Interesting comment on Ackley from yahoo

by jameslcrockett on Aug 16, 2009 10:47 PM PDT Comment 22 comments

I'm not sure I agree that they've got a deal already worked out with Ackley. Not sure if Z would go along with having him signed but not announcing it as some kind of favor to Bud Selig giving up a chance at some good press while they've slipped out of the playoff race... or getting him to a minor-league team as quick as possible. Not only that... but announcing the deal and how much over slot Ackley got from the Mariners could therefore make it harder and more expensive for other teams to sign their draft picks which would be a benefit to the Mariners.

I think if there was a deal done, everyone involved would want it out there and would have a hard time keeping it hushed.

Signing deadline waiting game in full effect by Yahoo! Sports Tim Brown

0 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Ackley is going to sign over Selig's recommended slot.

Whenever that happens, the deal is usually announced on the day of the deadline. Ackley is going to sign, there’s no reason to panic.

by BrianL on Aug 16, 2009 11:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

no panic at all

This isn’t a call for panic… but i just wanted to get the side you mentioned – that he had already signed but they weren’t announcing it yet – out there. I just don’t think that’s the case. He’s going to sign for overslot. That much is for certain… but Boras isn’t going to let his clients sign until Strasburg sets the curve. He doesn’t just want Teixiera money for Ackley. He wants it for all of his clients.

I just found it interesting that he mentioned specifically Ackley in the article as a guy who had already reached a deal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field

by jameslcrockett on Aug 17, 2009 2:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

RE

“Not sure if Z would go along with having him signed but not announcing it as some kind of favor to Bud Selig giving up a chance at some good press while they’ve slipped out of the playoff race”

You realise that MLB has to approve signings before they’re announced, right?

by Graham on Aug 17, 2009 6:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Here's what I'll never get about the above slot waiting thing

why not just sign the guy above slot, call it a “terms not disclosed” deal, and then announce it on deadline day? Seems like they’re just wasting development time this way. It’s not a lot, but if the team is investing this much money into a player, the fans probably want to see that guy at whatever minor league team he’s going to.

by seattlebruin on Aug 17, 2009 11:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

There's this little wrinkle called the First Amendment

which makes it hard to keep the terms not disclosed.

by The Ancient Mariner on Aug 17, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

By that logic, if the M's and Ackley already have a deal that can't be announced, what's stopping either side from leaking it to the press?

by seattlebruin on Aug 17, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't people sign non-disclosure agreements of all types for certain types of employment?

I’ve always assumed you’ve got a few, since you never talk about what kind of paper you fold your planes out of. Parchment?

by Kermit. on Aug 17, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can't say, except that it's not papyrus or that crappy recycled paper you make from mulch in the fourth grade

by seattlebruin on Aug 17, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That argument doesn't make any sense though.

Freedom of speech does not guarantee that speech must always happen.

Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.

by pdb on Aug 17, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It doesn't have to

for the courts to back it up. I suppose you could try non-disclosure agreements, but my guess is that they’d leak like a sieve and you wouldn’t get anywhere going after the leakers.

by The Ancient Mariner on Aug 17, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What would be the motivation for these so-called leakers?

The agent and player gain nothing from leaking numbers. The team and league want to keep it quiet and have nothing to gain. Who else is there that would have the contract information and have motivations to leak it?

by Wilder. on Aug 17, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Associated Press

They have access to all MLB contracts a few days after they are filed. Once a contract is signed off on, it’s getting out. There’s no such thing as “terms undisclosed” anymore. The teams might not announce it, but once a deal is on record, it’s going to be public within ~48 hours.

by davidcameron on Aug 17, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Huh, didn't know that

thanks, Dave

by seattlebruin on Aug 17, 2009 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The first amendment..

has absolutely no application to a private employment contract. Major League Baseball is not the government, and keeping terms of a contract under wraps is not an act of Congress abridging the right of free speech or of the press.

The National Labor Relations Act makes it illegal to prevent employees from discussing their wages in the context of concerted protected activity (which usually means discussing wages with fellow employees), but that has nothing to do with the First Amendment, and the only way the Act interacts with the Constitution at all is that the Supreme Court has never questioned its constitutionality.

Lawyered.

by slamcactus on Aug 18, 2009 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs