Is this strategy legal?

[aaronhelman]

My team just won the World Series almost entirely on the backs of first, second, and third-year players. We're headed into Free Agency with almost NO holes (except a bullpen arm or two) and $50,000,000 to spend.

I obviously don't *need* anyone else, but if I don't spend the money, it's not like I can keep it for later. Here's what I'm thinking, and I want to know if this is realistic (or even legal) in MLB.

I sign a top free agent to a huge one-year contract (maybe 20mil or more) then immediately trade him to a contender for 2-3 top prospects, and eat half of his salary to make the deal work. Essentially, I'd be spending 10 million to add three stud prospects to the system. Definitely worth it to me.

My questions:

Would something like this work in real life?

Would it be tampering if teams discussed this kind of thing *before* the free agent was signed?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by aaronhelman

My team just won the World Series almost entirely on the backs of first, second, and third-year players. We're headed into Free Agency with almost NO holes (except a bullpen arm or two) and $50,000,000 to spend.

I obviously don't *need* anyone else, but if I don't spend the money, it's not like I can keep it for later. Here's what I'm thinking, and I want to know if this is realistic (or even legal) in MLB.

I sign a top free agent to a huge one-year contract (maybe 20mil or more) then immediately trade him to a contender for 2-3 top prospects, and eat half of his salary to make the deal work. Essentially, I'd be spending 10 million to add three stud prospects to the system. Definitely worth it to me.

My questions:

Would something like this work in real life?

Would it be tampering if teams discussed this kind of thing *before* the free agent was signed?

I think FA cannot be traded until May 1 IRL. In OOTP you can do what you want.

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by aaronhelman

My team just won the World Series almost entirely on the backs of first, second, and third-year players. We're headed into Free Agency with almost NO holes (except a bullpen arm or two) and $50,000,000 to spend.

I obviously don't *need* anyone else, but if I don't spend the money, it's not like I can keep it for later. Here's what I'm thinking, and I want to know if this is realistic (or even legal) in MLB.

I sign a top free agent to a huge one-year contract (maybe 20mil or more) then immediately trade him to a contender for 2-3 top prospects, and eat half of his salary to make the deal work. Essentially, I'd be spending 10 million to add three stud prospects to the system. Definitely worth it to me.

My questions:

Would something like this work in real life?

Would it be tampering if teams discussed this kind of thing *before* the free agent was signed?

It would not work in real life... simply because why wouldn't they just sign the stud FA themselves?

I mean, could it be done in THEORY? Sure. And you can absolutely do it in your universe, its your game -- but a good many look at this as "cheating" or at the very least "gaming the AI."

So, you can do it, but you're definitely not going to feel as good about your accomplishments down the road...

[jaysdailydose]

On another note, just because looking "deep" at things is what I do...

You've got to think about how this would portray you in a real-life scenario...

Hypothetical Stud A signs a 7-year extension with you... he's committing his entire future to you... and you instantly turn around and trade him?

Most free agents in the future would avoid your team like the plague.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

On another note, just because looking "deep" at things is what I do...

You've got to think about how this would portray you in a real-life scenario...

Hypothetical Stud A signs a 7-year extension with you... he's committing his entire future to you... and you instantly turn around and trade him?

Most free agents in the future would avoid your team like the plague.

The OP specifically says he would sign the guy to a one-year deal. And I figured it was understood that if it were real life, the player would understand that he's signing with Team A and then immediately be traded to Team B. Maybe I'm wrong about that part, though.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

On another note, just because looking "deep" at things is what I do...

You've got to think about how this would portray you in a real-life scenario...

Hypothetical Stud A signs a 7-year extension with you... he's committing his entire future to you... and you instantly turn around and trade him?

Most free agents in the future would avoid your team like the plague.

I'm not into personality constructs in OOTP but having FA avoid your team when that occurs should be a core module. Optional of course.

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

The OP specifically says he would sign the guy to a one-year deal. And I figured it was understood that if it were real life, the player would understand that he's signing with Team A and then immediately be traded to Team B. Maybe I'm wrong about that part, though.

Well, in my opinion, that would be decidedly unrealistic as well...he says the guy is a "top free agent" -- why would he sign a one-year deal? Generally one-year deals in the real world are for lesser talents or players coming off down years looking for a "build value" contract.

He asked if it was legal or realistic. It may actually be legal (to a point), but it is wholly unrealistic.

Sign-and-trades happen in the NBA, not in MLB.

[kingtut313]

thats bush league

[markprior22]

I can't pull off those type of deals with the AI anway. I can never do a Samardzija type deal at the deadline. Now, if I have a 23 yr old stud pitcher, I'm sure I could work a trade. Trading vets to a contending team for spects has never even come close to working for me.

I use hard trading and favor prospects. Probably need to change that but then I'm afraid it will go too far the other direction.

[aaronhelman]

Signed the stud right fielder (36 y.o.) to a one year contract. I'll give him a chance to compete for the job and at worst, he'll be a really, really good backup in case anyone gets hurt. When it gets closer to the trade deadline, I may try to unload him if I can get a prospect or too. This seems like a fairly reasonable strategy, especially since he'll be whining about playing time by then anyway.

