General question about MLB trading rules

[Oxy]

Why is it that only players whose contracts are soon expiring are the only ones talked about as being trading chips? I understand that teams are unwilling to trade away cornerstones of their franchise who will be under contract for a few years, but why can't they just rent them out for the rest of the summer and then return them to their home club the next spring? I see how this overt mercenary system would be philosophically unfavorable by toying with players' loyalties, but I could also see how Felix Hernandez would rather pitch the rest of this year for a contender before going back to Seattle next year.

 

Let's say the Crew decides to be sellers. so they trade away Braun, Gallardo, Hart, Weeks, Lucroy, Ramirez, and Axford, ALL with the agreement that they will be returned to the Brewers next spring. The minors would be STOCKED with what those guys could bring in a trade. Plus, whatever loyalty issues the players have about being rented out would be mitigated by knowing that their future with the Brewers would be a lot brighter since the farm system will be loaded with talent that they brought in the trade.

 

I am guessing there is something in the collective bargaining agreement that somehow prohibits this, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how unless a specific player has it written into his contract.

[Team Canada]

Why would the receiving team agree to do that?

[GAME05]

if you loan me Felix Hernandez for two months, i'll do what i can to pitch him every other day at 130 pitches per game.

 

and why would any player agree to this? someone signs in Toronto but then has to unexpectedly move to another city for two months every year?

 

it would also turn the playoffs into something more akin to an extended All-Star game. that wouldn't be fun at all.

[Oxy]

Why would the receiving team agree to do that?

 

It's a "trade" for a reason. You will be able to give up less in order to get a guy for 2 months plus the playoffs rather than 1.5 or 2.5 years. It's essentially the same as trading for a guy with an expiring contract except for the fact that you don't get the draft picks after he goes someplace else. 2 months of Ryan Braun or Yo Gallardo has to have some value for a team chasing the playoffs, and I would guess they would be willing to give up a decent prospect or two in order to "go for it" this year. If the Brewers are going to be sellers, Braun and Gallardo have almost NO value to the Brewers THIS year, so why not get something for their services the last couple of months? The only value they have is to draw people at the gates, but I think people would be forgiving though if they new the move was only temporary and they got future MLBers in the trade as well.

[Oxy]

if you loan me Felix Hernandez for two months, i'll do what i can to pitch him every other day at 130 pitches per game.

 

and why would any player agree to this? someone signs in Toronto but then has to unexpectedly move to another city for two months every year?

 

it would also turn the playoffs into something more akin to an extended All-Star game. that wouldn't be fun at all.

 

Team's trade for guys with expiring contracts now who they know they won't be able to resign and do not abuse them, so I don't know why they would in this instance. Also, players have to agree to it if they want to get paid, unless it is written into their contract otherwise. Plus, there are plenty of guys out there who would like to play for a winner with a chance to get to the playoffs every year. And ideally, this wouldn't happen EVERY year. It would only happen to guys on teams that are out of it. There are only a handful of players on teams that are out of it that would be worth trading for, so I don't think it would be as ridiculous as merely an extended all-star game.

[Baldkin]

Trading him away is completely different than loaning them out.

 

If a guy gets hurt while playing for the other team, you wouldn't have the option of not resigning him. You'd be on the hook for his whole salary.

[adambr2]

Long-term, I think something like this allowed would destroy a team like the Brewers. Every team near the top would be forced to either unload their prospects to keep pace with everyone else doing the same. Every August and September you'd be watching less than 10 teams or so play competitive baseball with All-Star like teams with everyone else playing out the fiddle.

 

Sounds like something to me that goes against the intent of the spirit of the game. If there were any proposed such trade that came with an agreement to return the traded player to his original team in the offseason, I think MLB would quickly squash it, or at least before it became a trend.

[Invader3K]

Yeah, at some point Selig would step in and start vetoing trades. I'm pretty sure MLB's rules still allow the commissioner to do that under certain situations.

[jmeks23]

That's just a bad idea RockCo. Too many flaws. Why would Braun be okay with being traded somewhere else every year for 3 months. And what if he liked it more somewhere else? And I guarantee receiving teams would give up NEXT TO NOTHING for players in this scenario. It is NOT the same as a rental. Rental's have potential to be signed as a FA by the trading team. In your scenario the team gets no draft picks, can't keep the player, and only gets 2-3 months out of the player. There's no incentive in that. Also, what about injuries? What happens if the other team over pitches Yo Gallardo like game05 said? Or if Braun pulls up lame. Do you sue the other team? Does the other team pay for rehab? Too many holes in it.