Goldstein: "Lack of Jurisdiction" in Alvarez Case Likely

Here's another excellent article by Baseball Prospectus' Kevin Goldstein regarding the Pedro Alvarez situation. Goldstein describes the various possibilities the arbitrator might consider, describes why most of them will rip off one party or another, then speculates that because of this, it is likely the arbitrator will decide that because Alvarez is not a member of the union, he cannot "provide a remedy" for him. In this case, I assume what would happen is that the arbitrator would tell Major League Baseball to stop extending the deadline, but allow the Alvarez and Eric Hosmer contracts to stand. This obviously would be fine with me.

about 1 year ago Charlie 9 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It's such a relief

to read somebody writing responsibly about the whole thing. It’s a nice counterpoint to the conspiracy theories and the ludicrous arguments about how the draft is going to get invalidated or whatever.

by WTM on Sep 6, 2008 3:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I’m normally not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but as someone who’s been accused of being “irresponsible” in my writing about this—because of what I wrote about Julio Borbon—I can’t fault anyone for writing seemingly crazy things about this. (As long as they’re not lying, or something.) The history of Boras’ career is filled with crazy things, and it wouldn’t shock me if there was some incredibly bizarre side to this matter that we haven’t seen yet.

by Charlie on Sep 6, 2008 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not bizarre, but

I suspect the part we’re not hearing about is that the union is not at all happy with Boras. He didn’t tell them about the extensions until he was unhappy with Alvarez’ deal. It doesn’t help their case that he kept quiet about deals he liked that were reached thanks to extensions, but now is complaining because his client agreed to a deal against his wishes.

by WTM on Sep 6, 2008 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you think that will affect the remedy the union requests? They haven’t yet said what they want, have they?

by Charlie on Sep 6, 2008 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Boras put them in a tough spot because it’s hard to ask for relief on behalf of Alvarez without including Hosmer. Plus, there’s precedent that’s squarely on point saying the arbitrator can’t invalidate Alvarez’ deal. The fact is, the union is the complaining party and any relief is supposed to make the complaining party whole. The harm to the union is pretty esoteric—MLB extended a deadline a little bit without their knowledge. How would voiding a non-union member’s deal make the union whole, even if the arbitrator had jurisdiction to do that? I think the remedy will just be a cease-and-desist order or some other procedural thing designed to prevent this from happening in the future.

by WTM on Sep 6, 2008 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right. Net effect of all this goofing around: Pedro Alvarez misses the entire 2008 minor league season, misses fall baseball, probably misses winter baseball. Great.

by Charlie on Sep 6, 2008 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What if the arbitrator rules that he has no authority to void Alvarez’s contract, but Boras decides to challenge the validity of the contract in open court. I am not a lawyer, and I don’t know whether they could do this and I certainly do not know how such a situation would play out. But I feel that could be a nightmare for us, as it could drag out forever and prevent Alvarez from playing fall or winter baseball and it could potential prevent Alvarez from ever playing with us. By the way, when are the deadlines for adding Alvarez to either fall or winter league teams?

by houksyndrome on Sep 7, 2008 4:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not a good option

With appeals, it’d take two years or more to get the case resolved in court. Meanwhile, Alvarez will be on the restricted list. They may try going to court, but it’d probably be more of a negotiating tactic. The chances of success wouldn’t be that great due to MLB’s antitrust exemption.

by WTM on Sep 7, 2008 6:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs