|
Post by pedroelgrande on Nov 7, 2014 15:15:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 4, 2014 12:27:59 GMT -5
MLB.COM unveiled their early top 50. The top 10 are: 1) Brendan Rogers, SS, Lake Mary HS (Fla.) 2) Michael Matuella, RHP, Duke 3) Brady Aiken, LHP, TBD 4) Walker Buehler, RHP, Vanderbilt 5) Nathan Kirby, LHP, Virginia 6) Kyle Funkhouser, RHP, Louisville 7) Kolby Allard, LHP, San Clemente HS (Calif.) 8) Daz Cameron, CF, Eagle's Landing Christian Acad. (Ga.) 9) Dansby Swanson, SS/2B, Vanderbilt 10) Ashe Russell, RHP, Cathedral HS (Ind.) LinkJim Callis breaks it down: Here
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Dec 4, 2014 13:05:04 GMT -5
The name Funkhouser reminds me of Rookie of the Year.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Dec 4, 2014 21:33:52 GMT -5
Reminds me of the character in Larry David's "Curb Your Enthusiasm".
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Dec 9, 2014 10:20:18 GMT -5
Will be interesting to see how Boston uses their draft allotment, now that they've gotten rid of their 2 second round picks.
Thanks for doing this all, it's very informative.
|
|
|
Post by jbberlo on Dec 16, 2014 18:13:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by threeifbaerga on Dec 16, 2014 18:17:46 GMT -5
With their summer signings struggling so much I can't see FSG targeting Brendan Rodgers for two jobs....
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Dec 16, 2014 18:29:53 GMT -5
1. Brendan Rogers - SS - Florida St. 2. Kolby Allard - LHP - UCLA 3. Justin Hooper - LHP - UCLA 4. Trenton Clark - OF - Texas Tech 5. Daz Cameron - OF - Florida St. 6. Nick Plummer - OF - Kentucky 7. Chris Betts - C - Tennessee 8. Ashe Russell - RHP - Texas A&M 9. Mike Nikorak - RHP - Alabama 10. Garrett Whitley - OF - Wake Forest
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 16, 2014 19:35:01 GMT -5
@pgammo: Astros essentially admit wrong paying off $1.5m to Jacob Nix. So why does MLB not punish them? Still Stros paid $1.5m to unsigned draftees
Astros should have been forced to honor the contract and lose a draft pick.
Edit: Also....
@keithlaw: If MLB let the Astros give Nix the full amount, they just tacitly admitted that the entire draft pool system won't survive a challenge.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 16, 2014 19:50:31 GMT -5
This could get interesting:
Jim Callis ?@jimcallismlb 21m21 minutes ago Wow. @pgammo: @astros essentially admit wrong paying $1.5m to Nix. So why does MLB not punish them? Stros paid $1.5m to unsigned draftees
keithlaw ?@keithlaw 15m15 minutes ago If MLB let the Astros give Nix the full amount, they just tacitly admitted that the entire draft pool system won't survive a challenge.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 16, 2014 20:17:24 GMT -5
@pgammo: Astros essentially admit wrong paying off $1.5m to Jacob Nix. So why does MLB not punish them? Still Stros paid $1.5m to unsigned draftees Astros should have been forced to honor the contract and lose a draft pick. Edit: Also.... @keithlaw: If MLB let the Astros give Nix the full amount, they just tacitly admitted that the entire draft pool system won't survive a challenge. Didn't this all happen before it went to an arbitrator (the same as a court ruling) and thus the amount was unknown to buy off Nix? www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24892163/astros-and-nix-a-top-draftee-whose-deal-was-canceled-reach-settlementCan MLB enforce something when the Astros didn't sign him but just paid him a sum to not go to a arbitrator's decision? If he is going back to school as one article stated he wanted to go to a two yr program what is the actual harm that MLB could possibly rule on? Lots of questions here on this case to what the MLB rules actually state. Seems to me he would have to sign the contract for MLB to enforce it wouldn't they?
