Baseball America: Commissioner Extended Deadline for Eric Hosmer
This could cause some problems:
Major League Baseball placed Alvarez, the No. 2 overall pick in the 2008 draft out of Vanderbilt, on the restricted list Wednesday, at Pittsburgh's request. At the same time, the Major League Baseball Players Association has filed a grievance challenging what it calls MLB's "unilateral decision" to extend the signing deadline to allow several players to get deals done...
Several sources have confirmed to Baseball America that MLB extended the signing deadline by as much as 45 minutes to allow Eric Hosmer (another Boras client) to reach a deal with the Royals that included a $6 million bonus.
Speculation in baseball circles was that Alvarez—who reached an agreement with the Pirates for a $6 million bonus—and Missouri righthander Aaron Crow—who could not come to terms with the Nationals—received similar extensions, though Baseball America has not been able to confirm that.
The idea that Major League Baseball allowed the Pirates to negotiate with Alvarez past the deadline contradicts the Post-Gazette's account, which had the agreement occurring at 11:58:
How exactly this deal got done remains to be fully unfurled, but this much already is known: Alvarez's agent, Scott Boras, followed his recent pattern of taking negotiations to the closing minutes before ultimately calling Huntington -- the team's lone voice in the talks -- to accept. The Pirates, according to one person intimately familiar with those talks, never budged off their number, and Boras' call came at 11:58 to accept.
Of course, if the Pirates were allowed to continue their negotiations with Alvarez and reach an agreement after the deadline, that would explain why the news of the signing was not announced until nearly an hour after the deadline had passed, and why nobody was hearing anything a half hour after the deadline had passed.
The union may actually have a case here. The union hasn't revealed what it wants to actually happen, so we'll see how this unfolds.
Boras, meanwhile, is mysteriously urging the Pirates to "come clean."
0 recs |
19 comments
Comments
Boras acts as if
the Pirates and Alvarez were the only people making a deal, and that he is some sort of savior/third party come from outside to meet out justice. Despicable.
Jason
The Hanging Curve
by poorboywilly on Aug 27, 2008 7:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
All of a sudden
the facts aren’t in the Pirates favor. This is trouble. If he didn’t sign before midnight, I think he can go back to Vandy.
by hisjazziness on Aug 27, 2008 7:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Nope
Baseball at Vandy is a dead issue if he verbally agreed to a deal, even if it’s later invalidated. Think back to the Clarett/Williams fiasco from the NFL draft a few years back. He could probably finish out his degree, though he’d have to pay his own way from here on out, of course.
If it’s invalidated, he could sign with an indy-league team, or just do nothing until the draft comes round again.
by Vlad on Aug 27, 2008 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but did he officially verbally agree to a deal if it's rule an invalid deal (due to it being after midnight)?
by Sky Kalkman on Aug 27, 2008 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The status of the deal doesn't matter.
The thing that determines eligibility is paying for professional representation. Ballplayers are allowed to have agents and still go back to school if they want because the agents are technically non-paid advisors helping the players out of the goodness of their cold little hearts, right up until a deal is signed. Once Alvarez and the Pirates came to a verbal agreement, he agreed to pay Boras a certain sum for his services… and Boras was no longer an unpaid advisor, but a paid representative. Even if the deal falls apart, they still had an agreement.
by Vlad on Aug 28, 2008 8:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still think the Pirates have the edge
this seems to be a bigger issue than just the Pirates/Alvarez/Boras. From what I understand, the grievance isn’t with the Pirates specifically, but the office of the Commish. Plus, no matter what the outcome, we stood our ground and didn’t succumb to being bullied around by a class-a douche. He’s the personification of ass-cancer.
Welp...
by phillybucco on Aug 27, 2008 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For what it is worth, Rocco reported a short while ago...
That any extension of the deadline necessarily applied to all teams, not just a select one or few. If this is correct (and that is a big IF based on recent developments with Rocco), then the fact that Pedro was done before Hosmer is critical.
FYI: Vlad – I posted a response to you on the string of earlier today about Pedro.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Aug 27, 2008 8:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Another pbc blog update from a while ago...
7:35 p.m.: Pat Courtney, vice president of communications, put out this release on behalf of Major League Baseball: “We believe the grievance is entirely without merit. The deadline was extended to accept minor league contracts voluntarily entered into by the clubs and the players with the help of their agents. It is settled law that the arbitration panel has no authority to disturb such minor league contracts.”
I really think everything is going to work out in some favorable conclusion…
Welp...
by phillybucco on Aug 27, 2008 8:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Moment of clarity
I don’t believe that I’ve seen this elsewhere, though I suspect many have already reached this conclusion. Nevertheless, after taking a step back, it now seems to me that the whole point of this exercise by Boras is to challenge the legitimacy of the deadline. It appears that MLB unilaterally extended the deadline, which would – argueably – be an unfair advantage to the clubs over the player.
My guess is that this has less to do with Pedro and more to do with trying to overturn the deadline Boras hates so much. If he succeeds, he’s got more time to “negotiate” with the teams, and time = leverage.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Aug 27, 2008 8:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think the Players’ Association is trying to overturn the deadline — they are trying to enforce it. I don’t think that it’s possible for an arbitrator to give them more time.
