FILE - In this Sept. 4, 2015, file photo, Los Angeles Angels' Mike Trout waits in the dugout before the team's baseball game against the Texas Rangers in Anaheim, Calif. In late May, Carlos Correa an the Houston Astros visit the Angels for the first time this season. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)
Getty Images

Imagine Mike Trout declaring himself a free agent . . . tomorrow

45 Comments

From the “fun thought experiment on a slow news day” file comes an article from Nathaniel Grow over at FanGraphs. Though it’s not purely a thought experiment because it’s based on a fair reading that Grow, a lawyer, makes of California labor law. The upshot, though I encourage you to read the entire article because there are a lot of twists and turns to it, is that a statute exists in California which, theoretically, could allow Mike Trout to declare himself a free agent right now, despite the fact that he’s under contract with the Angels through 2020.

The idea is that in California you can only be forced to stay in an employment contract for seven years, even if the terms are longer. You can keep your contract if you want, but you can opt-out once you get to seven years. Trout hasn’t been under his current deal for seven years, but as Grow notes, at least one California court has held that the time includes being under the employer’s control prior to the current contract or renewal. When you include Trout’ time in the minors and as a big-leaguer with no right of free agency, we’re past seven years already.

Trout isn’t the only one who could be affected by this — there are a handful of players on California teams who have been under team control for at least seven years — but he’s the most notable. Others would include Madison Bumgarner and Buster Posey.

Where this becomes a true thought experiment, as opposed to something that would happen, is when you think about it practically. As Grow notes, any effort by a player to invoke this California law would likely be met by legal action from his team and Major League Baseball. It would quickly become a big, big deal and a big, big distraction. A guy like Mike Trout — who is already making over a hundred million dollars and stands to make hundreds of millions more — simply doesn’t have the incentive to do such a thing. Yes, a couple of hundred million is at stake, but so too is Trout’s legacy, which I assume he’d prefer to be about baseball rather than a labor precedent that (a) wouldn’t really impact too many people; (b) would likely be ended via legislation at some point anyway; and (c) would complicate his life for a good long while.

Even more practically, any player who tried to invoke the law would probably be traded out of California immediately, due to the team’s fear that they could wind up with nothing. Whether the trade would be held to be valid is an open question — a court could say the player immediately became a free agent upon opting out — but it just adds more layers of muck to the legal process. And could risk the player having to sit out for a good long while. Just a total mess.

So, no, I doubt this California law ever comes into play in baseball. But I do still think it’s interesting, if for no other reason than as a reminder that ballplayers don’t exist in a vacuum. They are part of the labor force just like anyone else and they work in different states and are subject to different laws just like any other employees from different states are. At some point we’ll see some implications of this beyond the day-to-day stuff like tax rates and what have you.

Mitt Romney’s sons are trying to buy a stake in the Yankees

TAMPA, FL - AUGUST 30:  Tagg Romney son of Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney gives an interview during the final day of the Republican National Convention at the Tampa Bay Times Forum on August 30, 2012 in Tampa, Florida. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was nominated as the Republican presidential candidate during the RNC which will conclude today.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Getty Images
6 Comments

Mitt Romney built his professional life in Massachusetts and was once the governor of the state. As such, it is not surprising that he has long identified as a Red Sox fan. So this has to be troubling to him from a fan’s perspective. From Jon Heyman:

The Romney family is bidding to buy a small stake in the Yankees months after their try for the Marlins stalled. If the deal goes through, it is expected to be $25 million to $30 million per percentage point and thought to be interested in one or two percentage points. The Yankees are valued around $3 billion or more.

The effort is being led by Mitt’s son Tagg, one of his brothers and their business partners. Mitt’s spokesman tells Jon Heyman that he has nothing to do with it personally. Tagg Romney is reported to have been planning a bid for controlling interest in the Marlins, but that has fallen through.

I find this interesting insofar as the M.O. for the Steinbrenners has, for years, been to buy out minority shareholders in the Yankees, not seek more. Indeed, when George Steinbrenner bought the Yankees back in 1973 he held just a bare controlling interest and there were a ton of silent partners, most of which were back in Ohio and knew Steinbrenner from his shipping business. I’ve personally gotten to know some of them over the years as there are a handful of them in Columbus and I crossed paths with them in my legal career. They have almost all been bought out in the past couple of decades. They still get season tickets and World Series rings and stuff. You can tell them by their personalized Yankees plates and the fact that, within the first ten minutes of meeting them, they will tell you that they once owned a piece of the Yankees but got pushed out.

In light of all of that it’s interesting that the Steinbrenners are once again accepting bids for small stakes in the team. Especially from someone whose interest in controlling the Marlins suggests that they do not consider it to be a mere vanity investment. Makes me wonder what the Steinbrenners’ long term plans are.

Max Scherzer still can’t throw fastballs

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 13: Max Scherzer #31 of the Washington Nationals works against the Los Angeles Dodgers in the fifth inning during game five of the National League Division Series at Nationals Park on October 13, 2016 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Rob Carr/Getty Images)
Getty Images
4 Comments

The Nationals will be many people’s favorites in the NL East this season. Not everything is looking great, however. For example, their ace — defending NL Cy Young winner Max Scherzer — can’t even throw fastballs right now.

The reason: the stress fracture he suffered last August is still causing him problems and Scherzer is unable to use his fastball grip without feeling pain in his right ring finger. He will throw a bullpen session tomorrow, but will only use his secondary stuff.

Scherzer has not been ruled out for Opening Day — the fact that he is throwing some means that his timetable isn’t totally on hold — but you have to figure, at some point, not being able to air things out and use his heater will lead to some problems in his spring training routine.