Pedro Alvarez not signed by Pirates????

[McNulty]

Has it been said what the realistic outcome would be if the ruling goes against MLB? There isn't any real possibility of the outcome being either Pedro goes back into the draft or the signing stands is there? I don't have access to bp.com so my apologies if the article does answer that question.

Again, according to KG, every other case that can be said to be remotely similar has always been ruled against MLB. The problem exists in the fact that the punishment has always been some variation of "don't do this again". KG is stating the union is going to make the case that they have seen this behavior from MLB before (see: JD Drew) and they continue to break the rules because they know the punishment (i.e. there is none) is worth the "risk".

[geschinger]

Again, according to KG, every other case that can be said to be remotely similar has always been ruled against MLB. The problem exists in the fact that the punishment has always been some variation of "don't do this again". KG is stating the union is going to make the case that they have seen this behavior from MLB before (see: JD Drew) and they continue to break the rules because they know the punishment (i.e. there is none) is worth the "risk".

Interesting. From my limited understanding I don't see any parallels between the allegations with Alvarez and JD Drew. I thought the JD Drew situationwas MLB changing the rules of the draft without negotiating it with the MLBPA. This isn't a changing of the rules so I guess I'm totally confused why this becomes anything other than a determination of whether or not the signing happened after midnight... If it did, he should be back in the draft for next year. If it didn't he should be a Pirate. I guess I'll have to go renew my subscription to BP to follow this better.

[McNulty]

Interesting. From my limited understanding I don't see any parallels between the allegations with Alvarez and JD Drew. I thought the JD Drew situationwas MLB changing the rules of the draft without negotiating it with the MLBPA. This isn't a changing of the rules so I guess I'm totally confused why this becomes anything other than a determination of whether or not the signing happened after midnight... If it did, he should be back in the draft for next year. If it didn't he should be a Pirate. I guess I'll have to go renew my subscription to BP to follow this better.

The MLBPA is arguing EXACTLY that the MLB changed the rules of the draft without renegotiating it first.

KG explains it better than I do:

Two key points to the union's argument could be:

1. We've Been Here Before, And To No Avail. Because we have been. On multiple occasions, MLB has been brought in front of an arbitrator due to the draft. Time and time again, the arbitrator has ruled in favor of the union, and at the same time has provided little or no real remedy to the situation, other than repeated stern warnings to not do it again. Yet, they did do it again, and the union will argue that the teams, in conjunction with MLB, decided to go this extension route with full knowledge that they were in violation of the CBA, and that they didn't care, as the arbitrator's response to such action in the past has been little more than a slap on the wrist. In other words, the crime was pre-meditated because when weighed against the expected punishment, it would be well worth it. One goal here is to anger the arbitrator, and to show that MLB has no respect for his judgment or for the process—and as anyone who has been through a legal proceeding knows, you do not want to be on the wrong side of a judge who feels that she or he is not receiving proper respect.

2. The Concept Of 'Best Interests Of All Parties' Is A Farce. MLB has all but admitted to providing extensions in this year's draft, but they have argued that doing so was in the best interest of both sides. On the surface that makes sense: it's good for the team to sign their draft picks, it's good for the player to get his career going, and it's good for MLB to add more talent to the pool. However, the union will argue that there are a pair of key issues in the granting of an extension that proves that such an action was not in the best interest of the union.

*

If MLB was so convinced that granting extensions was an innocent act in the best interests of all parties, why did they at no time call the MLBPA and inform them of the decision? If it was such a no-brainer, the union would have surely agreed to it, correct? Wrong, as the union understands that extensions add imbalance to negotiations once the deadline becomes a moving target with only one side having real knowledge of when that new deadline expires, and only one side having the ability to get such extensions in the first place.

*

The second that the extensions were granted, MLB took the right of representation away from the players. Agents are not part of the union, but they are certified by them, and that certification requires agents to follow the rules of collective bargaining in their dealings with a team. That means that technically they could not negotiate on behalf of their clients after midnight without breaking their own rules. Now what happened between the Pirates, Boras ,and Alvarez, only those three parties truly know, but the union has a pretty compelling case on this issue, and there is little argument that Pedro Alvarez agreed to the deal, and that the Pirates were no longer talking to Boras (who was with Alvarez in his California office) when the deal was agreed upon.

