Toronto looking for New President to be Duquette.

[clapdiddy]

If DD does leave because of whatever happens,I can see BucK being the GM and Russell manager at least for this year.

Would Buck be interested in that job? I realize that it would likely be a promotion, but I'm not sure that's something Buck would consider.

[Can_of_corn]

What if Angelos gets pissed at him and tells him to leave?

I don't think that Angelos is going to eat the rest of Dan's contract so Dan can go work for another team in the AL East.

[SteveO]

And as a promotion, it still does not permit him to leave his current contract behind. And that is not a speculation on my part.

Actually there you incorrect. Precedent is a know and quantifiable aspect of contract law. The Orioles are bound by MLB bylaws and practices. If the league can show that there is precedent for allowing this to happen, they can step in and allow DD to interview and accept the position.

At that point there is NOTHING Peter can do other than sue DD, MLB and Jays. Likely the expense of such action would outweigh the benefit. My guess is that he would settle. He is stubborn but he is no idiot.

Really at this point its about what is MLB going to do. I doubt they would allow DD to leave now, that would create a situation that is not the norm and as such would lean more towards greater damages. I can see MLB sticking it Angelos and allowing DD to interview next offseason though. There is precedent they can cite, we all know that.

[24fps]

I think something lost in all this is the political intrigue going on in the background. Its no secret that there are those in MLB who would love to stick it to Pete over the whole MASN-Nationals thing. Beeson the current team CEO of the Jays opposed Manfreds election as Commissioner. In some respects DD to the Jay's kinda settles two scores. Now Pete can talk all he wants about contracts, blah blah blah but if say MLB said after this season that Pete could not prevent DD from interviewing for a "promotion" and that this was a long and time honored tradition blah blah blah. Sure Pete can sue, sure he might even win some damages but no judge in their right mind is going to interfere with the inner workings of MLB. Judges tend to be willing to award monetary damages but seem to defer to the league as to how to interpret its bylaws and management etc. Besides if MLB allowed DD to accept that position, what is Pete gonna do? By the time a case is heard, listened to and adjudicated DD will have been in Toronto for good while, no judge is going to force him to step down. If they award damages it will not be more than the value of the remaining years and I doubt that it is that much.

If MLB allowed DD to interview and accept the job, the best thing Pete could do would be to work out compensation, accept DD is gone and sue MLB for further damages. To some extent a part of me thinks Toronto never realistically expected to land DD right now, they are simply serving up the first salvo to poach him later.

People can say all they want that it is not a promotion, their opinions really do not matter. All that matters is that in the eyes of MLB and MLB executives it would certainly be considered just that.

Not saying any of this will happen but its not crazy to think that some elements of it are in play at the very least. Just saying there are more moving parts going on here than most of us have talked about

Was MLB a party to the contract between Dan Duquette and the Baltimore Orioles? If such a rule exists, please point me to the rule that gives MLB the right to arbitrarily void a contract between an owner and an executive. If no such rule exists, then why on Earth would anyone believe that MLB would be in a position to say squat about Peter Angelos' decision to require an employment contract honorably entered into be fully upheld? Whether it's a promotion by any definition you care to apply is utterly and completely irrelevant unless the circumstances are spelled out. Whether it's an unwritten understanding is equally irrelevant, especially in light of a signed agreement which is sure to contain language explicitly stating that the document contains the agreement in full to the exclusion of all other understandings.

Whether it is, or would be, breach of contract is very relevant indeed and if it were put to the test I would pay good money to see Peter Angelos litigate it.

[SteveO]

I kinda think that a lot of people are underestimating just how bad MLB would love to stick to old Pete. There is a fair amount of bad blood there. This is a situation in which they have precedent on their side, could put the screws to Pete and could claim to have not allowed it to happen this offseason because they were looking out for the Orioles but did allow at the end of this season because it is commonly accepted practice for the league. Then let the legal battle start.

[Frobby]

Or to not let players who play above their contract to demand the team to le them take a promotion with another team.

It is not as if GM's don't know how to negotiate contracts that have an out clause. They can do it for players, and they can do it for themselves. If they don't write one into their own contract with the team, I don't really feel any sympathy if the team owner expects them to live with their deal, even if "tradition" provides otherwise. In Duquette's case he was offered an extension (and undoubtedly a raise) after one year on the job, with two years to go on his original deal, and he took it. He opted for job security at the risk of losing some future flexibility regarding his employment, and whatever his contract says about his ability to opt out (or not), it says. It's up to Angelos to decide whether he wants to follow "tradition" in this instance, unless Duquette wrote something into the deal that says otherwise. I certainly won't blame Angelos at all if he says, "we had a deal and you need to honor it."

[Number5]

I kinda think that a lot of people are underestimating just how bad MLB would love to stick to old Pete. There is a fair amount of bad blood there. This is a situation in which they have precedent on their side, could put the screws to Pete and could claim to have not allowed it to happen this offseason because they were looking out for the Orioles but did allow at the end of this season because it is commonly accepted practice for the league. Then let the legal battle start.

