SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2014 MLB Post-Draft Discussion Thread
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 19, 2014 7:40:37 GMT -5
If the MLB forces HOU to sign Nix for $1.5mm, they will be forced to forfeit two first round picks - I don't see that happening. If it did though, theoretically, would they have to give up both of next year's first rounders or their actual, record-based 2015 pick and then their 2016 first rounder? I'm assuming the the latter but since this would basically be unprecedented is there even an answer? |
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Jul 19, 2014 13:24:54 GMT -5
Edit: Did the Nationals go well over slot to someone outside the top 10 rounds? They were well under on many of their top 10 picks, yet apparently didn't offer over slot (980K) to Suarez The Nats gave all of their extra money to Fedde, which only allowed them to offer slot to Suarez. Saw the Fedde deal, but didn't see that they also went almost 250 over on Reetz, that's where the extra went |
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jul 20, 2014 15:21:06 GMT -5
From Keith Law's chat:
This is pretty much how I see it. How can MLB let the Astros not sign Nix after they had already agreed to a deal and there was no medical issue? And if that happens, how can they not enforce the draft pick penalties in the CBA?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Jul 20, 2014 15:31:23 GMT -5
From Keith Law's chat: This is pretty much how I see it. How can MLB let the Astros not sign Nix after they had already agreed to a deal and there was no medical issue? And if that happens, how can they not enforce the draft pick penalties in the CBA? I wonder if a contract was signed or was it all verbal? We don't know do we? |
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jul 20, 2014 15:45:58 GMT -5
I was speaking with the announcers from Cotuit and they said that Rice has been dealing with concussion issues, and he hasn't played in a week or two. I'm not sure if that had anything to do with signing/not signing, but something serious like that is never good.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Jul 20, 2014 18:01:56 GMT -5
From Keith Law's chat: This is pretty much how I see it. How can MLB let the Astros not sign Nix after they had already agreed to a deal and there was no medical issue? And if that happens, how can they not enforce the draft pick penalties in the CBA? I wonder if a contract was signed or was it all verbal? We don't know do we? The CBA is express that an agreement exists only if signed. If MLB suddenly changes this well established boundary, there's going to be a lot of "did not, did too" claims, including teams trying to bind players (Karsen Whitson, Hunter Morris) to their verbals. blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2014/07/18/would-a-grievance-get-aiken-nix-or-players-union-anywhere/ |
|
|
|
Post by bulldougy on Jul 21, 2014 0:57:23 GMT -5
The CBA isn't above US law. If there was a verbal agreement the Astros would have to honor it.
|
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 21, 2014 6:12:08 GMT -5
The CBA isn't above US law. If there was a verbal agreement the Astros would have to honor it. Contracts are enforcable if consideration is exchanged. A verbal agreement where no consideration has been given by either party is mostly not enforcable. First day of contact law. |
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jul 21, 2014 6:50:33 GMT -5
The CBA isn't above US law. If there was a verbal agreement the Astros would have to honor it. Contracts are enforcable if consideration is exchanged. A verbal agreement where no consideration has been given by either party is mostly not enforcable. First day of contact law. No - that isn't right at all. Presumably, the good stuff is on the second day of contracts. ( I wouldn't know - I didn't take contracts in law school, but I'm an odd duck.) Consideration can take the form of an agreement to perform in the future. I agree to throw a baseball for you team (and no other team), you agree to give me lots of money -- voila. Not to turn this into something silly, so apologies if I do, but: if two people agree to do (most) things in the future (e.g., I'll throw a baseball, you'll give me $), then there is the potential for a contract. However, if the two parties are already subject to a different agreement (for example, a collectively bargain agreement), then the prior contract may determine the contours of the subsequent contract. Here, the unsigned players are not controlled by the CBA, and the CBA says nothing about how a drafted player's agreement must be executed. So, I'm not sure where Ed Wade, or any of the folks in the Houston Chron article, think that drafted players contracts require MLB approval. I could have just missed it, but the only portion I see that is close-to applicable is Article IV (starting on page 2), which by its terms only applies to a (capital P) Player, which is means a player in the MLB. The complicating factor is that for players who are in the MLB (while in the CBA, such people are called "Players" with a capital P, the geniuses that wrote that agreement never actually defined that capitalized term - though its the only reasonable interpretation given the proceeding articles), their contracts are required to be in writing and approved by the Commish's office. So, teams can reasonable believe that non-MLB players have read the CBA and understand that MLB teams only enter into contracts in writing, which calls into question whether a non-Player player can ever reasonable expect that they entered into an agreement with a team absent the agreement being in writing. Or perhaps unsigned college players are already covered by the CBA? I wouldn't think that is a reasonable interpretation, however. Note, too, that this also means that the union has a difficult time grieving, too. (The difference b/w Whitson and Aiken and Nix is that Nix went through a physical and the team did not pull the agreed-to offer --- the other non-Player players most likely were told "here is the obscene amount of money we'll given you assuming you have all your body parts in tact," and they did not.) |
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Jul 21, 2014 6:58:26 GMT -5
It's not an issue of consideration. It's the basic rule that if the parties acknowledge that they are not bound unless there is a signed writing, then they are not bound until there is a signed writing. The CBA makes that rule express. Actually, the CBA takes it one further, and provides that the contract is not binding until approved by the MLB.
