Opinion ID: 767632
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Standard Under the Framework for Assessing Lost Contract Extension Claims

Text: 19 At issue in this appeal is Garvey's claim for damages resulting from an alleged lost contract extension for the 1988 and 1989 baseball seasons which Garvey claims resulted from the Clubs' collusion. Garvey's claim, which was based on his 1987 salary,was approximately $3,000,000 for the two year period. 20 The Framework sets forth, at Section II, the standard for a player's recovery of damages for an alleged lost contract extension, as follows: 21 Some players who were under contract for a par ticular season believe that, but for the Clubs' collu sion, they would have signed contract extensions (or better extensions than they actually signed) covering future seasons. Although any player may file such a claim, the evidence indicates that there will be few potentially valid claims in this group. Such a claim may be potentially valid if: 22 (a) the extension would have been signed after November 1, 1985; and 23 (b) the extension would have begun with the 1987 season or future seasons. 24 (Emphasis in original). 25 The Framework then sets forth at Section V, Evaluation of Individual Player Claims, the following factors to be considered by the arbitrator, where applicable, in evaluating all player claims for money damages: 26 (a) the player's status, e.g., elected free agent; released free agent; non-tendered free agent; salary arbitration eligible; 27 (b) the player's Major League Service; 28 (c) the player's performance; 29 (d) the player's history of compensation; 30 (e) the salaries (and collusion claims, if applicable) of comparable players; 31 (f) collusion-free patterns of multi-year contract ing, if applicable; (g) the player's experience as a new look  free agent, if applicable; 32 (h) the Guidelines Regarding Allocation of the Set tlement Amount described below in Paragraph (3); 33 (i) the General Principles described below in Para graph (4); and 34 (j) any other factor which would normally apply in the determination of a player's salary and other benefits in a collusion-free market, including but not limited to, those factors set forth in Article VI of the Basic Agreement. 35 The arbitrator further addressed the standard regarding lost contract extension claims in his February 14, 1994 award regarding Plan Distribution II: 36 It is clear that in the absence of collusion some of these players would have secured an extension to a multi-year contract signed prior to collusion but oth ers would not have received such an opportunity with or without collusion. The task of identifying from the record those players who would fall in one or the other grouping is difficult. The demarcation must nevertheless be drawn and, in order to assign some continuity to the results, I agree with the approach of the Players Association in this regard, an approach which recognizes lost extension claims only in those cases where evidence exists that a spe cific offer of an extension was made by a club prior to collusion only to thereafter be withdrawn when the collusion scheme was initiated. 37 The arbitrator reiterated this standard in later denying Garvey's claim, further explaining that in each of the few contract extension claims recognized it was `shown that the club in question actually made a specific offer of a contract extension only to later summarily withdraw that offer pursuant to the scenario of the collusion program.'