Dear Mr. EFL Answer Man:
If I u deist and correctly, I should get relief from Varvaro because after I dfad him, he was picked up by another team, back to the Red Sox, I believe. -- Cell Phone Master
Dear Mr. Master:
Yeah, but I don’t have any idea how to “deist and” correctly. Are Christians deists, or theists? I can’t remember. And even if we’re deists, I may not be doing my deism correctly. And the “and” part has me completely flummoxed.
Hmmmm. This seems to be a questions about Varvaro’s salary. There’s no record of Varvaro being dropped in the transactions page. A search of email… Aha! The Tornadoes dropped Varvaro during the May 8 draft. (Note to self: In the future all in-draft drops need to be recorded as transactions.)
So what about the Red Sox “picking him up?” Let’s try the MLB transactions page. Hmmm. Several Varvaro notes, mostly about being DFA’d or going on the DL. Aha! May 24:
RHP Anthony Varvaro returned to Boston Red Sox from Chicago Cubs.
What does that mean? “Returned”? The only time I see that word is when a Rule 5 guy is returned. I suppose that would relieve the Cubs of Varvaro’s salary and would qualify under our rule. But Varvaro wasn’t a Rule 5 guy. The Cubs claimed him on a DFA. Can MLB teams just back out of a DFA claim? I need some better description of what’s going on.
Maybe this is the mysterious “deist and” transaction! Which I’ve never done correctly before. This is my big chance to get it right.
MLB Traderumors. Without much hope, I search for “deist and.” I get a hit! From May 25, 2015! Whoa! “Deist and” is a thing! But the article is all about guys named Liz, Urena, and Anderson. No mention of Varvaro’s recent return.
So I search on “Varvaro” and find this from May 24:
The Red Sox announced the pitcher Anthony Varvaro has been returned to the club…
Varvaro, it turns out, has a torn right flexor tendon and will undergo surgery Tuesday ending his season…
The Red Sox say they were unaware of how severe the injury was, so both clubs agreed that it “would be appropriate to return Varvaro to the Red Sox for placement on the disabled list in accordance with the major league rules.”
The Red Sox designated Varvaro for assignment on April 29th and the Cubs claimed him off waivers on May 3rd. Three days later, the Cubs DFA’d Varvaro and subsequently outrighted him.”
No mention of the Tornados transaction here — things have yet to improve under Rob Manfred — so once again it’s a good thing I had it in my email.) There’s a major league rule here. Apparently the “deist and” rule. I don’t know what that is.
Wait a second! This sounds like a revocation of acceptance under the Uniform Commercial Code! Article II, Section 608 of the UCC gives the buyer the right to revoke his acceptance of defective goods if the defect was hidden and difficult to discover at the time the goods were accepted. And Article II, Section 401 says title to the goods reverts to the seller immediately upon revocation of acceptance.
But Varvaro wasn’t defective when the Tornados bought him. Well, I mean, he wasn’t injured.
But on reflection, I don’t think that matters. The Cubs got to get rid of Varvaro and his contract. One of the two underlying principles driving the EFL rules is we should be able to do anything an MLB team can do, insofar as possible. (The other principle is “we should have fun. And no, Ron, practicing law is not considered fun by most people, so don’t make them do it.” “But I can make them read about it when I practice law, right?” “You can’t make anyone read anything.” “So it’s just like all the other stuff I write? Then I’ll take that as a ‘yes.'”) If the Cubs got to dump him, then the EFL team that anticipates the dump by DFA-ing or cutting a player before the “return” transaction should get to dump him, too.
So I feel led to rule that Varvaro should come off the Tornado payroll just like he came off the Cub payroll.
Hmmm… a discernment of a leading. That sounds pretty deistic — or maybe it’s theistic, but close enough. Maybe I can “deist and” correctly, after all.