[video=youtube;G2y8Sx4B2Sk]

[LoyalBirdFan]

Was MLB a party to the contract between Dan Duquette and the Baltimore Orioles? If such a rule exists, please point me to the rule that gives MLB the right to arbitrarily void a contract between an owner and an executive. If no such rule exists, then why on Earth would anyone believe that MLB would be in a position to say squat about Peter Angelos' decision to require an employment contract honorably entered into be fully upheld? Whether it's a promotion by any definition you care to apply is utterly and completely irrelevant unless the circumstances are spelled out. Whether it's an unwritten understanding is equally irrelevant, especially in light of a signed agreement which is sure to contain language explicitly stating that the document contains the agreement in full to the exclusion of all other understandings.

Whether it is, or would be, breach of contract is very relevant indeed and if it were put to the test I would pay good money to see Peter Angelos litigate it.

:agree:

Unless there is a 'Non Player Union' I don't know about, the contract between DD and the Orioles is governed by the State stipulated in the contract (which may or may not be Maryland).

This is why you can't compare player contracts to non-player contracts. If MLB has any say in non-player contracts, it's news to me (and also possible).

[SteveO]

Was MLB a party to the contract between Dan Duquette and the Baltimore Orioles? If such a rule exists, please point me to the rule that gives MLB the right to arbitrarily void a contract between an owner and an executive. If no such rule exists, then why on Earth would anyone believe that MLB would be in a position to say squat about Peter Angelos' decision to require an employment contract honorably entered into be fully upheld? Whether it's a promotion by any definition you care to apply is utterly and completely irrelevant unless the circumstances are spelled out. Whether it's an unwritten understanding is equally irrelevant, especially in light of a signed agreement which is sure to contain language explicitly stating that the document contains the agreement in full to the exclusion of all other understandings.

Whether it is, or would be, breach of contract is very relevant indeed and if it were put to the test I would pay good money to see Peter Angelos litigate it.

Your missing the point.

If MLB allowed DD to interview and accept the CEO position citing precedent, the damage is already done. If they win or lose any lawsuit Pete would file for breach of contract or other damages is almost a non-issue. All that would take at least a year or two to be decided.

No judge is going to look at the previous precedents set with the Epstein (whom btw did not have an out either) move to the Cubs and then force DD to remain in the employ of PA. At that point why would PA even want to force that? He would then diminish the amount of potential damages he could collect if he won.

I certainly agree Pete will sue for breach of contract, no doubt about it. While he is doing it though DD will be the CEO of the Jays.

Hopefully none of this comes to pass, I just have a terrible suspicion that Petes tug of war with the league regarding MASN is not unconnected to this all occurring how it has. The league has not exactly done much to help the O's or put the Jays in their place have they ? I think given the chance they would love to give Pete a good swift kick in the ass, even if it did cost some money in long run. I am not convinced though that it would. His case would be far stronger vrs DD and the Jays. Even there he would likely only recoup so much money.

[SteveO]

:agree:

Unless there is a 'Non Player Union' I don't know about, the contract between DD and the Orioles is governed by the State stipulated in the contract (which may or may not be Maryland).

This is why you can't compare player contracts to non-player contracts. If MLB has any say in non-player contracts, it's news to me (and also possible).

Actually the Orioles a member entity of MLB. They are bound by MLB bylaws and practices.

MAJOR LEAGUE CONSTITUTION

MLC Art. VI, Sec. 1 to Art. VI, Sec. 2

9 3/08

Article VI

Sec. 1. All disputes and controversies related in any way to professional baseball

between Clubs or between a Club(s) and any Major League Baseball entity(ies)

(including in each case, without limitation, their owners, officers, directors, employees

and players), other than those whose resolution is expressly provided for by another

means in this Constitution, the Major League Rules, the Basic Agreement with the

Major League Baseball Players Association, or the collective bargaining agreement

with any representative of the Major League umpires, shall be submitted to the

Commissioner, as arbitrator, who, after hearing, shall have the sole and exclusive right

to decide such disputes and controversies and whose decision shall be final and

unappealable. The procedure set forth in this Section is separate from and shall not

alter or affect the procedure set forth in Article V governing the role of the

Commissioner at Major League Meetings, or the Commissioner's powers to act in the

best interests of Baseball under Article II.

I think that this would qualify as a dispute between two teams. Its not like there is not precedent for a move like DD to Toronto. The league could step in, PA then could sue as a result. Simple as that. Damage is done though soon as league steps in.

[SeaBird]

It would be more than a million. It would be a lot. I do not think Dan is wealthy either.

COTS had Showlter at $1.5M when he signed on with the Orioles in 2010 following Juan Samuel. Don' you think Duquette has to be in that neighborhood?

[waroriole]

Your missing the point.

If MLB allowed DD to interview and accept the CEO position citing precedent, the damage is already done. If they win or lose any lawsuit Pete would file for breach of contract or other damages is almost a non-issue. All that would take at least a year or two to be decided.

No judge is going to look at the previous precedents set with the Epstein (whom btw did not have an out either) move to the Cubs and then force DD to remain in the employ of PA. At that point why would PA even want to force that? He would then diminish the amount of potential damages he could collect if he won.