|
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jul 21, 2014 7:06:07 GMT -5
The CBA isn't above US law. If there was a verbal agreement the Astros would have to honor it. Service contracts that cannot be performed in a year must be in writing. Every single state in the United States has some form of law to this effect (called a "Statute of Frauds"). I'm sure this will be the Astros very first argument. They might also argue there was no mutual assent, including no official offer and no acceptance of that offer. As for consideration, consideration can take the form of a promise to do something (and therefore be in the future). Saying there was no consideration (even if no contract was formed) would be incorrect, because there was presumably a promise to pay Nix $1.5 mil, in return Nix promised to pitch for the Astros for 5 years. It's tough to see how Nix wins here. He might argue some form of quasi-contract was formed, which is simply an equitable remedy to correct unfairness. He could argue that he relied, to his detriment, on the promise made by the Astros, and because of this he lost his scholarship and the ability to play at UCLA, etc. This remedy probably doesn't work because it is almost impossible to ask for specific performance (enforce the contract) in a service contract. Courts would rather just pay out money damages. |
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jul 21, 2014 7:20:56 GMT -5
It's not an issue of consideration. It's the basic rule that if the parties acknowledge that they are not bound unless there is a signed writing, then they are not bound until there is a signed writing. The CBA makes that rule express. Actually, the CBA takes it one further, and provides that the contract is not binding until approved by the MLB. Steve, I think Josh made it clear that college draftees are NOT bound by the CBA, although noted some potential wiggle room for an argument teams could make that could require written agreements. I don't know much about contracts case law, but I would think that argument might have a hard time holding up. Additionally, and mods or others with more direct knowledge please correct me if necessary, but these agreements aren't left as verbal agreements very long, liking hanging contract chads. I'm pretty sure these agents get the agreement faxed to them so they have something in writing pretty quickly once the basics have been agreed to verbally. |
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jul 21, 2014 7:33:20 GMT -5
Additionally, and mods or others with more direct knowledge please correct me if necessary, but these agreements aren't left as verbal agreements very long, liking hanging contract chads. I'm pretty sure these agents get the agreement faxed to them so they have something in writing pretty quickly once the basics have been agreed to verbally. At the very least, they send an email. "Just to confirm that you agreed to give me obscene money, and I agreed to throw a baseball for you, assuming I still have an arm after you poke and prod me." |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 21, 2014 7:40:26 GMT -5
The CBA isn't above US law. If there was a verbal agreement the Astros would have to honor it. Service contracts that cannot be performed in a year must be in writing. Every single state in the United States has some form of law to this effect (called a "Statute of Frauds"). I'm sure this will be the Astros very first argument. As you're likely aware, though, courts interpret the one year rule very strictly. Only if the contract would be impossible to fulfill in one year would the SoF require it to be written up and signed. I admittedly have no idea how minor league contracts work, but my understanding is that they are not more than one year in length. Yes, there are six years of minor league control, but I believe that minor league contracts are option contracts which can be renewed yearly rather than being one long six-year deal that would fall under the SoF. For instance, if a team releases a minor leaguer, they do not have to pay him six years' worth of minor league salary, which would indicate that it's some sort of renewal contract. So I'm not sure how far SoF gets you. I think MLB will instead rely on the argument that there was not mutual assent and that Nix's "verbal agreement" was instead just non-binding preliminary negotiations, akin to a letter of intent. But that's a much hazier question, and one which MLB may well lose on. |
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Jul 21, 2014 7:42:48 GMT -5
