Interesting legal question here. Do I understand correctly from the discussion so far that Soriano went to arbitration and got the $10 million contract through that process? This is what infielddad says. If so, it could be very much the next step in the Curt Flood precedent. Does arbitration still work the same way it used to? You go in you say, I am a 2B who hits .270 with 30 home runs a year with 10 errors [hypothetical, of course]. The player says, I am worth 20 Million Dollars to my present ball club hitting that in that position and the club says, no you are worth $10 million. Arbitrator picks one figure or the other. No compromise unless made outside of arbitration. If so, might be very interesting how this plays out.
Curt Flood refused a trade to Philidelphia from St. Louis and sat out a year with no pay to try and void his one year contract. Courts ruled that the contract was binding on a player for as long as MLB wanted and said Anti-trust laws did not apply to MLB.
So far, Soriano did not veto the trade [don't know if he could] nor has he quit or retired. He refuses to play outfield, a position where his batting average and home runs will probably not make him worth $10 million in arbitration next time around when compared to other outfielders with the same batting average, home runs, etc. Might make for some very interesting legal manuverings on the part of both sides. Doubt if either side [union or owners] want that fight but that doesn't mean Soriano might not want it and has legal counsel that will fight it. In that way [being left out to dry by the union] it might turn out to be like Curt Flood.
TW344