Go Get Juan Soto

[Frayed Knot]

I'd certainly question the part about the Mets being "the only serious offer".
There may even be different offers, but I can't even fathom what a 'non serious' offer would be at this stage of the process.

'Hey buddy, that Tesla you bought a year ago ... I'll give you two grand for it, take it or leave it'

[Centerfield]

Do we know who David Pingalore is? Is he reliable?

If the Dodgers are really only willing to sign Soto for a one- or two-year contract, then they're not a serious player here.

I guess that's the thing, bio seems legit , 29 years covering sports , currently in LA

Looks like their version of a Bruce Beck or Len Berman type for you older folks

LA is where Boras lives. Maybe he's a gym buddy or something?

[Centerfield]

Heyman’s latest article is about the Red Sox upping their offer.

It does seem more and more like Boras is trying everything he can to get the Yankees to increase their offer.

Not a great sign.

[kcmets]

My dry cleaner's daughter said this morning that Soto will
be a Yankee. I asked her why she thought that and we lost
eye contact she gathered up a pile of clothes and left saying
with her scurrying back to me, "Leave now!"

[batmagadanleadoff]

I strongly doubt that in the insular world of MLB, where there are only a few dozen teams to begin with and usually no more than a tiny handful of those teams pursing the same free agent, it happens anywhere remotely like you describe it. I don''t think that there's any bullshitting going on as to what kind of other offers a player is entertaining. It would be a misrepresentation of a material fact ... a misrepresentation of a material element of the contract. And the owners wouldn't allow that to happen to themselves. That's not in their interest. They're not gonna allow themselves to hafta bid against imaginary and fabricated offers. They'll get together on that point and cooperate with each other and compare notes and take away an agent's license, maybe even his law license if they try and pull that crap.

Well, the language is legalese, but from what I have read of the Basic Agreement, I understand to forbid clubs from working in concert with each other in such a manner, and a deft agent can play a team into bidding against themselves.

And — putting aside the "gajillion" thing — why, as a player or player's agent, would you feel obliged to disclose the details of other offers freely?

In the real world, you wouldn't. That kind of bullshitting that you described happens all the time. But in the closed world of MLB, the owners protect themselves from that by cooperating with each other. That's not collusion because the stated goal is to ensure that the negotiations are honest. And so the agents are on notice and avoid that kind of conduct. The owners insisted on an amateur draft, a soft salary cap with luxury tax penalties and all kinds of hurdles to a player's free agency -- all legally permissible tactics to keep the price of player salaries down. They're not gonna let themselves bid against fabricated offers that are technically ethical and legal violations.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I strongly doubt that in the insular world of MLB, where there are only a few dozen teams to begin with and usually no more than a tiny handful of those teams pursing the same free agent, it happens anywhere remotely like you describe it. I don''t think that there's any bullshitting going on as to what kind of other offers a player is entertaining. It would be a misrepresentation of a material fact ... a misrepresentation of a material element of the contract. And the owners wouldn't allow that to happen to themselves. That's not in their interest. They're not gonna allow themselves to hafta bid against imaginary and fabricated offers. They'll get together on that point and cooperate with each other and compare notes and take away an agent's license, maybe even his law license if they try and pull that crap.

Well, the language is legalese, but from what I have read of the Basic Agreement, I understand to forbid clubs from working in concert with each other in such a manner, and a deft agent can play a team into bidding against themselves.

And — putting aside the "gajillion" thing — why, as a player or player's agent, would you feel obliged to disclose the details of other offers freely?

In the real world, you wouldn't. That kind of bullshitting that you described happens all the time. But in the closed world of MLB, the owners protect themselves from that by cooperating with each other. That's not collusion because the stated goal is to ensure that the negotiations are honest. And so the agents are on notice and avoid that kind of conduct. The owners insisted on an amateur draft, a soft salary cap with luxury tax penalties and all kinds of hurdles to a player's free agency -- all legally permissible tactics to keep the price of player salaries down. They're not gonna let themselves bid against fabricated offers that are technically ethical and legal violations.

To your other question, an agent isn't obligated to reveal the details of competing offers from other teams. But that would be counterproductive. Don't you think?

[Edgy MD]

Not if you're a good bluffer. Agents don't have to outright lie. They just don't have to share.

As for teams making each other aware, again, unless I'm misreading Article XX of the CBA, that would constitute working in concert, and would be an explicit violation.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Not if you're a good bluffer. Agents don't have to bullshit. They just don't have to share.

Agreed. I noted that.

As for teams making each other aware, again, unless I'm misreading Article XX of the CBA, that would constitute working in concert, and would be an explicit violation.

Can you post the language you refer to? I just skimmed Article XX and couldn't find language like you refer to. I don't doubt that the language exists, but I'd guess that it's not as broad or as open-ended as your post suggests. Still, sharing offers with other teams doesn't sound improper. This isn't an environment where the bids are improperly disclosed even though they're supposed to be secret, like with government contracts. Also, an owner could share the info with other owners after the deal was made to verify the honesty of the negotiations. It can't be improper to protect against ethical violations. This kind of behavior by owners doesn't restrict the market. They're not colluding to limit the amount of potential offers or to set a specific price.

[TheNextMetsManager]

It's not technically colluding if it's reported by Jon Heyman via an anonymous source. It's not like these guys are tapping front office phones, they're fed information with a purpose. They have all sorts of language and technicalities to play by. This is why sometimes you here "Team A didn't even make an offer". They DID discuss numbers and ranges and such, they just never made it official so that it wouldn't be reported that way. In part because having an official offer invites other teams to top it, and then for you to top that, driving prices up. Usually in these cases, the team has make it pretty clear they're thinking in the say $20-22m range pretty firmly so when team B offers 22 the player/agent knows they've probably reached the cap of what they're going to get, and that it's better to take the offer you've got.

[Edgy MD]

Can you post the language you refer to?

　　Article XX
　　...
　　E. Individual Nature of Rights
　　(1) The utilization or non-utilization of rights under Article XIX(A)(2)*
　　and Article XX** is an individual matter to be determined solely by
　　each Player and each Club for his or its own benefit. Players shall not
　　act in concert with other Players and Clubs shall not act in concert
　　with other Clubs.

　　* Refers to contract assignments.
　　** Refers to the general section heading of The Reserve System, which covers free agency.

I just skimmed Article XX and couldn't find language like you refer to. I don't doubt that the language exists, but I'd guess that it's not as broad or as open-ended as your post suggests.

You may well be right, as I certainly doubt my capacity for understanding legal language, but teams sharing their offers with each other sure sounds like collusion to me.