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 16, 2014 20:48:23 GMT -5
Not sure about some of the questions but let me try to explain myself better.
I think MLB should have enforced the contract initially. But they have been on the Astros side from the get go. To me it seems there was no reason Nix's deal shouldn't have and by settling for basically the same amount they agreed upon the Astros it seems feel the same way. MLB for some reason has been on the Astros' side and trying to come up with a solution in the back room instead of using the rules they set up.
This reflects badly on MLB's draft pool rules because it leads to messes like this when a player agreed to a deal but the team then doesn't honor it because it was tied to some other deal as teams try to stretch every buck.
I don't think anything else will happen. They resolved the grievance and Nix is going to be in the draft again.
Anyways MLB always does things however they want.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Dec 16, 2014 21:06:14 GMT -5
With their summer signings struggling so much I can't see FSG targeting Brendan Rodgers for two jobs.... Low blow man. Low blow.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Dec 16, 2014 22:20:40 GMT -5
Not sure how Nix would have NCAA eligibility
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 16, 2014 22:24:50 GMT -5
@pgammo: Astros essentially admit wrong paying off $1.5m to Jacob Nix. So why does MLB not punish them? Still Stros paid $1.5m to unsigned draftees Astros should have been forced to honor the contract and lose a draft pick. Edit: Also.... @keithlaw: If MLB let the Astros give Nix the full amount, they just tacitly admitted that the entire draft pool system won't survive a challenge. Didn't this all happen before it went to an arbitrator (the same as a court ruling) and thus the amount was unknown to buy off Nix? www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24892163/astros-and-nix-a-top-draftee-whose-deal-was-canceled-reach-settlementCan MLB enforce something when the Astros didn't sign him but just paid him a sum to not go to a arbitrator's decision? If he is going back to school as one article stated he wanted to go to a two yr program what is the actual harm that MLB could possibly rule on? Lots of questions here on this case to what the MLB rules actually state. Seems to me he would have to sign the contract for MLB to enforce it wouldn't they? It's not harm to the player at this point (if anything he probably comes out ahead, getting paid twice and only having to wait a year). It's that MLB is going to let the Astros skirt the signing rules when they should have had to honor the contract to Nix, and thus gone over the cap enough to have lost a pick.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 16, 2014 22:25:09 GMT -5
Not sure how Nix would have NCAA eligibility Why wouldn't he?
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 17, 2014 0:22:07 GMT -5
Didn't this all happen before it went to an arbitrator (the same as a court ruling) and thus the amount was unknown to buy off Nix? www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24892163/astros-and-nix-a-top-draftee-whose-deal-was-canceled-reach-settlementCan MLB enforce something when the Astros didn't sign him but just paid him a sum to not go to a arbitrator's decision? If he is going back to school as one article stated he wanted to go to a two yr program what is the actual harm that MLB could possibly rule on? Lots of questions here on this case to what the MLB rules actually state. Seems to me he would have to sign the contract for MLB to enforce it wouldn't they? It's not harm to the player at this point (if anything he probably comes out ahead, getting paid twice and only having to wait a year). It's that MLB is going to let the Astros skirt the signing rules when they should have had to honor the contract to Nix, and thus gone over the cap enough to have lost a pick. Well in effect they still paid Nix the agreed upon amount and the pick lost was essentially Nix himself. Now I believe they would have exceeded the bonus pool enough to lose two first rounders so they did get off the hook for the other.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 17, 2014 1:43:10 GMT -5
Not sure how Nix would have NCAA eligibility Why wouldn't he? Because 1. He was represented by an agent. 2. He received money so is no longer an amateur.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Dec 17, 2014 3:44:50 GMT -5
Because 1. He was represented by an agent. 2. He received money so is no longer an amateur. I don't think it really matters. Nix will likely go the JUCO/indy ball route, just to re-enter the draft next year.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 17, 2014 7:33:46 GMT -5
Because 1. He was represented by an agent. 2. He received money so is no longer an amateur. I don't think it really matters. Nix will likely go the JUCO/indy ball route, just to re-enter the draft next year. Agreed but that wasn't the question. I don't believe he would have the NCAA option available to him at this point without at minimum, sitting out a year. The basic underlying theme here though is that I'm pretty sure most if not all teams make verbal offers to players based on how they think their other offers will fall. Clearly if MLB allowed the Astros to pay him off and to not punish them, it has to be concerned about the validity of the entire process.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2014 8:55:50 GMT -5
I don't understand how this matters. This seems more like a legal settlement which should be treated separately. They didn't get a player. How did they gain a competitive advantage?
