Sign in to follow this  
kmoore1521

Kyler Murray OF OAK

Recommended Posts

I see by the reactions that you guys don't understand this concept.  As a part of the MLB or NFL the players union represents their player in any dispute with the league.  Once he doesn't show up to spring training he is in breach of contract and will no longer be subject to the MLB union backing (they pay all court costs for any player in a dispute with the league).  As he has not been drafted by the NFL already, they also will not use the union to back Murray.  At this point the only financial backing he can receive is from himself or his family and friends.  If they time it right, they can bury him in court costs just by waiting for him to not show up to spring training.  He already will have to pay back the money he received from the A's, that money cannot be used unless he replaces it from his own money anyways.  He easily could lose millions of dollars in a protracted battle.  That would be a net loss against his future NFL earnings, which he would definitely feel as he's so far been all about how much money he can make.  If you subtract just 2m in court costs from his rookie NFL contract, he now definitely must be picked in the first round in order to make more than he would by honoring his current contract.  Happens all the time.  Large entity with large pocketbooks forces smaller entity to settle because they don't have the money for a long, protracted battle in the courts that can not only last years but also cost millions of dollars.  MLB doesn't even have to win the suit in this scenario, just force Murray to spend enough money that the A's would actually end up paying him more with dropping the lawsuit and him sticking with baseball.  Easy concept overall that major lawyer literally do everyday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2019 at 8:23 PM, DerrickHenrysCleats said:

 

I think you are missing the point.

 

The not playing in the NFL clause is only relevant if he keeps the signing bonus.if he returns the money everything in that contract will be voided.

 

At least that's how I see it being ruled on if a lawsuit was filed.

Depending on how the contract was worded even giving back the money may not be enough. You could be sued for breach of contract which would be the money + punitive damages. How a judge would determine what the value of a top ten pick is beyond me. The first part though is the wording. IF it contains the clause the As give me x amount of dollars and then I forgo a professional football career. I am not a lawyer but I think he loses in a civil lawsuit. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TE: With all the talk of Kyler Murray and the NFL draft, what does this mean for the A’s? Does he have to break his contract? Would the A’s get compensation? It seems like a pretty raw deal for them, given that Boras likely assured the team he would sign and play baseball exclusively (otherwise they wouldn’t have drafted him).
Keith Law: Right now it means nothing at all. He’s only declared for the NFL draft, which has no impact on the A’s or his baseball contract. It only starts to matter if he doesn’t show up for spring training/the season, or leaves the team at some point. He could owe the A’s the entire bonus, and no, they’d get no compensation. I suppose he’d make a lot more money in the short term, but there is no amount of money you could offer me that would make me consider risking traumatic brain injuries by playing football.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, brockpapersizer said:

TE: With all the talk of Kyler Murray and the NFL draft, what does this mean for the A’s? Does he have to break his contract? Would the A’s get compensation? It seems like a pretty raw deal for them, given that Boras likely assured the team he would sign and play baseball exclusively (otherwise they wouldn’t have drafted him).
Keith Law: Right now it means nothing at all. He’s only declared for the NFL draft, which has no impact on the A’s or his baseball contract. It only starts to matter if he doesn’t show up for spring training/the season, or leaves the team at some point. He could owe the A’s the entire bonus, and no, they’d get no compensation. I suppose he’d make a lot more money in the short term, but there is no amount of money you could offer me that would make me consider risking traumatic brain injuries by playing football.

 

I think we all know that declaring for the draft doesn't break his contract.  It's the whole accepting a contract in the NFL that would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, daynlokki said:

@brockpapersizer Behind a paywall so I don't know if you can read this, but it seems like the A's may be doing something very similar to what I'm proposing.

 https://theathletic.com/769333/2019/01/15/thompson-you-have-to-respect-the-as-at-least-attempting-a-power-move-with-their-pursuit-of-kyler-murray/

 

Thanks! I Read the article. It's over a week old.  We debated for a few days about the legal ramifications and then I gave up trying to explain how the law works. 

The whole point of this article suggest that it may be in the A's best interest to give him another 10 million to stay in baseball because he could be a big attraction and they are moving to a new stadium.    Sounds great.  I'd imagine if the A's thought they could prevent him from entering the NFL Draft like you said in a previous post, then they wouldn't need to pay him an extra 10 million. I guess they do.

 

Nothing in this suggest they would sue him or fight a lawsuit so he gets into debt.  Nothing in this article even talks about his current contract stipulations. This article merely suggests the A's would get into a bigger bidding war with the NFL over Murray, despite the fact they already gave him $5 million. So yes, in that case Murray's plan to enter into the draft to try and leverage his status for more money will have worked.