Another open question involves the connectedness of other players, primarily number three overall pick Eric Hosmer. Stories here differ, as some believe that the union will claim that Hosmer agreed to terms before the deadline, but that the deal was not communicated until after the deadline, while other versions of Hosmer's night point to him signing well after the deadline. MLB will stick to that side of the story in order to provide the linkage. While Alvarez has been placed on the restricted list, Hosmer's status within MLB's eBIS information system is "pending active," which is normally reserved for players who have agreed to terms but have not had their contract approved by the commissioner's office.

http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8078

[geschinger]

The MLBPA is arguing EXACTLY that the MLB changed the rules of the draft without renegotiating it first.

KG explains it better than I do:

Two key points to the union's argument could be:

1. We've Been Here Before, And To No Avail. Because we have been. On multiple occasions, MLB has been brought in front of an arbitrator due to the draft. Time and time again, the arbitrator has ruled in favor of the union, and at the same time has provided little or no real remedy to the situation, other than repeated stern warnings to not do it again. Yet, they did do it again, and the union will argue that the teams, in conjunction with MLB, decided to go this extension route with full knowledge that they were in violation of the CBA, and that they didn't care, as the arbitrator's response to such action in the past has been little more than a slap on the wrist. In other words, the crime was pre-meditated because when weighed against the expected punishment, it would be well worth it. One goal here is to anger the arbitrator, and to show that MLB has no respect for his judgment or for the process—and as anyone who has been through a legal proceeding knows, you do not want to be on the wrong side of a judge who feels that she or he is not receiving proper respect.

2. The Concept Of 'Best Interests Of All Parties' Is A Farce. MLB has all but admitted to providing extensions in this year's draft, but they have argued that doing so was in the best interest of both sides. On the surface that makes sense: it's good for the team to sign their draft picks, it's good for the player to get his career going, and it's good for MLB to add more talent to the pool. However, the union will argue that there are a pair of key issues in the granting of an extension that proves that such an action was not in the best interest of the union.

*

If MLB was so convinced that granting extensions was an innocent act in the best interests of all parties, why did they at no time call the MLBPA and inform them of the decision? If it was such a no-brainer, the union would have surely agreed to it, correct? Wrong, as the union understands that extensions add imbalance to negotiations once the deadline becomes a moving target with only one side having real knowledge of when that new deadline expires, and only one side having the ability to get such extensions in the first place.

*

The second that the extensions were granted, MLB took the right of representation away from the players. Agents are not part of the union, but they are certified by them, and that certification requires agents to follow the rules of collective bargaining in their dealings with a team. That means that technically they could not negotiate on behalf of their clients after midnight without breaking their own rules. Now what happened between the Pirates, Boras ,and Alvarez, only those three parties truly know, but the union has a pretty compelling case on this issue, and there is little argument that Pedro Alvarez agreed to the deal, and that the Pirates were no longer talking to Boras (who was with Alvarez in his California office) when the deal was agreed upon.

Another open question involves the connectedness of other players, primarily number three overall pick Eric Hosmer. Stories here differ, as some believe that the union will claim that Hosmer agreed to terms before the deadline, but that the deal was not communicated until after the deadline, while other versions of Hosmer's night point to him signing well after the deadline. MLB will stick to that side of the story in order to provide the linkage. While Alvarez has been placed on the restricted list, Hosmer's status within MLB's eBIS information system is "pending active," which is normally reserved for players who have agreed to terms but have not had their contract approved by the commissioner's office.

http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8078

Thank you... Fascinating stuff...

If the arbitrator does rule against MLB and applies sanctions it'll be fun to see how he tries to dance around the Hosmer situation. It seems to me whether or not Hosmer's deal was agreed to before the deadline should not be a factor in the decision since the rules state that the commisioners office has to be notified of a deal before midnight. Giving an extension on the negotiation or giving an extension on the communication of an agreement are both either a change of the rules that required negotations or they aren't. It's illogical IMO to claim one is and one isn't.

