Yankee's close to signing Manny?!?!

[Roy Hobbs]

they cant sign manny.  you can only sign 3 type A FA's in one offseason.  Tex was their third.

This is not true. You can sign 3 Type A FAs, plus the number of Type A FAs you lose. The Type A FAs that the Yankees have lost are Mussina, Pettite, Damaso Marte, and Abreu, so they have the ability to sign 4 more Type A FAs.

I dont think you are right.  My main source is SOSH, because those guys know more about baseball then humanly possible, but there is this:

http://baseball.about.com/od/majorleaguebasics/a/freeagentprimer.htm

If there are 14 or fewer Type A or Type B free agents available, no team can sign more than one type A or B player. If there are between 15-38, no team can sign more than two. If there are between 39 and 62, there's a limit of three. However, teams can sign as many Type A or B free agents as they've lost, regardless of the limits above.

The however kicks in if you were to lose say 3 guys, but there were only 15-38 type A's out there (meaning 2 would be max) a team would be permitted to get 3.  But 3 is the complete and total max, irrespective of what you lose.



EDIT: Here is the exact language from the CBA. 

Clubs shall be limited in the number of Type A and B Players, as defined below, they may subsequently sign to contracts. The number of signings permitted shall be related to the number of Players electing free agency under this Section B. If there are 14 or less such Players, no Club may sign more than one Type A or B Player. If there are from 15 to 38 such Players, no Club may sign more than two Type A or B Players. If there are from 39 to 62 such Players, no Club may sign more than three Type A or B Players. If there are more than 62 such Players, the Club quotas shall be increased accordingly. There shall be no restrictions on the number of unranked Players that a Club may sign to contracts.

(b) Irrespective of the provisions of subparagraph (a) above, a Club shall be eligible to sign at least as many Type A and B Players as it may have lost through Players having become free agents under this Section at the close of the season just concluded.

(b) is where you were referencing the fact that they lost, but that doesnt mean you get to replace them, then get 3 more.  3 is the maximum number allowed (unless there were more then 62 type a FA's, which I dont believe there has ever been, and I know there isnt this year).  Thus, the Yankee's CANNOT sign Manny.

You can sign more than 3 Type A free agents, if you've lost more than 3 Type A or Type B free agents.  Nowhere does the above language suggest that three is an absolute cap.  In fact, it says the exact opposite.  ("Irrespective of the provisions of subparagraph (a) above, a Club shall be eligible to sign at least as many Type A and B Players as it may have lost through Players having become free agents under this Section at the close of the season just concluded.")

[yall hate]

You can sign more than 3 Type A free agents, if you've lost more than 3 Type A or Type B free agents.  Nowhere does the above language suggest that three is an absolute cap.  In fact, it says the exact opposite.  ("Irrespective of the provisions of subparagraph (a) above, a Club shall be eligible to sign at least as many Type A and B Players as it may have lost through Players having become free agents under this Section at the close of the season just concluded.")

I believe you are in the minority of everyone over at SOSH's interpretation of the language.  Do you think that the language is merely saying (can be interpreted as saying) that you can sign more Type A's then would other wise be allowed if you lost more (and by this i mean if you were to lose two type a's but according to the previous provision you would only be able to sign 1).  meaning this provision would entitle you to sign as many as you lose if it is more then what the rules would allow based on the number of type a's on the market?  and then yes, as i mentioned in a previous post, what if you lose 4, would you be able to sign 4, but as i also said, i am under the impression based on the other comments at SOSH that three is the maximum irrespective of the number you lose. 


Although even if it allows you to sign one for every type A you lose, the yankees have only lost three this offseason (petite, mussina, abreu....right?) in which case they would be limited by that fact.

[Mean Gerald Green]

not sure where you guys are getting this rule about getting to sign only 3 fa when there are news on espn and others that yankees are unlikely to pursue lowell and ramirez.

Unlikely doesn't mean can't

The major should have a cap instead of how much a player could make the most and that would make signings more even around the league

Why would the Yankees pursue Lowell? How would they even get him? Are you thinking of someone else...

