Under the De La Hoya precedent, Trout can now potentially elect to opt-out of his contract at any time (Fangraphs)

[Ohtaniland]

43 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Its opinion, so not really correct to say inaccurate.  It's just the same thing you say day in and day out.

Is "zero chance" an opinion or an implied fact?

[Thomas]

If Trout opted out:

Sport media talking heads would each take an opposing side and debate it but all the media outlets would in large be thrilled.
Angels fans would scream bloody murder.
Those screams would be muted by a (much) larger fanbase screaming for joy.

 

[Junkballer]

5 hours ago, eaterfan said:

I think WOP's point isn't that teams would blackball or Collude. It was that while California may not hold the contract as enforceable MLB could say that Trout hasn't fulfilled his requirement to be a FA based on the contract. He wouldn't be eligible to play for another MLB team.

This year maybe but not next.

[Jobu]

1 hour ago, eaterfan said:

As much as the team and league are separate the league issues suspensions and can set rules for individual player conduct (drug policy) and outlaws things that are legal in certain states. MLB could say you didn't honor the contract you signed with the Angels you aren't a FA. I'm not sure it would hold water, but I don't know how the anti-trust exemption works. Or how the CBA would supersede or be subject to the law.

But if MLB (the office, not the other teams) were to take the Angels position on this then they could make it difficult to sign the type of FA. They could make a rule that anyone who plays an ineligible player forfeits that game. 

Also, don't athletes pay income tax based on where they play that individual game. About half of Trout's games are played outside of CA (obviously half of the games against other CA teams add to the 81 home games but there's spring training in AZ). He also spends the off season mostly not in CA. Is it where the Angels headquarters is (that could be moved)? Is it where the contract is signed? What defines someone as being a California laborer?

I'm fairly certain that any MLB disciplinary action is governed by the CBA. I suppose the Commissioner could invoke his "for the good of the game" authorities, but he'd end up before at least an arbitrator explaining why excluding the best baseball player on earth from MLB benefits "the game". (Also, Arte voted for the other guy, maybe the commish doesn't like him.)

I'm pretty sure the employment contract being with a California entity is the sole basis. Where the work takes place is irrelevant. Trout played in Iowa and Arkansas as a minor leaguer, but the deal was still with the Angels.

Anyway, I also don't think it would happen, although Trout's agent would be stupid to not at least casually mention this article over to Eppler. (Trout's agent may be stupid.)

[Ohtaniland]

18 minutes ago, Thomas said:

If Trout opted out:

Sport media talking heads would each take an opposing side and debate it but all the media outlets would in large be thrilled.
Angels fans would scream bloody murder.
Those screams would be muted by a (much) larger fanbase screaming for joy.

 

I'm in favor of protecting employee rights. If there's a lawful loophole that allows a player to excercise his right to opt out then we should respect the law. 

If there was a law that would allow an employer to opt out of a deal most of the people here would jump for joy. And you know why.

[Inside Pitch]

 

This thread....  is like a late Xmas gift to some.

[Coachbulldog]

8 hours ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

Any Player taking advantage of this loop hole would in all likelihood be blackballed from signing a contract with any team in the MLB. He would be left playing in Italy or on a semi-pro team or something else.

It would be committing career suicide.

And MLB would once again be faced with accusations of collusion.

[eaterfan]

50 minutes ago, Junkballer said:

This year maybe but not next.

The extension he signed is part of the contract. It is governed by both the CBA and the laws of California and the US. The point is that if the CBA supersedes the law and it recognizes the contract then any player would still be subject to the CBA which would keep Trout from playing for another team.

[Ohtaniland]

2 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

The extension he signed is part of the contract. It is governed by both the CBA and the laws of California and the US. The point is that if the CBA supersedes the law and it recognizes the contract then any player would still be subject to the CBA which would keep Trout from playing for another team.

But if it meant that Trout would get more money the players union would conveniently ignore it and let it play out. 

[eaterfan]

8 minutes ago, CALZONE said:

But if it meant that Trout would get more money the players union would conveniently ignore it and let it play out. 