[PapaRick]

According to Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus:

"In case you missed it, the Pirates and Pedro Alvarez have reached a deal tonight, one that pays him $6.355 million and makes him the highest paid player in the 2008 draft. So a little more money, and this time it’s a major league deal. The grievance hearing will likely be dropped with this development, and we’ll have a post-mortem this week. "

[ChaosLex]

According to Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus:

"In case you missed it, the Pirates and Pedro Alvarez have reached a deal tonight, one that pays him $6.355 million and makes him the highest paid player in the 2008 draft. So a little more money, and this time it’s a major league deal. The grievance hearing will likely be dropped with this development, and we’ll have a post-mortem this week. "

Thanks for the update.

Alvarez is now the most hated man in Pittsburgh. :laughlol:

[Hutman]

According to Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus:

"In case you missed it, the Pirates and Pedro Alvarez have reached a deal tonight, one that pays him $6.355 million and makes him the highest paid player in the 2008 draft. So a little more money, and this time it’s a major league deal. The grievance hearing will likely be dropped with this development, and we’ll have a post-mortem this week. "

Gotta give Boras credit, he had MLB by the short hairs and used it to its fullest advantage.

[Greg Pappas]

According to Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus:

"In case you missed it, the Pirates and Pedro Alvarez have reached a deal tonight, one that pays him $6.355 million and makes him the highest paid player in the 2008 draft. So a little more money, and this time it’s a major league deal. The grievance hearing will likely be dropped with this development, and we’ll have a post-mortem this week. "

Thank you... I'm just glad it's over. Or is it?! :mwahaha:

[LookinUp]

Thank you... I'm just glad it's over. Or is it?! :mwahaha:

Not me. I wanted both Hosmer and Alvarez back in next year's draft. Not only would they both have likely remained top flight players, the Pirates (at a minimum) would have likely shyed away from Boras clients in next year's draft. They may anyway.

If he didn't sign, there would have at least been a chance that he fell to the O's.

Also, sitting at 6 or 7 wouldn't be so bad with Crow, Alvarez and Hosmer adding to the already nice talent pool at the top of the draft.

[geschinger]

I'm disappointed in the Pirates and MLB... What a ridiculous outcome. Avoid determining whether or not the CBA was violated by violating the CBA in a way that Boras and the Players Association is willing to accept.

[hoosiers]

I'm disappointed in the Pirates and MLB... What a ridiculous outcome. Avoid determining whether or not the CBA was violated by violating the CBA in a way that Boras and the Players Association is willing to accept.

This is how I see it to. It's a shame the Pirates are in such need for Alvarez and that it did not happen to a team more willing to wait a year for a top prospect.

It also goes to show, as much as people want a hard slot, not just how much leverage the players have, but, more important, how much these prospects are really worth to the teams involved.

[Greg Pappas]

Not me. I wanted both Hosmer and Alvarez back in next year's draft. Not only would they both have likely remained top flight players, the Pirates (at a minimum) would have likely shyed away from Boras clients in next year's draft. They may anyway.

If he didn't sign, there would have at least been a chance that he fell to the O's.

Also, sitting at 6 or 7 wouldn't be so bad with Crow, Alvarez and Hosmer adding to the already nice talent pool at the top of the draft.

While I understand your view on the matter, it was only fair that those players will be remaining with the teams that took them. It's not like Pitt and KC didn't want the yougsters. From an Oriole fan's take, it would have been great to have Alvarez and Hosmer available... it would've been very nice indeed.

[Greg Pappas]

I'm disappointed in the Pirates and MLB... What a ridiculous outcome. Avoid determining whether or not the CBA was violated by violating the CBA in a way that Boras and the Players Association is willing to accept.

This is how I see it to. It's a shame the Pirates are in such need for Alvarez and that it did not happen to a team more willing to wait a year for a top prospect.

It also goes to show, as much as people want a hard slot, not just how much leverage the players have, but, more important, how much these prospects are really worth to the teams involved.

Yeah, the whole situation stunk to high heaven... and all party's should be embarrassed. They're not, but again, should be.