Draft grievance could affect Bucs' No. 1
The grievance -- filed by the Major League Baseball Players Association against the Commissioner's Office on Aug. 27 -- has set off a bevy of speculation surrounding agreements reached between teams and drafted players on the night of Aug. 15.
Anticipation of this hearing has been growing for two weeks, most notably in Pittsburgh, but also in Kansas City and across the country. It's a complicated case, and speculation on the potential rulings has been rampant.
For those on the edge of your seats, though, don't expect a conclusion or ruling to come on Wednesday. The process isn't that simple.
The Players Association has submitted an extensive witness list that will almost certainly force the grievance to continue into a second day. However, that won't be on Thursday. Though the hearing process was expedited to get this matter resolved as soon as possible, Das does not have another available hearing date until later in September, and he has a pretty full docket in general.
After the hearing does eventually end, both the Commissioner's Office and the Players Association will likely ask for time to file written briefs. Following the submission of those briefs, the arbitrator will then write his decision, which will be binding.
In other words, there is a strong chance that this process will be dragged out, possibly for months. Because of the expected length of the process, Alvarez is almost certainly not going to be able to play any sort of fall or winter ball for the organization.
As the hearing approaches, here again are the nuts and bolts of the case, as well as the arguments from each of the main players.
Back on Aug. 27, two separate -- but strongly related -- bits of information came to light. Early in the afternoon, Pirates president Frank Coonelly issued a team statement identifying agent Scott Boras' ultimatum to rework Alvarez's signing bonus as the reason Alvarez never reported to Pittsburgh.
The two sides had agreed to that $6 million bonus at or around the Aug. 15 midnight deadline -- the exact time, obviously, being the cornerstone of the dispute.
"The Pirates are confident that the contract reached with Pedro Alvarez was agreed to and submitted to Major League Baseball in a timely fashion and properly accepted by Major League Baseball," Coonelly said in the statement. "... The Office of the Commissioner has assured us that we have a valid contract with Pedro and that it will vigorously defend any claim to the contrary."
Once informed by Boras that Alvarez would not sign the contract, the Pirates placed Alvarez on the MLB Restricted List, preventing him from signing a contract with another club.
Boras, on the other hand, contends that his client agreed to the deal past the midnight deadline, a deadline that was established as part of the 2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement. If the deal was done after the deadline, Boras contends, then Alvarez's initial agreement should be nullified.
While Boras wouldn't expound on exactly what he was seeking, it's apparent that a win for him and Alvarez would be a ruling that would allow Alvarez to either rework his contract or become a free agent.
Soon after the Pirates' statement was released, it became known that the Players Association was filing a grievance against the Commissioner's Office for unilaterally extending the midnight deadline without first being granted consent from the Players Association to do so.
The grievance was not filed against any specific team, though the Pirates and the Alvarez/Boras camp immediately became the central focus from a public perspective. Though several sources confirmed that a unilateral extension was indeed granted, the Pirates continue to insist that they had reached a deal with Alvarez without knowledge of a blanket extension.
Since that time, the Royals have also been pulled into this dispute, as Coonelly initially challenged the validity of Eric Hosmer's agreement. Coonelly contends that Hosmer agreed to a $6 million signing bonus after Alvarez's agreement, which would therefore put it in jeopardy if Alvarez's was proven to be late. Hosmer, the No. 3 overall pick in the Draft, is also represented by Boras.
After Hosmer signed his $6 million agreement and played three games for Kansas City's advanced rookie team in Idaho Falls, Idaho, MLB told the Royals to keep Hosmer off the field until this matter was resolved.
So how will Wednesday's hearing affect Alvarez? That's probably the most intriguing question at this point.
First comes the question of jurisdiction, most namely whether or not the Players Association has the ability to file a claim on behalf of drafted or Minor League players. There is precedence for this, with probably the best example coming in a 1997 case concerning J.D. Drew. In this case, Boras, Drew's agent, found a loophole in MLB Draft rules by having Drew sign a professional contract with an independent team to try to take away Drew's amateur status and therefore allow him to become a free agent.
Without getting into all the details of that case, an arbitrator eventually ruled that there was no authority for the arbitrator to rule on Drew's Draft status since Drew was not a member of the Players Association.
That would seem to be precedent for this case, though there is one important distinction this time around that could make a difference: this grievance, unlike the one filed for Drew in '97, was not filed for any specific player.
If there is a ruling in favor of the Players Association, a number of things could occur. There could potentially be something as extreme as declaring Alvarez's contract void and therefore allowing him to become a free agent. Or, the Pirates and Alvarez could be granted an extension in which they could attempt to renegotiate the signing bonus.
Still, even if there is a ruling against the Commissioner's Office for unilaterally extending the deadline, the most likely outcome remains more of a slap of the wrist, so to speak, for the Commissioner's Office, but no action against Alvarez's contract.
Not only do current agreements hinge on this arbitration hearing, but this hearing may also set in motion a change in MLB procedures moving forward. While the current CBA won't expire until 2011, this has some already asserting that the Aug. 15 midnight signing deadline needs to be altered.
Jenifer Langosch is a reporter for MLB.com.