They wouldn't have a choice. MLB wouldn't allow him to sign with any other team. It's the same way they prevent them from signing players from Asia until they are posted. 

[Ohtaniland]

31 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

They wouldn't have a choice. MLB wouldn't allow him to sign with any other team. It's the same way they prevent them from signing players from Asia until they are posted. 

Lol that MLB would banish Mike Trout.

[eaterfan]

11 minutes ago, CALZONE said:

Lol than MLB would banish Mike Trout.

Or Mike Trout would back down. Why do you believe Mike Trout is more willing to challenge the CBA than any other player? Like why doesn't Kershaw just declare himself a FA and go play for Houston or the Rangers?

[Thomas]

Oh yay...  Per complete hockey news...  (Guessing Dustin Brown is staying put!)
 

Quote

Thanks to Section 2855 of the California Labor Code, the following players can choose to opt out of their contracts with no repercussions.

Los Angeles Kings

Anze Kopitar (anytime)
Dustin Brown (anytime)
Jeff Carter (‘17-’18)
Marian Gaborik (‘19-’20)
Alec Martinez (anytime)
Drew Doughty (anytime)
Jake Muzzin (anytime)
Jonathan Quick (anytime)

Anaheim Ducks

Corey Perry (anytime)
Ryan Getzlaf (anytime)
Ryan Kesler (‘21-’22)
Rickard Rakell (‘19-’20)
Hampus Lindholm (‘19-’20)
Sami Vatanen (‘18-’19)
Cam Fowler (‘17-’18)
John Gibson (‘19-’20)

San Jose Sharks

Joe Thornton (anytime)
Patrick Marleau (anytime)
Logan Couture (anytime)
Joe Pavelski (anytime)
Brent Burns (‘19-’20)
Marc-Edouard Vlasic (anytime)
Justin Braun (‘17-’18)

 

[Stradling]

This thread is Claude's wet dream of a thread.  He can be spew his narrative and play the victim when called out for being himself.  Also LOL at protecting employess rights.  I am sure Claude is all for protecting Albert's rights with his current contract.  

[Ohtaniland]

32 minutes ago, Stradling said:

This thread is Claude's wet dream of a thread.  He can be spew his narrative and play the victim when called out for being himself.  Also LOL at protecting employess rights.  I am sure Claude is all for protecting Albert's rights with his current contract.  

The difference is that Trout can opt out to pursue more money. Albert can't.

Anyway let's see how all this plays out. Like Troll Daddy said, I don't believe Trout would use this loophole but I do believe that if he was given a choice he would prefer playing baseball closer to home. 

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

10 hours ago, nando714 said:

Yes,  the Red Sox, Yankees, dodgers, Phillies would not want Trout's services at all after he opts out. 

As much as any team would want Trout the repercussion from signing him would be unacceptable, remember Curt Flood.

MLB Won't allow teams to negotiate with players under contract to another team. The contracts are voided only as far as California is involved not as far as MLB is concerned.

[Stradling]

17 minutes ago, CALZONE said:

The difference is that Trout can opt out to pursue more money. Albert can't.

Anyway let's see how all this plays out. Like Troll Daddy said, I don't believe Trout would use this loophole but I do believe that if he was given a choice he would prefer playing baseball closer to home. 

He was given a choice and he chose to sign an extension.  Oh and whether or not Albert would make less money has nothing to do with his right to opt out, which you are in favor of protecting Albert. 

[Troll Daddy]

I'm sure Scott Badass can get it done.

[Ohtaniland]

30 minutes ago, Stradling said:

He was given a choice and he chose to sign an extension.  Oh and whether or not Albert would make less money has nothing to do with his right to opt out, which you are in favor of protecting Albert. 

If Albert opts out I will fully support his decision. As will 99% of the people here.

[wopphil]

50 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

 

MLB Won't allow teams to negotiate with players under contract to another team. The contracts are voided only as far as California is involved not as far as MLB is concerned.

I agree. And I am not sure the union would be happy with someone trying to opt out, given the uncertainty it would cause and the potential impact on other players and other labor issues.