It's not an issue of consideration. It's the basic rule that if the parties acknowledge that they are not bound unless there is a signed writing, then they are not bound until there is a signed writing. The CBA makes that rule express. Actually, the CBA takes it one further, and provides that the contract is not binding until approved by the MLB. Steve, I think Josh made it clear that college draftees are NOT bound by the CBA, although noted some potential wiggle room for an argument teams could make that could require written agreements. I don't know much about contracts case law, but I would think that argument might have a hard time holding up. It's not a matter of the player being bound by the CBA. That's hornbook contract law on "preliminary agreements." If the player (or any contracting party) knows that the other cannot be bound verbally and will only be bound upon conditions (signature, approval of MLB, etc) then they cannot claim that a contract has been formed absent those conditions. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 21, 2014 7:53:11 GMT -5
Steve, I think Josh made it clear that college draftees are NOT bound by the CBA, although noted some potential wiggle room for an argument teams could make that could require written agreements. I don't know much about contracts case law, but I would think that argument might have a hard time holding up. It's not a matter of the player being bound by the CBA. That's hornbook contract law on "preliminary agreements." If the player (or any contracting party) knows that the other cannot be bound verbally and will only be bound upon conditions (signature, approval of MLB, etc) then they cannot claim that a contract has been formed absent those conditions. Eh, the caselaw on preliminary agreements is actually quite muddled, with fact-specific analysis playing a big role (thus generating considerable uncertainty). It would certainly be an uphill battle, but there's a small but significant chance that Nix wins that there was mutual assent or under some sort of promissory estoppel theory (this is especially true if he loses NCAA eligibility). ADD: some factors a court would look at: -whether either party explicitly disclaimed an intent to be bound (  ) -whether the parties subsequently acted as if an agreement has been reached (points in Nix's favor) -whether any party engaged in substantial partial performance (points in MLB's favor) -customary industry practice (points in MLB's favor) -extent of open terms (points in Nix's favor) |
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Jul 21, 2014 7:55:05 GMT -5
Is this a prospect site or a law firm? Seriously, how many lawyers we have around here anyway?
There's a scene from the movie "Spaceballs" I'd link to here but it involves inappropriate language.
|
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jul 21, 2014 7:55:11 GMT -5
Service contracts that cannot be performed in a year must be in writing. Every single state in the United States has some form of law to this effect (called a "Statute of Frauds"). I'm sure this will be the Astros very first argument. As you're likely aware, though, courts interpret the one year rule very strictly. Only if the contract would be impossible to fulfill in one year would the SoF require it to be written up and signed. I admittedly have no idea how minor league contracts work, but my understanding is that they are not more than one year in length. Yes, there are six years of minor league control, but I believe that minor league contracts are option contracts which can be renewed yearly rather than being one long six-year deal that would fall under the SoF. For instance, if a team releases a minor leaguer, they do not have to pay him six years' worth of minor league salary, which would indicate that it's some sort of renewal contract. So I'm not sure how far SoF gets you. I think MLB will instead rely on the argument that there was not mutual assent and that Nix's "verbal agreement" was instead just non-binding preliminary negotiations, akin to a letter of intent. But that's a much hazier question, and one which MLB may well lose on. That's an interesting point on the series of option contracts. I just assumed that the team held control of the player for the duration of the five or sex years. Although I admit I don't know a whole lot on employment law, my guess is that the minor league contracts are akin to "at will" contracts, which allow the team to release a player for any reason (many employment contracts require the employer to show cause). What you describe as releasing after the end of an option contract, might simply be firing a player under a larger "at will" contract. |
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Singer on Jul 21, 2014 7:59:52 GMT -5
Is this a prospect site or a law firm? Seriously, how many lawyers we have around here anyway? There's a scene from the movie "Spaceballs" I'd link to here but it involves inappropriate language. It's both. We have a ton of lawyers around here. |
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 21, 2014 8:15:36 GMT -5
