Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
March 23, 2006
New Contract Wording

Sports Law Blog suggests that the Soriano situation might lead to new language in contracts:

Although the Soriano story appears over, the larger issue remains: Should players be forced to forfeit their salaries if they refuse to play a position? If the answer is "yes," then players need to communicate these position preferences to their agents, so that they are negotiated in the contract. Soriano, through his agent Diego Bentz, presumably could have negotiated a position clause in his contract, but I have not read that he did so. Rick Karcher has written extensively about the failure of agents to maximize their clients' preferences, and it is a subject very relevant in this discussion.

Up until now, it's been assumed that teams dictated the position fielded by a player. And it's worked because up until now, players were willing to move rather than be benched or released. And, in general, star players don't publicly get asked to move.

But if language starts appearing in contracts saying that a player can't be moved without his permission, doesn't that tie a manager's hands? What if some aging player doesn't want to DH? Right now, you solve that problem by going to the National League, as Mike Piazza did. What if there's a game where the manager is running short of players, and the best move is to switch a player to a different position? Does the player have the right to say no at that point? Next thing you know, agents are going to be dictating what innings relievers can enter the game, a hitter's position in the batting order and how often a runner is expected to steal! Let's leave something for the manager.

(Hat tip, The Volokh Conspiracy)

Baseball Musings is conducting a pledge drive in March. Click here for details.


Posted by David Pinto at 08:21 AM | Players | TrackBack (0)
Comments

If I were managing Soriano, I'd bat him 8th for a couple of games out of sheer spite.

Posted by: sabernar at March 23, 2006 09:04 AM

You might recall that in "Bang the Drum Slowly," the protagonist pitcher held out for a clause allowing him to designate his catcher.

Posted by: Paul Stephan at March 23, 2006 10:22 AM

I guess I can imagine players doing this in their contracts, but I can't imagine a Professional Baseball team falling for it... why have a manager? Let all the players decide where they want to play. Who cares if you have 3 guys who want to play 2nd base? This is getting to be ridiculous. Hopefully this incident will not have this effect on major league contracts. I can understand the DH thing - you don't want to DH, sign and play for National League teams. Your career is winding down defensively, but you can still hit, Thank God for the American League, go there and DH. What else could they ask for? The best of both worlds. This almost makes you think back to how easy it was when the owners held all the cards and could do what they wanted before the players got their freedom. Hopefully they will understand what that freedom means and not "flaunt" it or abuse it like Soriano did for a couple of days. I'm glad he caved in.

Posted by: Bob Eddy at March 23, 2006 11:12 AM

I could imagine a team doing it, if the player was a big enough star and they wanted him badly enough. Of course, you wouldn't normally acquire a big star with the intention of making him change positions (for an exception, see Rodriguez, Alex). If you sign him to a long-term deal, however, it is quite possible that toward the end of it, you would want to move a center fielder to a corner position, a shortstop to third base, or a corner outfielder to first.

You probably wouldn't agree to a clause like that for Soriano, but there are players for whom you would, or at least for whom some owners would. Maybe it would become like the no-trade clause, where you pay the player to waive it. But I could see it happening.

Posted by: Jeff A at March 23, 2006 12:30 PM

If a team wants to put that kind of language in a player's contract--making their lives more difficult and making him less valuable in a trade if that position is one that he's not that good at--it's their business. Of course, they may find that there are less attractive managerial candidates who want to involve themselves with a team stupid enough to agree to that sort of thing, but it's their choice and they should be able to do it if they want to.

Posted by: M. Scott Eiland at March 23, 2006 06:39 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?