[Ohtaniland]

2 hours ago, eaterfan said:

Or Mike Trout would back down. Why do you believe Mike Trout is more willing to challenge the CBA than any other player? Like why doesn't Kershaw just declare himself a FA and go play for Houston or the Rangers?

Pretty sure this is new news to all California based professional players. 

[Inside Pitch]

3 hours ago, wopphil said:

I agree. And I am not sure the union would be happy with someone trying to opt out, given the uncertainty it would cause and the potential impact on other players and other labor issues.

This is IMO the bigger issue -- breaking the contract would mean breaking with the union -- the same union that gets on players for taking less money and working with teams, even when they want to.    Anything that could cause a ripple effect or impact salaries in a negative way (like creating a world where none of the LA teams would ever sign a player for more than 6 years), would see stiff resistance from the union.

[Ohtaniland]

2 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

This is IMO the bigger issue -- breaking the contract would mean breaking with the union -- the same union that gets on players for taking less money and working with teams, even when they want to.    Anything that could cause a ripple effect or impact salaries in a negative way, like creating a world where none of the LA teams would ever sign a player for more than 6 years, would see stiff resistance from the union.

Nope the union would have no issues if a player opted out to get a salary increase. A player could sign a ten year deal for $180M and then opt out after six years to sign another six year $180M deal. The players union would support that. 

[Brent Maguire]

10 hours ago, CALZONE said:

Zero chance?

Trout is getting married to his east coast high school sweetheart. He still listed as a New Jersey resident. He could make a pretty penny or more in Boston, New York, Baltimore or Philly or a number of other cities. A newer hitter friendly ballpark would help him produce even more. I don't think he would get any backlash for making a decision that he feels impacts his family.

Marketing opportunities in the east coast ESPN market are quite different than here.

Have we built a winning team around him? Has Arte spent as much as he is capable of to win? Have the Yankees gone out and resigned Chapman, rebuilt the farm, remained competitive and shown a commitment to win? They're rumored to be in on Quintana while we wait for Hamilton to come off the books. 

We all love Mike Trout but he is at the top of his game like Labron James. When it comes down to family, agents, marketing and the players union he's going to do what benefits his situation the most. He's earned that right. 

Yes zero chance. Trout is not opting out of his contract in this way when it hasn't been done in this fashion before. There are obvious reasons why he won't do it like others have discussed in this thread. If we were talking about a player option at the end of his contract? Sure, he'd opt out. But not in this regard. 

But you can go ahead and continue to assume the worst will happen for Trout and the Angels if that's what floats your boat. 

[Brent Maguire]

10 hours ago, Jobu said:

How would they fix it? This is standing legal precedent and it impacts plenty of large moneyed interests (I remember a few musicians/bands using this to get out of onerous recording contracts) and hasn't been "fixed" yet. And shouldn't we be opposed to corporate entities getting to decide which laws apply to them and which don't, even when it's our most favorite sport and team?

As the Twitter exchange with Jeff Fletcher seemed to indicate, contracts are with individual teams. Whether or not it's legally collusion, I wonder if 25 other team owners care enough about California teams to risk it. There's little risk the law expands to other states and, to reiterate nando's point, when the stakes are "the opportunity to sign the greatest player in the game, in his prime" ... are you really going to fall on your sword for the A's or the Angels or the Padres?

Which, to me, is the point of the article. Not that Trout is going to do this, or that he's the "type of person" to do this, but that if this was going to be done in MLB, Mike Trout is the guy that could break all the rules.

I get that it's a legal issue. But we're talking about billion dollar sports franchises who can potentially lose millions in value with players leaving early like this. With an entire CBA just finalized, I'm sure this was something that was brought up but ultimately wasn't that important since we haven't seen any players bolt yet. The magnitude of a Trout/Kershaw player leaving before his MLB contract was up would create a disastrous scenario, most specifically for Californian teams. I don't know what the solution to fixing this is per say so the hope would be players just honor their multi million dollar contracts they signed and stick through until they reach free agency.