Photo

Shohei Otani - If Posted?


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#41 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,745 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 08:00 AM

I'd fight that in court and I'd win.  MLB has allowed those sort of stipulation for veteran foreign players, including posted guys.  Tanaka from the Yankees has an opt-out in his deal after this year, well before he would've reached enough service time for free agency, so if he can get one, there is no justifiable reason to not allow Otani to get one.  Nearly every veteran international free agent from Japan, Korea, or Cuba have had clauses in their deals where they become free agents after the few years of the deal, rather than needing to reach six years service time.



#42 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,057 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 18 September 2017 - 09:22 AM

I'd fight that in court and I'd win.  MLB has allowed those sort of stipulation for veteran foreign players, including posted guys.  Tanaka from the Yankees has an opt-out in his deal after this year, well before he would've reached enough service time for free agency, so if he can get one, there is no justifiable reason to not allow Otani to get one.  Nearly every veteran international free agent from Japan, Korea, or Cuba have had clauses in their deals where they become free agents after the few years of the deal, rather than needing to reach six years service time.

 

Not the very young ones. Tanaka was 25 when he signed his contract, which is the current cutoff point below which international players must follow the normal service-time rules.

 

This is a collectively-bargained deal. Taking it to court would involve having to undo that entire system agreed upon by the league and the MLBPA.


@DJ_McCann

#43 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,745 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 09:29 AM

MLB has let teams include mandatory non-tender or release clauses before.  Including guys who were posted and guys who were free agents.

 

It's possible the posting agreement changes prior to Otani being posted.  That would make sense, as MLB enacted their new international FA rules unilaterally without consulting NPB and KBO, basically rendering the current posting process moot, as it capped total contract amount for players at $10M and more realistically something like $5M unless a team trades for enough space to double their allotment.

 

But without the posting agreement changing to make posted players exempt from the international spending cap, there is no reason for MLB to disallow a legal contract.  And they've always allowed players and teams to agree to deals that mandate the player reach free agency at an earlier point than service time alone would dictate.  Changing that now would be easy to challenge in court, IMO.  Maybe not fast, but easy.



#44 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,057 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 18 September 2017 - 11:46 AM

MLB has let teams include mandatory non-tender or release clauses before.  Including guys who were posted and guys who were free agents.

 

It's possible the posting agreement changes prior to Otani being posted.  That would make sense, as MLB enacted their new international FA rules unilaterally without consulting NPB and KBO, basically rendering the current posting process moot, as it capped total contract amount for players at $10M and more realistically something like $5M unless a team trades for enough space to double their allotment.

 

But without the posting agreement changing to make posted players exempt from the international spending cap, there is no reason for MLB to disallow a legal contract.  And they've always allowed players and teams to agree to deals that mandate the player reach free agency at an earlier point than service time alone would dictate.  Changing that now would be easy to challenge in court, IMO.  Maybe not fast, but easy.

 

What is different between Otani and, say, Yoan Moncada?

 

The reason this situation is notable is because Japanese teams almost never agree to post players this young. Tanaka, as mentioned, was 25. So was Yu Darvish. Daisuke Matsuzaka was 26. So they were posted and signed under a different set of rules; the ones dealing with international free agents 25-and-older. Because Otani is under 25, he has to follow the same contract rules as any free agent from the DR or Venezuela or anywhere else. Those are the examples you'll need to look for in terms of specific contract details like non-tender clauses.


@DJ_McCann

#45 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,745 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 11:57 AM

What is different between Otani and, say, Yoan Moncada?

 

The reason this situation is notable is because Japanese teams almost never agree to post players this young. Tanaka, as mentioned, was 25. So was Yu Darvish. Daisuke Matsuzaka was 26. So they were posted and signed under a different set of rules; the ones dealing with international free agents 25-and-older. Because Otani is under 25, he has to follow the same contract rules as any free agent from the DR or Venezuela or anywhere else. Those are the examples you'll need to look for in terms of specific contract details like non-tender clauses.