[Roy Hobbs]

You can sign more than 3 Type A free agents, if you've lost more than 3 Type A or Type B free agents.  Nowhere does the above language suggest that three is an absolute cap.  In fact, it says the exact opposite.  ("Irrespective of the provisions of subparagraph (a) above, a Club shall be eligible to sign at least as many Type A and B Players as it may have lost through Players having become free agents under this Section at the close of the season just concluded.")

I believe you are in the minority of everyone over at SOSH's interpretation of the language.  Do you think that the language is merely saying (can be interpreted as saying) that you can sign more Type A's then would other wise be allowed if you lost more (and by this i mean if you were to lose two type a's but according to the previous provision you would only be able to sign 1).  meaning this provision would entitle you to sign as many as you lose if it is more then what the rules would allow based on the number of type a's on the market?  and then yes, as i mentioned in a previous post, what if you lose 4, would you be able to sign 4, but as i also said, i am under the impression based on the other comments at SOSH that three is the maximum irrespective of the number you lose. 


Although even if it allows you to sign one for every type A you lose, the yankees have only lost three this offseason (petite, mussina, abreu....right?) in which case they would be limited by that fact.

I interpret contracts for a living (), so I'm pretty confident on this one.  The contract says exactly what it says it does:  a team can sign as many Type A free agents as it loses (Type A + Type B).  Also, if it signs fewer free agents than it loses, there are certain caps on that, depending upon the number of free agents available.  However, a team is *always* entitled to sign as many Type A free agents as loses.

The only ambiguity I see is that teams can sign "at least as many Type A and B Players as it may have lost through Players having become free agents".  The term "may have lost" could mean "lost", or it could imply that you can sign as many players as you potentially *could* lose, even if you don't (i.e., players who hit Type A / Type B free agency, regardless of where they sign.)

The second interpretation might make more sense, because 1) it's the plainer meaning of the language, and 2) a team has no idea how many free agents it will lose until the end of free agency.

[Roy Hobbs]

not sure where you guys are getting this rule about getting to sign only 3 fa when there are news on espn and others that yankees are unlikely to pursue lowell and ramirez.

Unlikely doesn't mean can't

The major should have a cap instead of how much a player could make the most and that would make signings more even around the league

Why would the Yankees pursue Lowell? How would they even get him? Are you thinking of someone else...

I'm assuming Derek Lowe.

[yall hate]

You can sign more than 3 Type A free agents, if you've lost more than 3 Type A or Type B free agents.  Nowhere does the above language suggest that three is an absolute cap.  In fact, it says the exact opposite.  ("Irrespective of the provisions of subparagraph (a) above, a Club shall be eligible to sign at least as many Type A and B Players as it may have lost through Players having become free agents under this Section at the close of the season just concluded.")

I believe you are in the minority of everyone over at SOSH's interpretation of the language.  Do you think that the language is merely saying (can be interpreted as saying) that you can sign more Type A's then would other wise be allowed if you lost more (and by this i mean if you were to lose two type a's but according to the previous provision you would only be able to sign 1).  meaning this provision would entitle you to sign as many as you lose if it is more then what the rules would allow based on the number of type a's on the market?  and then yes, as i mentioned in a previous post, what if you lose 4, would you be able to sign 4, but as i also said, i am under the impression based on the other comments at SOSH that three is the maximum irrespective of the number you lose. 


Although even if it allows you to sign one for every type A you lose, the yankees have only lost three this offseason (petite, mussina, abreu....right?) in which case they would be limited by that fact.

I interpret contracts for a living (), so I'm pretty confident on this one.  The contract says exactly what it says it does:  a team can sign as many Type A free agents as it loses (Type A + Type B).  Also, if it signs fewer free agents than it loses, there are certain caps on that, depending upon the number of free agents available.  However, a team is *always* entitled to sign as many Type A free agents as loses.

The only ambiguity I see is that teams can sign "at least as many Type A and B Players as it may have lost through Players having become free agents".  The term "may have lost" could mean "lost", or it could imply that you can sign as many players as you potentially *could* lose, even if you don't (i.e., players who hit Type A / Type B free agency, regardless of where they sign.)

The second interpretation might make more sense, because 1) it's the plainer meaning of the language, and 2) a team has no idea how many free agents it will lose until the end of free agency.

