But if the Seattle team can trade him now (at the time of the case -- during the winter preceeding the season), they can get something for him. Because Griffey is such a first-rate talent, a trade would presumably bring Seattle several very good players in return. .
.
Can't Seattle keep Griffey? They can try to sign him to a new contract, either before or after his existing contract runs out. But it is widely known that Griffey is unhappy in Seattle for a variety of reasons (some of which are mentioned in the case). It also says in the case that Seattle offered Griffy a new eight-year, $138 million dollar contract in July 1999, which Griffey met "with indifference." As a result, it is in Seattle's interest to try to trade him now, rather than waiting, which brings the risk that they will lose him with no compensation if his contract runs out at the end of the 2000 season and he becomes a free agent and signs with another team. .
.
What control does Griffey have over his fate? In most cases, a player can be traded without his consent. Teams trade players for all kinds of reasons: to get rid of an expensive player with declining skills; to attract talent at some other position; bad "fit" in team chemistry, etc. Griffey, however, meets a league threshold -- 10 years playing, and the past 5 with his current team -- that gives a player the right to veto any trade. Of course, even for players who do not have this veto, trading them near the end of their contract means the new team will soon have to sign them to a new contact. The player might not have the contractual right to formally veto a trade, but he can signal his preferences by indicating which teams will would find him more or less cooperative in agreeing to a new contract. .
.
Does the league or the other teams that are not bidding for Griffey care what happens? Yes, at least to an extent, because of the growing disparity between "rich" and "poor" among team owners.