 

To sum up this article: The A's might give Murray more money to stay away from the NFL.  If you said that before, I never disagreed with that. Seems like their best option if they actually want him.

 

I have nothing against Murray regardless of what he chooses to do, it's his life. I'm a  big baseball fan, I hope he chooses baseball. I wish baseball attracted more top athletes, and I'm hoping that with the concussion epidemic, more athletes will see a better path to a long prosperous life playing this game we both love to discuss and watch.  I do hope they get compensated well for it too. 

 

 

Edited by brockpapersizer
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brockpapersizer said:

 

Thanks! I Read the article. It's over a week old.  We debated for a few days about the legal ramifications and then I gave up trying to explain how the law works. 

The whole point of this article suggest that it may be in the A's best interest to give him another 10 million to stay in baseball because he could be a big attraction and they are moving to a new stadium.    Sounds great.  I'd imagine if the A's thought they could prevent him from entering the NFL Draft like you said in a previous post, then they wouldn't need to pay him an extra 10 million. I guess they do.

 

Nothing in this suggest they would sue him or fight a lawsuit so he gets into debt.  Nothing in this article even talks about his current contract stipulations. This article merely suggests the A's would get into a bigger bidding war with the NFL over Murray, despite the fact they already gave him $5 million. So yes, in that case Murray's plan to enter into the draft to try and leverage his status for more money will have worked.

 

To sum up this article: The A's might give Murray more money to stay away from the NFL.  If you said that before, I never disagreed with that. Seems like their best option if they actually want him.

 

I have nothing against Murray regardless of what he chooses to do, it's his life. I'm a  big baseball fan, I hope he chooses baseball. I wish baseball attracted more top athletes, and I'm hoping that with the concussion epidemic, more athletes will see a better path to a long prosperous life playing this game we both love to discuss and watch.  I do hope they get compensated well for it too. 

 

 

It definitely makes it seem like there is far more going on behind the scenes.  From what I hear, A's are definitely considering a lawsuit currently.  I just brought up the perfect timing of it when he wasn't a part of the MLB or the NFL.  At that point he's 100% on his own financially.  His dad is a high school coach and he's a college student.  He may have some issues paying his lawyers, especially in a case that could not only drag out, but drop him down draft boards due to signability concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, daynlokki said:

It definitely makes it seem like there is far more going on behind the scenes.  From what I hear, A's are definitely considering a lawsuit currently. 

 

You told me to read an article, and I did. The article basically says the A's might pay him 10 more million to play baseball for them and not football.  If anything, the idea of paying him more money seems rooted in the fact that they can lose him.  That's my opinion after reading it.  If anyone else has the athletic and wants to read and see if they took anything else away from that, be my guest. 

 

From my knowledge of the law, there's ton's of lawsuits that can always be filed here. The best ones outside of the 5 million back are A's suing an NFL team for interference and Boras suing Murray for his bonus. The latter of which has almost no chance of happening, Boras is rich and isn't going to sue a client.  It is of my personal opinion the only money that can be extracted from the A's from Murray is the signing bonus. He signed a contract after the draft pick was made, and they were not guaranteed a contract to begin with. Even if that were the case, I disagree with the opinion that you can put an actual value on a draft pick suitable for the court.  You don't just get to make stuff up, damages need to be proven with certainty and punitive damages are generally awarded in rare instances (not sued for). 

 

Agree to disagree I geuss

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, brockpapersizer said:

 

You told me to read an article, and I did. The article basically says the A's might pay him 10 more million to play baseball for them and not football.  If anything, the idea of paying him more money seems rooted in the fact that they can lose him.  That's my opinion after reading it.  If anyone else has the athletic and wants to read and see if they took anything else away from that, be my guest. 

 

From my knowledge of the law, there's ton's of lawsuits that can always be filed here. The best ones outside of the 5 million back are A's suing an NFL team for interference and Boras suing Murray for his bonus. The latter of which has almost no chance of happening, Boras is rich and isn't going to sue a client.  It is of my personal opinion the only money that can be extracted from the A's from Murray is the signing bonus. He signed a contract after the draft pick was made, and they were not guaranteed a contract to begin with. Even if that were the case, I disagree with the opinion that you can put an actual value on a draft pick suitable for the court.  You don't just get to make stuff up, damages need to be proven with certainty and punitive damages are generally awarded in rare instances (not sued for). 

 

Agree to disagree I geuss

 

Guess so.  But there are already ways out there if you look hard enough to tell how much an MLB draft pick is worth.  Especially now that compensation picks can be traded for value.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing the discussion, there was some great analysis of the situation here

 

http://www.inthisleague.com/fantasybaseball/episode-111-jim-callis-mlb-pipeline-top-100/

 

10 minutes  in by Jim Callis

 

Important points based on recent conversation

 

- Murray would have been a no doubt first round pick in the 2017 MLB Draft, but he wanted to try college football. The A's never offered him anything special, he was not going to sign with any team who didn't let him play college football

 

- The A's took a gamble, and Callis' says it was a good gamble. Nobody expected Murray to win the heisman and be in conversation to be a first rounder because of his size.

 

- Murray still needs to convince a team that he's all in on football, which is going to be hard to do because he said that about baseball pretty much. Nobody is going to give up a first round pick on a guy unless they're sure the guy will  play just football. If he's able to convince a team that, maybe one picks him

 

- No discussion of A's filing a lawsuit, the A's knew the risk when the signed him.

 

- if it's up to him, he'll play football because that's his passion.

 

 

Edited by brockpapersizer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2019 at 6:09 PM, brockpapersizer said:

 

You told me to read an article, and I did. The article basically says the A's might pay him 10 more million to play baseball for them and not football.  If anything, the idea of paying him more money seems rooted in the fact that they can lose him.  That's my opinion after reading it.  If anyone else has the athletic and wants to read and see if they took anything else away from that, be my guest. 

 

From my knowledge of the law, there's ton's of lawsuits that can always be filed here. The best ones outside of the 5 million back are A's suing an NFL team for interference and Boras suing Murray for his bonus. The latter of which has almost no chance of happening, Boras is rich and isn't going to sue a client.  It is of my personal opinion the only money that can be extracted from the A's from Murray is the signing bonus. He signed a contract after the draft pick was made, and they were not guaranteed a contract to begin with. Even if that were the case, I disagree with the opinion that you can put an actual value on a draft pick suitable for the court.  You don't just get to make stuff up, damages need to be proven with certainty and punitive damages are generally awarded in rare instances (not sued for). 

 

Agree to disagree I geuss

 

 

Yeah, punitive damages aren't happening here.  This is a breach of contract situation, which doesn't support punitives.  Maybe the A's can tack on some sort of claims (fraud, interference with contractual relations, etc.) that would trigger punitives, but that isn't usually successful when everyone on the other side knows that you only added those claims to do so. 

 

I agree that Boras will not sue a client. 

Edited by ReplacementLevelPoster
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2019 at 5:14 PM, daynlokki said:

I see by the reactions that you guys don't understand this concept.  As a part of the MLB or NFL the players union represents their player in any dispute with the league.  Once he doesn't show up to spring training he is in breach of contract and will no longer be subject to the MLB union backing (they pay all court costs for any player in a dispute with the league).  As he has not been drafted by the NFL already, they also will not use the union to back Murray.  At this point the only financial backing he can receive is from himself or his family and friends.  If they time it right, they can bury him in court costs just by waiting for him to not show up to spring training.  He already will have to pay back the money he received from the A's, that money cannot be used unless he replaces it from his own money anyways.  He easily could lose millions of dollars in a protracted battle.  That would be a net loss against his future NFL earnings, which he would definitely feel as he's so far been all about how much money he can make.  If you subtract just 2m in court costs from his rookie NFL contract, he now definitely must be picked in the first round in order to make more than he would by honoring his current contract.  Happens all the time.  Large entity with large pocketbooks forces smaller entity to settle because they don't have the money for a long, protracted battle in the courts that can not only last years but also cost millions of dollars.  MLB doesn't even have to win the suit in this scenario, just force Murray to spend enough money that the A's would actually end up paying him more with dropping the lawsuit and him sticking with baseball.  Easy concept overall that major lawyer literally do everyday. 

 

Now I'm not 100% on this but... While he will eventually have to give signing bonus back this will have to be disputed in court.  So in the mean time he can dip into that money to find himself plenty good representation (I'm sure he's already done this).  Good enough to where The A's (a small market team) won't be able to bury him he did sign for 4.66 million dollars.  We've seen what money ball is all about... Do you think The A's want to invest multiple millions to go toe to toe with this kid?  Cause I'm sure Kyler and his family if it came down to it would invest everything they had if they had to.

 

Also how bad do The A's want to look in this situation.  You are trying to bury a kid?  I can see the headline now, The Oakland A'holes continue to attack a kid with a dream.  I'm pretty sure that's something both parties would love to avoid.

 

The A's would lose more in PR trying to bury him rather than reach a reasonable agreement with him.  Besides from all reports I've heard The A's have been very understanding an patient in this entire process.