I think Boras wants to show that the Pirates didn’t negotiate in good faith, because they knew they could wring a few extra minutes out of the process.
by Arnold Rothstein on Aug 27, 2008 9:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And Boras not negotiating anything between mid-June and 1145 PM on August 15th IS negotiating in good faith?? Since when??
by Thunder on Aug 27, 2008 9:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One Lawyer's Perspective
It’s way too early to figure out how this is going to play out but it sounds to me like it might go this way.
Union — our collective bargaining agreement with MLB states that if a player does not sign by midnight on such and such date, he must automatically go back in the next year’s draft. MLB may not alter any matter covered by the collective bargaining agreement, even if the draftee expressly agrees, without first having a “meet and confer” session with the union. Since MLB failed to meet and confer before it waived the midnight deadline it has violated the NLRA (National Labor Relations Act), and the arbitrator(s) must so hold and rule that any contract agreed to after midnight is void.
MLB — Maybe this is all true, but it is settled that the MLB Players Union lacks “standing” to bring such a claim because it involves a minor league contract, which is not a matter subject to collective bargaining between the union and MLB. (Note: Thank the Great Jeebus that Huntington didn’t agree to a major league contract for Alvarez, or MLB couldn’t assert this defense.) Since all players not on 40 man rosters are not members of the union, the union cannot raise this issue and the arbitrator(s) cannot rule on it. (“Standing” is the ability of a party to bring a claim based upon it having a real and actual stake in the outcome.)
My own $0.02. I love procedural arguments — particularly if MLB has in hand a similar ruling by a court or other arbitrator(s) on the same point (the MLB statement implies they are holding this cared when it mentions “settled law”). But what I am not hearing is MLB stating (like DK did in the PG at the time) that the contract was signed, sealed and delivered to MLB offices prior to midnight.
MLB is saying that even if the contract did not make it to MLB offices that the union and the arbitrators are just s.o.l. because it’s none of their damn business. This is a totally acceptable argument, because it avoids the factual issue of when did MLB receive word of the agreement — and you never know what a fact-finder is going to decide when it comes to disputed facts (Boras and Alvarez could testify to the arbitrator that they were watching their watches and had the atomic clock running online and it was after midnight, Huntington’s printout of an his email dated prior to midnight could be called a sweet hack, whatever, and a pro-union arbitrator gets to decide who is more likely than not to be telling the truth).
But I prefer it when procedural arguments are backed up with substantive arguements. PBC — “Arbitrators, you don’t have standing to review this claim, but even if you did, Boras is a known prevaricator of the first water, and he’s just trying to save face cause Huntington smoked him. And he has a conflict of interest since his KC client would also be affected by any ruling you give, so his testimony is twice problematic.”
This will be interesting. Worst case for Alvarez is that by making this claim he probably cannot play MLB next year, which delays his arbitration eligible and free agency years. Best case though isn’t that great — he goes back into the draft NEXT YEAR and still loses this time. Boras expects PBC to bite on thd $200K boost to the bonus, but since this has already dragged on so long, the PBC can just tell him its too late for Alvarez to part of PBC’s 2009 plans, so pound sand. P.S. Boras is a total fraud when he says to talk to the Union — if it’s the Union’s grievance and not his then Boras has got no ability to withdraw the grievance if PBC pays Alvarez the extra $200K.
by WstCstBucco on Aug 27, 2008 10:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks. WstCstBucco. If you want to post this as a FanPost, I will promote it.
by Charlie on Aug 27, 2008 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
another lawyer's perspective
it’s important to bear in mind here that the interests of the players association are not in fact the same as alvarez’s interests… it wasn’t alvarez who bargained for the signing deadline, it was the mlbpa… as a consequence, I would think that the mlbpa would have standing to enforce the midnight deadline, if that is the issue…
I don’t really even see how the players association could plausibly be acting on pedro’s behalf here… I’m not sure when membership kicks in, but if the argument is that the contract is void because of the deadline, then alvarez would never have attained membership in the first place…
of course, without knowing alvarez’s objectives here (which may or may not be boras’ objectives), it’s hard to say where exactly this will go… the one thing that IS clear is that there are at least five parties involved here with potentially differing objectives (alvarez, boras, mlbpa, pirates/mlb, hosmer/royals)…
by Captain Easychord on Aug 28, 2008 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The union’s position is that MLB negotiated to have the deadline included in the major league collective bargaining agreement. The reason MLB wanted it in there was that it would trump any amateur player from challenging the deadline on antitrust grounds.
by Arnold Rothstein on Aug 27, 2008 10:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Baseball's antitrust exemption . . .
. . . doesn’t come from the collective bargaining agreement.
It comes from the US Supreme Court. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes authored the opinion in 1922 in Federal Baseball Club v. National League that baseball was exempt from federal antitrust laws.
by WstCstBucco on Aug 27, 2008 10:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I a have citation handy, but collective bargaining often trumps antitrust. There may be some of that stuff in Curt Flood.
by Arnold Rothstein on Aug 27, 2008 10:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Outside the box view- Alvarez is damaged goods
Way out view is Alvarez is injured and wants to delay his Buc’s physical for a while…
by long4willie on Aug 27, 2008 11:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
WstCstBucco
Thanks for the informed opinion from me as well.
I don`t want Pedro Alvarez in the Pirates` organization anymore-regardless of the circumstances surrounding his signing. Let`s move on.
by patthatt on Aug 28, 2008 12:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 