Not to dredge this post up, and I realize you interpret contracts for a living, but it does appear that you are wrong.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090129&content_id=3784888&vkey=news_nyy&fext=.jsp&c_id=nyy&partnerId=rss_nyy

Both assumptions are incorrect. According to the Basic Agreement, and confirmed by a top Major League Baseball official, once the Yankees signed CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixeira, they had signed their quota of Type A or Type B free agents under the collectively bargained rules established by management and the Players Association.

All three were Type A free agents who played for other teams last season aside from the Yankees. The Yankees could re-sign their own Type A or Type B free agents without it affecting the quota.

Under the rules, "if there are from 39 to 62 [Type A and B] players [during a given offseason], no team can sign more than three."

That article could certainly be wrong, but I would assume an article on MLB.com with comments from higher ups in the league is likely the most authoritative source around...

[Roy Hobbs]

If that's the interpretation and the practice within the industry, that's fine.  However, that's not what the plain language says.

"a Club shall be eligible to sign at least as many Type A and B Players as it may have lost through Players having become free agents under this Section at the close of the season just concluded" -- I'm not sure how this interpretation is consistent with that language.  In fact, that language directly contradicts it.  The word "irrespective" means that the cap is disregarded if the Club wants to "sign at least as many Type A and B Players as it may have lost through Players having become free agents under this Section at the close of the season just concluded."  That provision says absolutely nothing about the additional players you sign having to be your own free agents.

[yall hate]

If that's the interpretation and the practice within the industry, that's fine.  However, that's not what the plain language says.

"a Club shall be eligible to sign at least as many Type A and B Players as it may have lost through Players having become free agents under this Section at the close of the season just concluded" -- I'm not sure how this interpretation is consistent with that language.  In fact, that language directly contradicts it.  The word "irrespective" means that the cap is disregarded if the Club wants to "sign at least as many Type A and B Players as it may have lost through Players having become free agents under this Section at the close of the season just concluded."  That provision says absolutely nothing about the additional players you sign having to be your own free agents.

Oh I agree that it is horribly written for its apparent meaning.  I think this is part of the reason that it appears that no one fully comprehends this situation.  I was just pointing out that this is the most authoritative set of comments on the matter that exists.


edit: as I mentioned in an above post, I think the language is intended to allow a team, for example, to sign 3 type A's if they lose 3 type A's even if under the formula they would have only been able to sign 1.  I think there is no doubt that this was poorly drafted, but I believe that is where there intent was.

[yall hate]

And just like that, the article's author has now come out with a contradictory article.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090130&content_id=3785640&vkey=news_nyy&fext=.jsp&c_id=nyy&partnerId=rss_nyy


Apparently an exception was granted for this year allowing any team to sign up to 8.  So either the rule is max 3 and this year is just different or no one really knows...

[LarBrd33]

Boston should sign Manny

[Chris]

[dang] you for bringing this thread back.  When I saw it in Latest Forum Topics, I thought it was a new thread, and the Yankees were about to sign Manny.  As much as I am still optimistic about this season right now, if the Yankees sign Manny, they become MUCH scarier.

[BringToughnessBack]

can you imagine a locker room with Manny, Arod, Tex and Damon- easy group to coach there...yikes....

I hope Manny stays on the west coast in the NL

[LarBrd33]

can you imagine a locker room with Manny, Arod, Tex and Damon- easy group to coach there...yikes....

I hope Manny stays on the west coast in the NL

Does coaching really matter in baseball?  Don't you just hope the dude hits the ball on offense and catches it on defense? 

[scootman]

i hope thy sign him. he would disrupt the clubhouse and be poison for them

[Toine43]

can you imagine a locker room with Manny, Arod, Tex and Damon- easy group to coach there...yikes....

I hope Manny stays on the west coast in the NL

Does coaching really matter in baseball?  Don't you just hope the dude hits the ball on offense and catches it on defense? 

You could make that sort of an oversimplification for any sport. For instance, "Does coaching really matter in basketball? Don't you just hope the player shoots it in on offense, and that the players can stop them from shooting it in on defense?" Without getting into a full fledged debate about how important coaches are in the different major sports, I'll just say that coaches are important in every sport. No matter what sport you're talking about, a coach needs to know how to deal with the players on a personal level. And while it may have more of an effect in some sports more than in others, preparation and strategy by the coach affect the outcome of games in every sport.