Toronto looking for New President to be Duquette.

[CA-ORIOLE]

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."

I don't disagree with any of this. I just think the best course of action for all parties may be to let DD go and exact a price/compensation on Toronto for doing so.

[SteveO]

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.

I just did....read the bylaws

If you really believe that MLB could not simply wave their wand and let DD interview and accept that position then your crazy. The bylaws let them do almost anything they want to. The Orioles exist via the good grace of MLB if you read the bylaws. Not the other way around.

The only question is would MLB be willing to go to that degree to stick it to an owner they are not really friendly with or like

[Frobby]

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.

I don't know if you are a lawyer, so excuse me if I get a bit pedantic here. It is very common for courts to have expedited hearings when an employee seeks to take a new job in violation of a non-competition clause in his contract. Many times, a court will issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) or a preliminary injunction (PI) that prevents the employee from moving while the case is pending. A TRO can be obtained the same day the application is made on a very short hearing, and usually lasts 10-20 days. The court will then have a longer hearing to decide whether to extend the TRO into a PI, which can last indefinitely until the case is ready for a full trial. These types of proceedings happen in employment litigation all the time. I've litigated several myself. So don't get the wrong impression that it would take a long time to get at least a preliminary court ruling as to whether Duquette can be prevented from taking the Toronto job. It could happen very quickly.

Now, whether the court would actually grant a TRO or PI depends on a few things, including (1) what Duquette's contract says about his ability to opt out, (2) what it says about how disputes are to be resooved, (3) what MLB rules and bylaws say about these topics, and (4) if MLB is required to make the decision in the first instance, whether the Orioles can show that the court should act anyway due to MLB's inability to act quickly or its bias (as in the MASN proceeding, where a court has issued a PI that precludes the Nats from terminating their contract with MASN or MLB from enforcing its arbitration decision, while the court case is pending).

Finally, I doubt MLB would allow Duquette to violate the terms of his contract. I don't think the "tradition" here is one established by MLB decisions, it's just been a custom that the teams have extended out of courtesy. I've heard of cases where a team denied permission for its executive to interview for another job, but I've never heard of MLB saying that the executive can ignore the team's decision. I seriously doubt MLB wants to set a precedent like that, even if they have no love for Peter Angelos.

I can almost guarantee that Duquette's contract has very specific about what he can and can't do. Contracts for high-level executives almost always do, and I'm sure this is not an exception.

P.S. -- I've now read the by-law you posted. I do think there's a decent chance a court would say, "sorry, but the decision is up to the MLB commissioner." But that's not certain, and in any event, Angelos could get a court to act pretty quickly on this one way or the other. It would not take years to get a preliminary ruling.

[TouchemAll]

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."

Yep :agree: Well said

[SteveO]

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.

Guess time will tell.

Personally I just want DD to say " I want to be here and here is where I am staying. I have no interest in pursuing any other position" that ends all this silliness. He has said he is here the rest....not so much

[SteveO]

I don't know if you are a lawyer, so excuse me if I get a bit pedantic here. It is very common for courts to have expedited hearings when an employee seeks to take a new job in violation of a non-competition clause in his contract. Many times, a court will issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) or a preliminary injunction (PI) that prevents the employee from moving while the case is pending. A TRO can be obtained the same day the application is made on a very short hearing, and usually lasts 10-20 days. The court will then have a longer hearing to decide whether to extend the TRO into a PI, which can last indefinitely until the case is ready for a full trial. These types of proceedings happen in employment litigation all the time. I've litigated several myself. So don't get the wrong impression that it would take a long time to get at least a preliminary court ruling as to whether Duquette can be prevented from taking the Toronto job. It could happen very quickly.

Now, whether the court would actually grant a TRO or PI depends on a few things, including (1) what Duquette's contract says about his ability to opt out, (2) what it says about how disputes are to be resoloved, (3) what MLB rules and bylaws say about these topics, and (4) if MLB is required to make the decision in the first instance, whether the Orioles can show that the court should act anyway due to MLB's inability to act quickly or its bias (as in the MASN proceeding, where a court has issued a PI that precludes the Nats from terminating their contract with MASN or MLB from enforcing its arbitration decision, while the court case is pending).

Finally, I doubt MLB would allow Duquette to violate the terms of his contract. I don't think the "tradition" here is one established by MLB decisions, it's just been a custom that the teams have extended out of courtesy. I've heard of cases where a team denied permission for its executive to interview for another job, but I've never heard of MLB saying that the executive can ignore the team's decision. I seriously doubt MLB wants to set a precedent like that, even if they have no love for Peter Angelos.

I can almost guarantee that Duquette's contract is very specific about what he can and can't do. Contracts for high-level executives almost always do, and I'm sure this is not an exception.

I will defer to you here. You sound more educated regarding the legal process involved.

When I read the bylaws it seemed as if MLB reserved the right to rule on such things. I could be wrong. Openly willing to admit this.

Makes sense though what your saying. I guess for me there comes a point were if DD was looking to take a job and really does not want to be here, while I am sure as a professional, he would do a decent job, there is something to be said for having a guy who actually wants the job if that makes any sense at all. I don't think DD would ever tank doing his job, I also think though that when loses the enthusiasm for doing it or their relationship becomes fractured with their employer in some way, its bound to have some impact on performance.

Even if Pete can force DD to stay, banish him to Alaska as a scout, to what end does this serve. What half decent executive wants to work at a place like that if they have options elsewhere? It feels cutting your nose off to spite your face

[CA-ORIOLE]

I just did....read the bylaws

If you really believe that MLB could not simply wave their wand and let DD interview and accept that position then your crazy. The bylaws let them do almost anything they want to. The Orioles exist via the good grace of MLB if you read the bylaws. Not the other way around.