I did think of a construct where this might work in real life, and I'm curious to explore it more. Stay with me for a second...

Let's imagine there's a DH who's advancing in age, wants his ring, and decides that the Rangers are the team for him - if they can offer him a decent deal. The Rangers want him, but can't give him the 17mil he's looking for. They go back and forth before deciding there's a way to make everyone happy...

The Braves who have plenty of cap room and no need for a DH sign the guy to his 17mil contract, then turn around and trade him to the Rangers for 2-3 quality prospects, assuming half of the DH's contract. (To comply with rules, let's say the deal happens on May 1.)

The Rangers get their guy for $8mil instead of $17mil.

The guy gets his money and gets to play for his team.

The Braves essentially "buy" three prospects for $9mil.

This is totally legal then, yeah? Even though it would probably make a lot of other teams pretty upset?

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by aaronhelman

This is totally legal then, yeah?

The MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement specifically prohibits collusion.

[jaysdailydose]

It might theoretically legal, but it wouldn't ever happen.

Most of us consider what you're trying to do as cheating. And now that I think more about it, I would think it would qualify as collusion in real life, because the player is a free agent so you can't discuss potential trades regarding players who are not under contract.

"We'll trade you this asset that we don't even have yet..." I'm going to wager is against the current CBA.

It's your game, play it your way... but yeah, its bush league.

EDIT: I hadn't even read Orcin's post, how funny. Yes, collusion.

[BIG17EASY]

I'm not sure there's any collusion involved. The scenario he describes doesn't involve any deception by either team to fool the other 28 teams, nor is their anything deceitful toward the player.

Jaysdaily may be right that there are things that prohibit a handshake deal involving a player that's currently a free agent, but other than that, I don't see anything wrong with the situation he describes.

As for whether or not this would happen in real life, yeah, not gonna happen. I'm not so sure it's a given in OOTP, either, unless trade settings are "dumbed down" or it's forced through in commish mode.

[jaysdailydose]

Yeah, they would just find the money... as baseball is an uncapped sport, there is no way a team is going to give up two or three prospects over $7M.

[aaronhelman]

I figured there were probably rules against collusion IRL, and in the scenario I described, it would be obvious collusion, i.e.; an NL team wouldn't pick up that DH unless they already had an assurance that they could unload them.

However, I don't think it's a bush-league move to grab a veteran on a short-term contract with the idea that he might become tradebait later. Obviously, grabbing him and trading him away immediately is shady and exploitative at best.

But in real baseball, it's a fairly common strategy for a cellar dweller to pick up a few past-their-prime vets, hope that one can have a return to form and then net something around the trade deadline. In this case, I'd argue that it's fairly common for teams to assess a player's value as what he might be worth to someone else later instead of what he's worth on the field now.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I'm not sure there's any collusion involved. The scenario he describes doesn't involve any deception by either team to fool the other 28 teams, nor is their anything deceitful toward the player.

Jaysdaily may be right that there are things that prohibit a handshake deal involving a player that's currently a free agent, but other than that, I don't see anything wrong with the situation he describes.

The precise language in the CBA is "Players shall not act in concert with other Players and Clubs shall not act in concert with other Clubs."

I think the situation described by the OP is a club (Braves) acting in concert with another club (Rangers).

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Orcin

The precise language in the CBA is "Players shall not act in concert with other Players and Clubs shall not act in concert with other Clubs."

I think the situation described by the OP is a club (Braves) acting in concert with another club (Rangers).

That language may be posted on Wikipedia, but it doesn't exist in the current CBA: http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf. That Wikipedia quote is so basic that it would forbid trading, which is obviously allowed.

Collusion is forbidden in MLB to keep teams from working together to keep salaries down, and to keep players from working together to drive salaries up, which is unfair to one side or the other. And it also forbids teams/players from blackballing each other.

There's nothing unfair about the OP's scenario unless the player isn't privy to the plan. If the player wants to sign with Team A knowing full well he'll be traded to Team B on a certain date, there's nothing deceitful happening.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

That language may be posted on Wikipedia, but it doesn't exist in the current CBA: http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf. That Wikipedia quote is so basic that it would forbid trading, which is obviously allowed.

Collusion is forbidden in MLB to keep teams from working together to keep salaries down, and to keep players from working together to drive salaries up, which is unfair to one side or the other. And it also forbids teams/players from blackballing each other.

There's nothing unfair about the OP's scenario unless the player isn't privy to the plan. If the player wants to sign with Team A knowing full well he'll be traded to Team B on a certain date, there's nothing deceitful happening.

Except that it never would happen in real life.

[Tekneek]

I always felt like the fun of management games is trying to play like it is real life instead of doing anything and everything that you can get away with. If you're trying to do something that you cannot imagine ever happening in real life, you probably shouldn't be doing it.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by RchW

Except that it never would happen in real life.

Which I said a few posts ago.