via MetsBlog Andy Martino of the Daily News SPECULATES (as opposed to the misleading title of the blog) that a decision about Bourn and the draft pick could be made by arbitration and not MLB....the players union could file a greivance and MLB would argue their case

apparently the Mets are still adamant about not surrendering their 1st pick

this "process" has not been initiated by either the Mets or Bourn according to sources so nothing appears to be imminent at this time

I gotta give credit where it is due.Props to Mets FO for disputing this.

i give Sandy props for not surrendering their #1 pick in a deal for Bourn and looking to see if there's a way to keep the pick and sign Bourn as well...i was critical of SA when i heard they might attempt to sign Bourn assuming they would give up their pick and break from his plan of rebuilding the franchise from the minors up

but keeping the #11 and signing Bourn to a reasonable 3 year deal (36 million or so?) would be in keeping with their plan and i think it'd be a sound move

Oh. Well, I do know a couple former arbitrators for sports at my school. One was my professor in sports law last semester. Arbitration and thinking like an arbitrator was a significant section of the class.

And this doesn't look very good. If this does go through an arbitrator, if this went through my professor, he'd rule against Mets. Reason being, these guys perceive CBA's and other legal documents as laws. They're not really flexible.

Unless Sandy makes a great case, I don't see an arbitrator bending written rule.

Let's hope it is not going to be through an arbitrator.

P.S.: Thinking about it some more, what is Martino talking about? Why would league office let a case like this go to an arbitrator? This is a precedent case that they should make a rule on, why the heck would they send it for outside ruling? Martino is stupid.

i agree in that i don't think a ruling here would go in the Mets favor,this CBA has been in place for some time now and to attempt to either get a change in the CBA or a one-time exemption as some are clamoring for would be difficult to achieve. The reason,as you point out,is that the rule/"law" IN PLACE and agreed upon by all parties excludes the Mets from having a protected pick and to REVERSE that would be tough to do for MLB or via arbitration

and it may be why Sandy is looking to see if the interpretation of the CBA is ambiguous enough to allow us to keep the #11 pick as opposed to the tact of appealing for an exemption or rule change

i don't know why Martino feels this would go arbitration and it appears to me to be purely speculation on his part which is why i took exception to the misleading title of the post on MetsBlog,ie "will" go to arbitration as opposed to "could"

"If this does go through an arbitrator, if this went through my professor, he'd rule against Mets. Reason being, these guys perceive CBA's and other legal documents as laws. They're not really flexible"



Alderson's a Harvard lawyer. Think he knows his way around contract language. Knows ALL contracts have loopholes (no such thing as an "iron clad" contract).

If anyone can present a "good case" to an arbitrator I'd think it would be him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Why would league office let a case like this go to an arbitrator?"



Believe it's protocol to go to an arbitrator when the Players Union files a grievance of any kind.

An arbitrator in this case would only be ruling on the written CBA and adhere to it. I can't see where an arbitrator would have the authority to change anything in the agreement. And letting the Mets keep their protected draft pick would be changing the language of the Agreement not ruling on it.

Isn't Alderson just looking for clairification on the verbage in the agreement as it is written?

Not that he wants it changed in any way, it seems it is written vaguely.

yeah,that's what i've heard too (see post #5 above)

The only thing that would help is if in the agreement it has a paragraph somewhere that says protecting the 10 bottom teams picks instead of just the first #10 picks. He may have some leverage if that is the case.

"An arbitrator in this case would only be ruling on the written CBA and adhere to it. I can't see where an arbitrator would have the authority to change anything in the agreement"



Arbitrator will rule on the INTERPRETATION of the rule. And I believe can interpret the INTENTION of the rule (letter of the law vs spirit of the law).

Whther you & I think that's right or wrong is irrelevant. Alderson has a Harvard law degree. I'm sure he knows what's what regarding the situation & contract language.

"Alderson has a Harvard law degree"

You keep mentioning this, but it's not going to make a difference if this goes to arbitration.

To 'All' - -

Think of this as player arbitration: If player and team cannot agree, they go to arbitrator. They each pick a salary number they believe said player deserves. Let's use $3 million (player) and $1million (team).

The arbitrator must pick one of those numbers. No splits. The arbitrator would then look at the player's service time and also compare his stats to similar players around the league. Based on what that pool of players is making in the same service time, that is what the arbitrator rules.

The arbitrator also looks at past arbitration trials to take reference. This is why Buster Posey going to arbitration was such a big deal. A 3 year service time player with two championships and an MVP was an interesting case.

The reason I wanted to explain player arbitration is that it is the same mindset. The arbitrator interprets the CBA as it is written. The CBA states that the top ten 'picks' are protected.

That is not interpreted at bottom ten teams. But it CAN be interpreted as top ten 'true' picks in the draft. Meaning being, is the Pirates sliding into pick #9 a compensation pick or a 'true' pick.

"And this doesn't look very good. If this does go through an arbitrator, if this went through my professor, he'd rule against Mets. Reason being, these guys perceive CBA's and other legal documents as laws. They're not really flexible."

I think Sandy might argue that they don't have the 11th pick they actually have the 10th pick, with Royals Pirates and Blue Jays being 8, 8A and 9.

Each side gets to present their case to the arbitrator. Players Association (probably w/ help from Harvard lawyer Alderson who served as the Executive Vice President for Baseball Operations for the Commissioner's Office for several yrs) vs MLB. Outcome will be either to grant exemption or not grant the exemption. Each side gives reasons the arbitrator should see things their way. Precedent will be cited by both sides in their arguments.

Then the arbitrator rules.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"it CAN be interpreted as top ten 'true' picks in the draft"


That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. CBA contract language can be INTERPRETED in different ways.