The only question is would MLB be willing to go to that degree to stick it to an owner they are not really friendly with or like

MLB could certainly be involved in a dispute, but what in the bylaws makes you think they would somehow rule in favor of DD and void the contract with Angelos (if it was tight) and Angelos wanted it honored? Maybe they theoretically "could" do it, but it would be a fairly ridiculous thing to do, whether they like Angleos or not, no?

[Frobby]

I will defer to you here. You sound more educated regarding the legal process involved.

When I read the bylaws it seemed as if MLB reserved the right to rule on such things. I could be wrong. Openly willing to admit this.

Makes sense though what your saying. I guess for me there comes a point were if DD was looking to take a job and really does not want to be here, while I am sure as a professional, he would do a decent job, there is something to be said for having a guy who actually wants the job if that makes any sense at all. I don't think DD would ever tank doing his job, I also think though that when loses the enthusiasm for doing it or their relationship becomes fractured with their employer in some way, its bound to have some impact on performance.

Even if Pete can force DD to stay, banish him to Alaska as a scout, to what end does this serve. What half decent executive wants to work at a place like that if they have options elsewhere? It feels cutting your nose off to spite your face

I edited my post after reading the bylaw you cited. Bottom line, PA could still get a court ruling very quickly, but it's definitely possible the court's ruling would be, "we defer to the Commissioner under the terms of the MLB bylaws that you are required to abide by." PA has managed to circumvent a similar provision in the MASN contract by making a preliminary showing of possible bias by MLB, and a similar tactic might work here, or it might not. My main point is that the court can make a preliminary decision quite quickly one way or another.

[Dipper9]

It is a promotion but it doesn't give him the power that some folks think it would.

He won't be able to write his own budget and he will still be subject to the whims of those above him. Of course with a normal team there is a lot more stability at the top then you get with a team that is owned by a corporation.

I don't know Corn...pretty sure this promotion would mean he is right below the Prime Minister of Canada!

[SteveO]

MLB could certainly be involved in a dispute, but what in the bylaws makes you think they would somehow rule in favor of DD and void the contract with Angelos (if it was tight) and Angelos wanted it honored? Maybe they theoretically "could" do it, but it would be a fairly ridiculous thing to do, whether they like Angleos or not, no?

Your likely right there.

I guess the real question to me is at what point is there enough damage done in the relationship between DD and the Orioles that it no longer serves the Orioles best interests to retain him? I am disappointed that DD has not been more verbal in his desire to be here. Saying I am here with the Orioles and essentially, if I have to sure I will honor my contract is not a ringing endorsement. Saying I am here with the Orioles, I have no interest in any other position, this is where I want to be and this is exactly were I plan to be sounds a lot more like a guy who wants to be here.

[Dipper9]

Oh he would be in charge of the Rogers Center? I am sure that is something he would be tickled to death to be in charge of. If he gives up player decisions and leaves it to the GM than it would be a promotion but he is going to be doing the same thing as before. And I am sure someone else will be managing the Rodgers Center.

I am picturing Duke on the phone about to complete a trade, and then, "Hold on a second, I have to decide on what brand of hot dog to sell in our concession stands. I'll call you back later!"

[Dipper9]

I agree the Toronto CEO job appears to qualify as a promotion. I believe that the "tradition" of allowing executives who are under contract to interview for promotions is just that, a tradition. As a legal matter, there's a high probability that the Orioles can stick to the letter of their agreement and prevent Duquette from taking a job with Toronto during the term of the contract. However, I couldn't say that for certain without seeing the contract. Assuming I'm right about what the contract says, I seriously doubt MLB would allow Duquette to take a job in Toronto over the Orioles' objection, and if they did, I guarantee you Angelos wouldn't hesitate to drag the matter into court.

By the way, the more I think about it, the more hypocritical it would be for MLB to just allow executives to nullify their contracts, when the players are absolutely tied down once they sign a deal and can't even earn their market value for their first six years on the job.

Yeah, maybe if Duke leaves, Nick will change his mind about signing with Atlanta and decide he really wants to come back home. If its good for the goose, its good for the gander!

[CA-ORIOLE]

Your likely right there.

I guess the real question to me is at what point is there enough damage done in the relationship between DD and the Orioles that it no longer serves the Orioles best interests to retain him? I am disappointed that DD has not been more verbal in his desire to be here. Saying I am here with the Orioles and essentially, if I have to sure I will honor my contract is not a ringing endorsement. Saying I am here with the Orioles, I have no interest in any other position, this is where I want to be and this is exactly were I plan to be sounds a lot more like a guy who wants to be here.

Well, I agree with you here, but making DD issue a public statement that may likely not be true accomplishes little imo. Personally, if I were PA I'd dispose of this situation quickly and let TOR know what the price is going to be for letting him go.....and that should be high. They'll accept or decline and that should be it.

[Dipper9]

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.

Please show me some links as to this "bad blood" that the league wants to "stick it to Pete." Last I heard Angelos has always been on good terms with the league. The owners meetings were recently in Baltimore. And there is solid speculation that the 2016 All Star Game will be in Baltimore. Certainly doesn't sound to me like anyone wants to stick it to anyone, except Steve-O to JLaw and Sco-Jo.

[Number5]

I don't know Corn...pretty sure this promotion would mean he is right below the Prime Minister of Canada!

He had a better year than the Prime Minister. :wedge: