Does Carlos Lee have a no-trade clause next season?
I'm asking the question because there seems to be no shortage of differing opinions among those who follow the Astros online.
My assumption was that he had a full no-trade clause for the life of his contract, but now I think that's wrong. For one thing, Cot's indicates that the full no-trade clause is only from 2007-2010. (the complete no-trade idea is repeated here along with the claim that Lee has refused to waive his no-trade clause 3 times. However, there's no source referenced and the author isn't that reliable.)
I thought I read some posts in spring training that implied or claimed that Lee's full no-trade expires after this season, and he doesn't have any trade protection next season, but after the 2011 season he has 10-5 rights, so he can veto any trade. (See the Astros Fan Blog at the Chronicle for that opinion.) So the thought is that there would be a window where it might be possible to offload him. However, aside from the posts that mention that idea, I can't find anything to back it up.
I am now of the opinion that Lee will retain some kind of limited no-trade clause for next season and beyond. First, I did find this report by ESPN from 2006 when Lee signed with the Astros that states it. It doesn't describe the nature of the no-trade clause, but says that it exists. Second, it seems likely that if a player was concerned enough to negotiate a no-trade clause for the first four years, he wouldn't completely abandon that demand, especially in the later years of the contract.
I also found this link, from a site I haven't used very much, that says that before next season (2011), the Astros and Lee must agree to 12 teams that he cannot be traded to without his consent and those will serve as the limited no-trade clause for the final 2 seasons of the contract. What isn't clear is whether or not Lee will also be able to exercise his 10-5 rights in the final season of the contract. I don't know if that is a "right" a player can negotiate away in return for other terms, such as the limited no-trade clause in the 2011. I'd guess that he can contract to waive that right, but I don't have any way to confirm that.
Even the half hour I've wasted on this seems pointless. I have a hard time seeing how the Astros are going to be able to move Lee for much in the next couple of seasons. If he can really block a trade to 12 teams, then it seems it would be pretty easy for him to strategically choose the ones most likely to be willing to accept a player like him. In reality, as long as he is close to his offensive numbers of the past couple seasons, his contract isn't obscene, but merely distasteful. For me, his worst offenses are the perceived attitude of not really caring that much, the apparent lack of effort and the fact that he represents the worst of McLane's excesses. What can you say about a ballplayer who puts proximity to his ranch above playing for a winning team? It's Drayton's money and if he needs to suffer for wasting it on a half-assed ballplayer like Lee, so be it. I just wish I didn't have to watch him.
Links I used for this post:
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/houston-astros.html
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/five-questions-houston-astros5/
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2674398
http://www.mlb4u.com/profile.php?id=339
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/01/discussion-carlos-lee.html
http://blogs.chron.com/fanblogastros/archives/2010/03/astros_window_f.html
8 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think that next year is the window for trading Lee, but it’s unclear whether it’s a limited no trade clause. A limited no trade clause will make it more difficult to trade Lee. I’ m fairly certain that Lee will have an effective no trade provision after 2011 due to the 10 years service / 5 years with one team rule. When Lee was signed, I recall press accounts which indicated that the 10-5 rule would be in effect at the end of the contract. I also doubt that the MLPA would approve a contract which waives that collectively bargained right. Ed Wade has been quoted previously as saying that Lee will not waive his no trade clause, which implies to me that the Astros have asked him in the past.
At least Lee’s contract isn’t as long as the contract the Cubs signed with Soriano, which runs through 2014 at 18 M per year. Soriano has a no trade clause for the full term of his contract.
I still find it odd
That the guy wanted to come to Houston because he had assets near by, you give him a no-trade close and 100 mil contract? I know the Met’s wanted him, but come on.
by Timothy De Block on Apr 16, 2010 7:30 AM CDT up reply actions
Cubs really screwed us there. If I remember, Lee was asking for 6-90 before the Cubs signed Soriano and his asking price went up. The fact that he won’t waive his no trade clause worries me. It says that he doesn’t care about winning, and that being near his ranch is more important than baseball. It seems like the guy is just going through the motions playing out the rest of his contract while focusing on his ranch.
by seanbergmanrules on Apr 16, 2010 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions
I hate to say it...but...
Lee’s not the only one going through the motions right now :-(
by titansfan4ever on Apr 19, 2010 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions

by 

