Is this a prospect site or a law firm? Seriously, how many lawyers we have around here anyway? There's a scene from the movie "Spaceballs" I'd link to here but it involves inappropriate language. You just discovered the site's little secret... Coming to you from the great northwest |
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jul 21, 2014 8:45:19 GMT -5
Additionally, and mods or others with more direct knowledge please correct me if necessary, but these agreements aren't left as verbal agreements very long, liking hanging contract chads. I'm pretty sure these agents get the agreement faxed to them so they have something in writing pretty quickly once the basics have been agreed to verbally. At the very least, they send an email. "Just to confirm that you agreed to give me obscene money, and I agreed to throw a baseball for you, assuming I still have an arm after you poke and prod me." Exactly. This is prudent practice on the Agent's part. And should really be one the team's part as well, to be sure the player doesn't try to back out. I think it takes the agreements beyond verbal. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 21, 2014 9:17:53 GMT -5
I'm not sure why they weren't using contingencies in written contracts.
"Knowing that the Astros do not have the bonus pool available to sign Nix until Aiken signs below slot, this contract vests if and only if Aiken signs $1.5 million below slot"
|
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 21, 2014 9:46:15 GMT -5
I'm not sure why they weren't using contingencies in written contracts. "Knowing that the Astros do not have the bonus pool available to sign Nix until Aiken signs below slot, this contract vests if and only if Aiken signs $1.5 million below slot" As I understand it, this is explicitly prohibited by the CBA (despite being otherwise completely encouraged by it), and thus MLBPA would come in at that point and smack them upside the head. |
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Jul 21, 2014 9:58:33 GMT -5
There is no "US law" regarding contracts. Each state has its own version of common law regarding contracts (which, with the exception of Louisiana (Code Napoleon), have roots in English common law and the Field Code. There is a Restatement of Contracts which is given great weight by state courts.
The Astros do not have the ability to enter into a binding player contract that is not approved by the Commissioner's Office (subject to arbitration if the MLB Players Association does not agree). Negotiations between clubs and draftees are just negotiations until approved by the Commissioner. As an agent approved by MLB, Casey Close knows that there is no binding agreement unless the Commissioner approves of the contract. There was no signed agreement, and, of course, no approval by the Commissioner. Also, al of these player contracts are subject to a physical exam. Aiken had to know it and his "advisor" definitely knew it.
I disagree with the assertion that there was valid consideration given and accepted by both the Astros and Aiken. There are significant Statute of Frauds issues (which vary from state to state but generally provide that oral contracts that will be performed in less than a year may be oral but longer ones must be in a writing signed by the party against whom it is sought to be enforced) preventing an enforceable contract here, and there is almost always a dollar limitation. The amount tentatively agreed upon between Aiken and the Astros dramatically exceeds the typical $500 to $5,000 figure depending on the state.
There could also be an enforceable contract if there was a representation by the Astros that was detrimentally relied upon by Aiken. There was no detrimental reliance by Aiken. He did not lose the option of signing with another major league team nor did he give up the opportunity to pitch for a team outside of organized baseball based on the tentative agreement with the Astros regarding the bonus.
FYI, I have 42 years of experience in contract law and employment law.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 21, 2014 10:21:50 GMT -5
I'm not sure why they weren't using contingencies in written contracts. "Knowing that the Astros do not have the bonus pool available to sign Nix until Aiken signs below slot, this contract vests if and only if Aiken signs $1.5 million below slot" As I understand it, this is explicitly prohibited by the CBA (despite being otherwise completely encouraged by it), and thus MLBPA would come in at that point and smack them upside the head. Aren't pretty much all contracts (with new teams) "pending physical" as a contingency? Or do free agents stop negotiating after a verbal agreement and assume the teams are acting in good faith while they allow their market to slip away if they invent some BS during the physical? |
|
|
)
