Seems to be about the same as the old deal, no better for the Pirates or worse. Glad that Pedro can get in there and play winter ball as soon as possible.

The thing that really confuses me is what Charlie first addresses: how this deal works with the other deal agreed upon? I’m sure details will be clarified once it reaches a decent hour but right now I’m left scratching my head.

Well, if Alvarez tears up a winter league over the next few months, Lynchburg/Altoona next year, and Pittsburgh the year after, all of this drama will be a distant memory…

I am at once concerned that the Bucs caved on their "no more negotiations stance’ – which was the correct position to take – but at the same time pleased that they were not so rigid as to be blinded to a good option.

While I would suggest that Boras/Pedro “won” with the new deal, it is a slight victory and there appears to be no significant economic difference to the Pirates. In other words, the deal was more of a restructuring than a new deal. Nevertheless, it allows Boras to claim the largest signing bonus and a big league deal (which doesn’t seem to be such a big deal).

I suspect that MLB leaned on the Bucs to work something out. The key to the whole grievance was MLB’s unilaterally handing out signing deadline extensions. Since the contract kills the grievance, there presumably will not be a ruling on the issue – which I think was almost assured to kill MLB’s deadline extension practice, which it views as a valuable tool. Further, resolution of the Pedro contract and related grievance also resolves the Hosmer deal, again showing that it was savvy for the Pirates to bring him into it.

Good day.

I don’t think the contract is any better other than the fact that the published number strokes Boras’ fragile little ego. The contract seems to have the same present value as the first one (6 mil over 2 years versus 6.355 paid over 4 years). The Pirates get the player they thought they had. They get him into the system (maybe AFL?) and without additional payroll cost.

Is Boras really short? He sounds like someone with a severe case of Napoleon’s disease.

Dejan’s story this morning says that the contract will likely “quash” the grievance. This makes sense if you subscribe to my theory that MLB leaned on the Bucs to get this done. I agree that the contract does not necessarily kill the grievance, but I suspect that is part of the deal (that the players association agreed to withdraw the grievance).

Also, I would suggest that if the grievance is dropped (that is, there is no risk of a ruling against MLB on the deadline extensions) that the deal is a ‘win-win’. Boras gets to brag about the deal, but the additional substance is so minimal that it is also a win for the Pirates.

I am all about making a statement and standing on principle because such a stand is the only hope (albeit slight) for MLB someday providing an competitive economic environment for all of its teams. However, as discussed above, I see this as a ‘win-win’.

By the way, the only way I can see this contract becoming operative is if the players association signed off on it, which furthers my above suppositions.

Good day.

that during the course of the grievance/arbitration process, it became pretty clear to the parties involved that the Pirates DID have a valid agreement with Alvarez. Now they could be hard-assed about it, and insist that everybody stick to the terms of the original agreement so they come out looking like winners and Boras comes out looking like an ass. But they must know that to acquire the kind of high-end talent they’re going to need, they will have to deal with Boras again many times down the road.

So supposin’ they said, “Look, our agreement is good, it’s as solid as a contract, just without the signature. You know it and we know it. What we’re going to do, though, is tear up that agreement and offer you this one. It’s not a renegotiation, it’s a new agreement, because we all know the first one was legit. Just as if you had signed the contract, and three weeks later we liked you enough to tear it up and give you a new one. We’ll give up on the minor-league part of the contract and in return you spread the money out a little more. Alvarez gets his money, we get our player, you save face. Win-win-win.”

Could they do this legally, and without violating the CBA? Anybody?

If it’s a “new” deal, then it seems possible that negotiating happened after the deadline. So if nothing changes, couldn’t a player “agree” to a deal before the deadline, with the understanding he wouldn’t report until negotiations are complete?

It it’s a “revised” deal, it seems possible that they just crossed out every line in the one agreed to, and just re-wrote or put the new contract on as an addendum or something, such that they can say it’s a revising of the agreed upon deal, and the deadline was not breached. But again, if nothing changes, what’s stopping a player from doing this again. “Agreeing” to a deal and holding out another month to squeeze some cash, or a future incentive or something from The Club?

Or maybe the resolution of the grievance can nail it all shut.

Ha! Just kidding about that last one.

It would be great if the settlement with the union would reopen the window long enough for the Crow kid to sign with the Nationals.