I certainly agree Pete will sue for breach of contract, no doubt about it. While he is doing it though DD will be the CEO of the Jays.

Hopefully none of this comes to pass, I just have a terrible suspicion that Petes tug of war with the league regarding MASN is not unconnected to this all occurring how it has. The league has not exactly done much to help the O's or put the Jays in their place have they ? I think given the chance they would love to give Pete a good swift kick in the ass, even if it did cost some money in long run. I am not convinced though that it would. His case would be far stronger vrs DD and the Jays. Even there he would likely only recoup so much money.

PA will quickly ask for an injunction prohibiting DD from working for TOR until this is straightened out and it will be granted.

[24fps]

Your missing the point.

If MLB allowed DD to interview and accept the CEO position citing precedent, the damage is already done. If they win or lose any lawsuit Pete would file for breach of contract or other damages is almost a non-issue. All that would take at least a year or two to be decided.

No judge is going to look at the previous precedents set with the Epstein (whom btw did not have an out either) move to the Cubs and then force DD to remain in the employ of PA. At that point why would PA even want to force that? He would then diminish the amount of potential damages he could collect if he won.

I certainly agree Pete will sue for breach of contract, no doubt about it. While he is doing it though DD will be the CEO of the Jays.

Hopefully none of this comes to pass, I just have a terrible suspicion that Petes tug of war with the league regarding MASN is not unconnected to this all occurring how it has. The league has not exactly done much to help the O's or put the Jays in their place have they ? I think given the chance they would love to give Pete a good swift kick in the ass, even if it did cost some money in long run. I am not convinced though that it would. His case would be far stronger vrs DD and the Jays. Even there he would likely only recoup so much money.

I suspect it's you who's missing the point. You need to demonstrate how MLB is in the position to "allow" anything when it come to a binding contract between an executive of an organization and the owner of that organization.

[SteveO]

Actually the Orioles a member entity of MLB. They are bound by MLB bylaws and practices.

MAJOR LEAGUE CONSTITUTION

MLC Art. VI, Sec. 1 to Art. VI, Sec. 2

9 3/08

Article VI

Sec. 1. All disputes and controversies related in any way to professional baseball

between Clubs or between a Club(s) and any Major League Baseball entity(ies)

(including in each case, without limitation, their owners, officers, directors, employees

and players), other than those whose resolution is expressly provided for by another

means in this Constitution, the Major League Rules, the Basic Agreement with the

Major League Baseball Players Association, or the collective bargaining agreement

with any representative of the Major League umpires, shall be submitted to the

Commissioner, as arbitrator, who, after hearing, shall have the sole and exclusive right

to decide such disputes and controversies and whose decision shall be final and

unappealable. The procedure set forth in this Section is separate from and shall not

alter or affect the procedure set forth in Article V governing the role of the

Commissioner at Major League Meetings, or the Commissioner's powers to act in the

best interests of Baseball under Article II.

I think that this would qualify as a dispute between two teams. Its not like there is not precedent for a move like DD to Toronto. The league could step in, PA then could sue as a result. Simple as that. Damage is done though soon as league steps in.

The bolded part seems to indicate they could step in and make a decision.

Pete could sue for damages, breach of contract etc, but the league most certainly can decide that DD has a right to seek a promotion if they chose to insert themselves in that way.

Anyone really believe that given the MASN/MLB controversy that there are those at the league level who would love to have that opportunity ?

I am not saying this is the case, just saying the timing of this whole thing stinks. It feels like it was timed to allow MLB to "protect" the Orioles by not allowing DD to interview or leave now and then later screw them say this offseason by letting him go. Yea its a little black helicopters kinda of scenario but come on, these are weasels we are talking about.

[Number5]

Actually the Orioles a member entity of MLB. They are bound by MLB bylaws and practices.

MAJOR LEAGUE CONSTITUTION

MLC Art. VI, Sec. 1 to Art. VI, Sec. 2

9 3/08

Article VI

Sec. 1. All disputes and controversies related in any way to professional baseball

between Clubs or between a Club(s) and any Major League Baseball entity(ies)

(including in each case, without limitation, their owners, officers, directors, employees

and players), other than those whose resolution is expressly provided for by another

means in this Constitution, the Major League Rules, the Basic Agreement with the

Major League Baseball Players Association, or the collective bargaining agreement

with any representative of the Major League umpires, shall be submitted to the

Commissioner, as arbitrator, who, after hearing, shall have the sole and exclusive right

to decide such disputes and controversies and whose decision shall be final and

unappealable. The procedure set forth in this Section is separate from and shall not

alter or affect the procedure set forth in Article V governing the role of the

Commissioner at Major League Meetings, or the Commissioner's powers to act in the

best interests of Baseball under Article II.

I think that this would qualify as a dispute between two teams. Its not like there is not precedent for a move like DD to Toronto. The league could step in, PA then could sue as a result. Simple as that. Damage is done though soon as league steps in.

Yes, it is. It is exactly like that. Cases in which both parties to a contract agree to terms that alter or void the contract between them are not precedent to a case where one party wants out of the contract and the other does not. You are simply wrong on this.