Major League Baseball has launched an inquiry against the Yankees and Mets to examine whether their owners unlawfully communicated about AL MVP favorite Aaron Judge’s free agency.
The investigation stems from a column written by Andy Martino of SNY earlier this month.
Martino speculated that the Mets were unlikely to pursue Judge in free agency, owing to mutual respect between Mets owner Steve Cohen and Yankees owner Hal Steinbrenner.
To be sure, Martino did not characterize it as the sole reason the Mets could choose not to bid on Judge, nor did he explicitly indicate Cohen and Steinbrenner had discussed Judge’s free agency.
The Mets can have a way out
Also read: Reportedly Yankees Are All Set to Not Let Go of MLB Star Aaron Judge Walks Away During the Bidding
He went on to say that the Mets may be hesitant to sign another contract worth more than $300 million after extending Francisco Lindor last year.
The Mets could easily make a valid baseball case for not pursuing Judge, but communication among owners not to pursue a free agent — if it happened — would be a collusive violation of the collective bargaining agreement.
According to Rosenthal, the MLBPA voiced concern to the league over the SNY report, prompting the probe. MLB is expected to request communication records between Cohen and Steinbrenner, according to Rosenthal.
Arbitrators discovered a pattern of conspiracy among owners in the 1980s, which reduced the free agency markets in 1985 and 1987. As part of a deal in 1990, owners agreed to pay players $280 million.
Renewed collusion allegations arose in the early 2000s, and Rosenthal reports that during the 2006 CBA negotiations, the league agreed to a $12 million compensation but made no acknowledgment of guilt.
The judge’s market was harmed by the conversation
The MLBPA can file a grievance on Judge’s behalf, and according to Rosenthal, the union would have to show that
a) illegal communication between the Yankees and Mets happened, and
b) Judge’s market was hurt as a result of that conversation.
Meanwhile, Rosenthal speculates that the MLBPA may take issue with the Astros in a separate area.
That would be in reference to remarks made by Houston owner Jim Crane last night on the free agent status of Cy Young winner Justin Verlander.
“Crane indicated Verlander is seeking a deal akin to Max Scherzer,”
According to Brian McTaggart of MLB.com, “Crane indicated Verlander is seeking a deal akin to Max Scherzer,” who signed a three-year, $130 million contract with the Mets last winter.
Crane isn’t mentioned on the record discussing Scherzer, but he does tell McTaggart about Verlander: “He’s looking at the comp, which I guess there’s only one or two of.” JV only has a few years left, and he intends to make the most of them. I believe he will test the market on that.”
To be fair, there is no indication that Crane has discussed Verlander’s market with other clubs. The CBA does, however, expressly ban team executives from “(making) comments to the media about the value of an unsigned free agent, regardless of whether conversations have transpired,” including statements like “Player X is wanting more than Player Y earned. “
If the Players Association decides to launch a grievance against Houston, they must also show that Crane’s statements hurt Verlander’s market, ostensibly by demonstrating that Crane’s claims about the nine-time All-high Star’s asking price may prevent other teams from entering the fray.
To now, there is no sign that the union has filed a grievance in either case, but both will be closely monitored in the coming weeks.