Page 1 of 1
Re: The Nats??? THE NATS???
Posted: January 16th, 2013, 12:19 pm
by da_big_kid_94
Todd Zola wrote:Bottom line? The Nats have an aging owner that wants to win and doesn't give a rat's ass about sample size, all he knows is his closer cost him the playoffs and he wipes his butt with twenties so the money is no problem.
Ok ... let's say that's true ... so he sits quietly by waiting for his arteries to harden and watches them shut Stasburg down without making a sound? Seems a bit contradictory if that's the case.
Re: The Nats??? THE NATS???
Posted: January 16th, 2013, 12:22 pm
by da_big_kid_94
Black Sox wrote:Found this on MLB.com. Sign and trades ARE allowed however the report talks more about the player re signing with his original team and then being traded and does not address being signed by a new team and then traded. However having read the article there does not seem to be anything right now preventing it so long as the player is in agreement to this happening.
"part of the Basic Agreement could be utilized so that some of the remaining Type A free agents on the market can join new teams without draft-pick compensation going to their old teams, a top Major League Baseball official told MLB.com on Tuesday.
The sign-and-trade rule allows a free agent to waive a no-trade period in the agreement if he consents to the deal in writing.
Thus, a Type A free agent could work out contract details with a new team but re-sign with his former team, which would then trade him to the other team in question.
Teams can't normally trade a newly signed free agent until after June 15 of the following season, unless the player gives written consent.
"We do think it's possible to effectuate a sign-and-trade consistent with the Basic Agreement," said Rob Manfred, MLB's executive vice president of labor relations and human resources. "The player would have to give an advance waiver of the right not to be traded.
From MLB.com
Nice piece of research here, Black Sox. Well done.
Re: The Nats??? THE NATS???
Posted: January 16th, 2013, 12:32 pm
by Todd Zola
da_big_kid_94 wrote:Todd Zola wrote:Bottom line? The Nats have an aging owner that wants to win and doesn't give a rat's ass about sample size, all he knows is his closer cost him the playoffs and he wipes his butt with twenties so the money is no problem.
Ok ... let's say that's true ... so he sits quietly by waiting for his arteries to harden and watches them shut Stasburg down without making a sound? Seems a bit contradictory if that's the case.
Yes, if he was convinced this would give the team its best shot at winning in '13 or '14.