Better link.

Clubs are prohibited from discussing their interest in free agents to the news media, including off-the-record comments. It includes even confirming or denying that an offer has been made, not made, or pulled.

HA!

Clubs are prohibited from discussing their interest in free agents to the news media, including off-the-record comments. It includes even confirming or denying that an offer has been made, not made, or pulled.

What a ludicrous provision, if only because it's utterly unenforceable.

So does this mean that collusion was going on?

I remember that year where all those outfielders signed 2 year, 6 million deals, it sure seemed like it.

And I agree with David that the provision is a bit ludicrous.

What a ludicrous provision, if only because it's utterly unenforceable.

of COURSE it's enforceable--it's just like secret grand jury testimony and everyone knows how sacred that is

What a ludicrous provision, if only because it's utterly unenforceable.

As well as an abject denial of free speech. Why can't a team communicate with its fanbase by telling it what bids it made (or didn't make) on players? Or is that allowed outside the news media context in, say, a letter to season ticket holders? And if it is allowed, what's to stop the media from calling ticket holders, obtaining the leter, and printing the offer?

Even if they could somehow prevent teams from talking on or off the record about offers and interest, don't most of these reports come from agents anyway?

Clubs are prohibited from discussing their interest in free agents to the news media, including off-the-record comments. It includes even confirming or denying that an offer has been made, not made, or pulled

And this will help players how? I suppose a free agent is hurt if a team says that it has no interest in him. But generally these media tid bits are of the nature of "the Padres, Cubs, Reds, and Twins all have an interest in Mark Loretta (or whomever)." I would think those kind of stories generally help free agent players.

So it basically allows an agent to say, my player has a $15 million offer from Team Stupid, but Team Stupid can't confirm or deny that? I can see how that would help the player. Also, preventing a team from confirming or denying a reported rumor that clearly helps a player/agent is only slightly less ethical than collusion.

And this will help players how? I suppose a free agent is hurt if a team says that it has no interest in him. But generally these media tid bits are of the nature of "the Padres, Cubs, Reds, and Twins all have an interest in Mark Loretta (or whomever)." I would think those kind of stories generally help free agent players.

it seems like those kinds of stories also mostly come from the agents. if the individual teams would be reprimanded for confirming or denying that interest, it gives the agents a pretty interesting tool to wield.

Clubs are prohibited from discussing their interest in free agents to the news media, including off-the-record comments. It includes even confirming or denying that an offer has been made, not made, or pulled

Looks like MLB Trade Rumours is headed for leaner times.

It (if enforceable) prevents teams from colluding via the press.

Imagine the following plausible scenario which may have taken place in the past:

Red Sox: We're interested in your client Mr. Boras.
Boras: Great, but you should know I've got an offer from the Mets.
Red Sox: OK, we'll get back to you.

Red Sox: Mr. Met, it's the Red Sox. We hear you have interest in Boras' client.
Mr. Met: That's not true.
Red Sox: Thanks for the info.
Mr. Met: Say, we heard you guys were trying to trade for Gary Matthews, Jr.
Red Sox: snicker.

Red Sox: Mr. Boras, here's our offer.
Boras: I'm sorry, this doesn't match the other offer on the table.
Red Sox: We hear the Mets aren't interested in your client.
Boras: Where did you get that info.
Red Sox: The NY Daily News.


In essence, the whole point of the anti-collusion protocols are that only 3 people are supposed to know if the Mets are interested in Joe Blow -- the Mets GM (yes, and his staff, owner, etc.), Blow's agent and Blow.

As well as an abject denial of free speech.

Two private parties have entered into a mutual agreement to not discuss this with the press. No different than any other non-disclosure agreement.

Why can't a team communicate with its fanbase by telling it what bids it made (or didn't make) on players?

In the past tense as in "we tried to sign A, B and C but were unable to"? Might or might not technically violate the agreement but I doubt the MLBPA will care once the offseason is over. None of us have seen the language but I wouldn't think it would prevent a GM from saying "we intend to be active in the FA market this offseason" or even "we are looking for OF help in the FA market."

Now an interesting test case would be if the Nats were to announce "we will make every effort to resign Adam Dunn." Maybe they get away with that within their exclusive negotiation period.

All told this looks pretty minor to me. Various deadlines get moved up by about a week (on an essentially trial basis) and a seemingly unenforceable rule about talking to the media is put in place (more unnamed sources, woo-hoo*). Doesn't seem nearly as big as last season's "OK, we are going to publicly announce that the Marlins have to spend more money."

* Looking forward to how the NY Times is going to phrase "The source requested anonymity because the information they were providing was in violation of the CBA and could cost his employer lots of money."

Looks like the exclusive negotiation period has gone the way of astroturf...

Looks like MLB Trade Rumours is headed for leaner times.

Quoting pointless speculation from national baseball writers about which players a writer thinks a team "will be in the hunt on" (or other similarly vague phrases) will never hit lean times.

believe that if the owners agreed to this then the PA had them dead to rights on collusion.

If the MLBPA had a smoking gun and this is the deal they got it's the most pathetic negotiating this side of Neville Chamberlain.