It looks like Mondesi has signed with the Angels, but I don't understand this:

The former All-Star and Gold Glover said he got a $1.75 million contract for the rest of the season. He said he will make his debut in center field for the banged-up AL West leaders Sunday at Chicago.

"I'm very pleased with the agreement I reached with the Angels," Mondesi said.

Angels spokesman Tim Mead said he could neither confirm nor deny Mondesi's account.

Is he not confirming that Mondesi is an Angel, or just the terms of his contract?

Update: Jon Weisman has more on the Mondesi story. I have not been following it, I must admit, and didn't realize that Mondesi lied to get out of his contract. Jon brings up an interesting scenario:

What has happened this month with Mondesi and the Pirates is truly rare. A team and a player can essentially agree, or be duped into agreeing, that they are a bad match and initiate a no-fault divorce.

When you think about it, it seems harmless to both parties (although it might not be to the team that ends up paying Mondesi, a player of equal parts talent and flaw, too much money). But think how often this happens. Pretty much never.

And now, perhaps, a significant precedent has been set.

Consider if a talented but underpaid player decides he isn't satisfied with his contract. Say, I don't know, Eric Gagne. Free agency is a couple of years away. But Gagne announces that he's worried about a foreign invasion of Canada and heads home to protect his loved ones - though everyone knows this is a phony excuse.

Do the Dodgers suspend him - a suspension they might have to hold through the end of the 2006 season, when he becomes a free agent? Are they forced to renegotiate Gagne's deal then and there? Or do they decide that it just ain't worth fighting with a player that no longer wants to be here, and terminate his deal - allowing him to sign for big bucks with another team on the spot.

I believe there are more options than Jon has mentioned here. For example, Gagne can be traded. I remember Billy Sample telling me once that it was fairly easy to force a trade by your actions. Trading Gagne simply makes him someone else's problem, but he's not out of his contract, and at some point the club can take action against him for that breach.

The other thing, in the case of wealthy clubs, is that they can indeed sit on the contract. I don't really know if Gagne can afford to sit out a year of baeball. It's one thing to practice pitching; it's another to actually do it. So if the Dodgers were to call his bluff and sit on the contract, Gagne is taking the chance that his skills might diminish in a year and a half of inactivity.

Actually, I wonder if Mondesi is really going to get away with this. As this comment on Jon's site points out:

I would think that MLB in the form of the owners has an actionable tort here. They should be complaining to the commissioner that Moorad and Mondesi, by simple virtue of soliciting bids for a new contract, are invalidating the breach of the original contract. After all, if he was going to be able to play three weeks after he went on leave, there are negotiated procedures in place to protect his and the team's rights. If he gets away with this, then every team is going to be hit with Operation Shutdown (I know that was different but the game's the same), and this case will give the player precedent to get his contract terminated.