 

Look if you want to go to The NFL then just pay back the signing bonus... It's pretty clear cut.  Sucks The A's wasted a draft pick but players don't sign out of the draft all the time and The A's should have done more dewdiligence it was known that he also played football.

 

I'm honestly hoping there's a way that he can do both.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FouLLine said:

 

Now I'm not 100% on this but... While he will eventually have to give signing bonus back this will have to be disputed in court.  So in the mean time he can dip into that money to find himself plenty good representation (I'm sure he's already done this).  Good enough to where The A's (a small market team) won't be able to bury him he did sign for 4.66 million dollars.  We've seen what money ball is all about... Do you think The A's want to invest multiple millions to go toe to toe with this kid?  Cause I'm sure Kyler and his family if it came down to it would invest everything they had if they had to.

 

Also how bad do The A's want to look in this situation.  You are trying to bury a kid?  I can see the headline now, The Oakland A'holes continue to attack a kid with a dream.  I'm pretty sure that's something both parties would love to avoid.

 

The A's would lose more in PR trying to bury him rather than reach a reasonable agreement with him.  Besides from all reports I've heard The A's have been very understanding an patient in this entire process.

 

Look if you want to go to The NFL then just pay back the signing bonus... It's pretty clear cut.  Sucks The A's wasted a draft pick but players don't sign out of the draft all the time and The A's should have done more dewdiligence it was known that he also played football.

 

I'm honestly hoping there's a way that he can do both.

 

 

They did due diligence.  Which is why there is a clause in his contract saying he can only play football for one more year of college and then that's it.  A contract he signed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2019 at 9:43 AM, ReplacementLevelPoster said:

 

Yeah, punitive damages aren't happening here.  This is a breach of contract situation, which doesn't support punitives.  Maybe the A's can tack on some sort of claims (fraud, interference with contractual relations, etc.) that would trigger punitives, but that isn't usually successful when everyone on the other side knows that you only added those claims to do so. 

 

I agree that Boras will not sue a client. 

There are definitely cases of punitive damages in breach of contract situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the punitive damages would come from the overall loss of a top 10 pick because he signed the contract in bad faith. He signed and stated he would play baseball, publicly stated with his agent that he would ONLY play baseball.  Now he goes back on that word and breaches his contract, causing the A's to lose a top 10 overall pick completely.  That's where the damages occur that qualify for punitive damages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of do too surprisingly.  I just can't see the A's setting the precedent that you can just leave the year after you sign a contract.  Especially as a top 10 pick.  That pick has some pretty good value overall, especially for a small market team such as the A's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, on a technicality that pick is at least worth what the bonus amount is.  They could sue for the loss of the 10th overall pick this year based upon him acting in bad faith.  That'll be about the same as his bonus, on top of his bonus already being forfeit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2019 at 11:19 AM, daynlokki said:

There are definitely cases of punitive damages in breach of contract situations.

 

 

Without any accompanying fraud or other tort?  There are, sure.  I'd say it's probably at a rate of about 1 in 1,000 cases.  Maybe even more rare.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ReplacementLevelPoster said:

 

 

Without any accompanying fraud or other tort?  There are, sure.  I'd say it's probably at a rate of about 1 in 1,000 cases.  Maybe even more rare.  

With the loss of the 10th overall pick in this draft because he signed a contract in bad faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, daynlokki said:

With the loss of the 10th overall pick in this draft because he signed a contract in bad faith.

 

That would be fraud or fraud in the inducement and would be a separate cause of action from a "garden variety" breach of contract claim.  So punitives would be available.  And you might well be right - I haven't studied the situation closely enough to foreclose the possibility that there's tortious conduct here.  But if it's only breach, there are unlikely to be punitives available.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ReplacementLevelPoster said:

 

That would be fraud or fraud in the inducement and would be a separate cause of action from a "garden variety" breach of contract claim.  So punitives would be available.  And you might well be right - I haven't studied the situation closely enough to foreclose the possibility that there's tortious conduct here.  But if it's only breach, there are unlikely to be punitives available.  

 

Fraud will not be proven here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, brockpapersizer said:

 

Fraud will not be proven here. 

Why not, he set the basis for it by having interviews saying he would 'only' play baseball.  Especially with Boras saying, "Kyler has agreed and the A's agreed to a baseball contract that gave him permission to play college football through the end of the collegiate season.  After that, he is under contract to play baseball. That is not a determination to make. It's already done."

He doesn't have much of a claim to acting in good faith after that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because you want something to be fraud doesn't mean it is fraud. Changing your mind after agreeing to something is not fraud. Fraud is like providing false documents to secure a deal. Something you don't agree with (Murray's decision) is a breach of contract but not fraud. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.