Napoli's physical conditon. They apparently want to reduce Napoli's contract amount due to his condition. If they can't work it out they will look elsewhere. This explains why La Roche probably hasn't signed yet.

Laroche: "Give me Napoli's contract and I will come to Boston."

Ben: "Er, Um. Three years?"

[Todd-O]

Yup - MLBTR is reporting that the Sox are showing interest in LaRoche.

I just don't see the Orioles making any kind of significant move when it comes to spending money on FAs. The writing is on the wall when it comes to the O's.

[weams]

I think that the most likely scenario is one where the office of the Commish has already told all the teams (or shortly will tell them, quietly) this kind of thing isn't going to happen, so just don't try.

They did

MLBTR's Tim Dierkes says 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/2012/12/teams-could-seek-loopholes-for-compensation-free-agents.html#QCXfXx2xKLEtp5MI.99

[Brendan25]

I don't see any scenario where LaRoche does not end up back in Washington.

[wildcard]

I don't see any scenario where LaRoche does not end up back in Washington.

How about this one?

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/boston-red-sox-adam-laroche-mike-napoli-hip-washington-nationls-texas-rangers-122612