 

No difference (aside from the new lowered cap for Otani).  Moncada could have negotiated that his deal include a provision to release/non-tender him after a certain date or perhaps even service time accrual.

 

Some drafted players have added contractual clauses to their deals, such as a guarantee to be added to the 40-man or even active roster by a certain point.  I don't think MLB could justify disallowing an opt-out clause for Otani if they are allowing similar clauses for other players.  I'm sure they'll try, and maybe nobody will contest it, but I think they'd lose if it was contested.



#46 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,057 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 18 September 2017 - 12:28 PM

No difference (aside from the new lowered cap for Otani).  Moncada could have negotiated that his deal include a provision to release/non-tender him after a certain date or perhaps even service time accrual.

 

Some drafted players have added contractual clauses to their deals, such as a guarantee to be added to the 40-man or even active roster by a certain point.  I don't think MLB could justify disallowing an opt-out clause for Otani if they are allowing similar clauses for other players.  I'm sure they'll try, and maybe nobody will contest it, but I think they'd lose if it was contested.

 

Doesn't MLB disallow certain contractual clauses, already? I'm pretty sure that teams and players cannot negotiate certain types of bonuses into contracts, for example. So why would MLB not be legally entitled to reject a contract clause that is specifically designed to circumvent a basic part of the economic system?


@DJ_McCann

#47 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,745 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 01:11 PM

Doesn't MLB disallow certain contractual clauses, already? I'm pretty sure that teams and players cannot negotiate certain types of bonuses into contracts, for example. So why would MLB not be legally entitled to reject a contract clause that is specifically designed to circumvent a basic part of the economic system?

 

MLB doesn't allow bonuses to be based on performance, i.e. number of HRs hit or ERA.  They do allow bonuses based on playing time or awards, such as IP, PA, games played, or MVP, Cy Young, or All-Star voting.  They also allow contractual clauses such as option years to vest or become voidable based on things such as injuries (John Lackey had a league minimum option added to his contract because he missed a year with TJ surgery).

 

MLB also has allowed contracts to include the stipulation that the team non-tender or release a player after a certain number of years.  Most international FAs from Cuba, Japan, or Korea include these stipulations (recent examples are Wei-Yin Chen and Yoenis Cespedes).  Disallowing that for Otani would be a change from what's always been accepted in the past.  He's not a different class of player because he's 23.  He's slightly different because he'll be posted rather than a true international free agent, but other posted players have had those types of stipulations in their contracts in the past, such as Tanaka who was posted but has an opt-out in his contract after this year.  Otani's youth doesn't change his classification as a player to the point where it changes the rules about what type of contract you can give him, it just limits the amount of money teams are allowed to spend on him. 

 

MLB has already set the precedent that this type of clause is acceptable.  Rejecting a contract because it includes an opt-out would be going against that precedent, making it very likely to lose in a legal challenge, IMO.



#48 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,057 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 18 September 2017 - 05:06 PM

Again, Cespedes and Chen both came over at 26.

 

You keep missing the biggest thing I'm saying: the rules for players under-25 are DIFFERENT than for those 25-and-above, be they Japanese or Korean or Dominican or Cuban or Martian. What you are talking about is like an American amateur suing to not go through the Rule 4 draft because international prospects aren't required to do so.


@DJ_McCann

#49 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,745 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 07:14 PM

No. It's more like an American amateur requesting atypical contract clauses, such as being added to the 40-man right away.

Age determines if there is a cap on how much you can pay a guy. Unless there is more to the rules than I've read, it doesnt prevent opt outs in a deal.

#50 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,057 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 18 September 2017 - 08:14 PM

Ok, I see where I'm misunderstanding this. I thought that there were different rules in place depending on age, not just the bonus cap.
@DJ_McCann

#51 MDtransplant757

MDtransplant757
  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:02 AM

We probably won't sign him, but I'd flip out if we did. That would be awesome. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Sponsors