Admittedly, I'm not as up on this as I should be but I don't see the big issue.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Dec 17, 2014 9:06:31 GMT -5
I believe that the grievance is predicated on his acceptance of the promise of the $1.5 million bonus. (I don't believe Houston would have any other obligation to Nix -- such as a supposed duty to negotiate in good faith -- that could serve as an ostensible basis for the "settlement.")
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 17, 2014 10:06:16 GMT -5
I believe that the grievance is predicated on his acceptance of the promise of the $1.5 million bonus. (I don't believe Houston would have any other obligation to Nix -- such as a supposed duty to negotiate in good faith -- that could serve as an ostensible basis for the "settlement.") For one thing, I think this may have been a case in which the settlement was based off a violation of a duty to negotiate in good faith (which generally does not exist in U.S. law, but can be triggered in certain circumstances similar to this one) or a theory of promissory estoppel, neither of which would implicate either of the above clauses. Even if the grievance was instead focused on whether Nix and the Astros had a completed contract, I don't think it matters that the Astros effectively gave in and settled for the full amount. When parties settle, there is generally no finding of fact or admission of guilt, which means that it has not yet been established that Nix and the Astros did complete a binding contract. The NCAA can pursue a grievance against Nix, but it would still have to prove its case first.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Dec 17, 2014 10:59:33 GMT -5
The "no admsission of liability" would not protect Nix from the language in his grievance. I have to imagine that he contended that he had an agreement in principal, not just that they failed to negotiate in good faith. I have to believe that MLB would never agree that a team has a duty to negotiate with its picks, otherwise every player who never comes to terms could file a grievance.
Of course, I was wrong about the Red Sox and J. Matthews, the Rutgers first baseman with whom they agreed on a contract but didn't get the paperwork in by the midnight deadline. I similarly concluded that his "agreement" would preclude his playing NCAA ball, but the NCAA never disputed it.
From a practical point, anytime the NCAA disputes a players' eligibility, the teams can't play the player without a risk of major sanctions.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 17, 2014 11:30:53 GMT -5
The "no admsission of liability" would not protect Nix from the language in his grievance. I have to imagine that he contended that he had an agreement in principal, not just that they failed to negotiate in good faith. I have to believe that MLB would never agree that a team has a duty to negotiate with its picks, otherwise every player who never comes to terms could file a grievance. Of course, I was wrong about the Red Sox and J. Matthews, the Rutgers first baseman with whom they agreed on a contract but didn't get the paperwork in by the midnight deadline. I similarly concluded that his "agreement" would preclude his playing NCAA ball, but the NCAA never disputed it. From a practical point, anytime the NCAA disputes a players' eligibility, the teams can't play the player without a risk of major sanctions. Like I said, there is no general duty to negotiate in good faith, but many courts have found a duty to negotiate in good faith when the parties haved agreed to some sort of preliminary understanding (term sheet, etc.), which looks to be the case here. This would not trigger the slippery slope you described because most draftees never reach this sort of preliminary understanding with the team. Nix can contend whatever he wants in a private grievance proceeding, but those proceedings are not a matter of public record, so the NCAA gets no mileage out of it. In other words, the settlement doesn't introduce any new evidence that didn't exist before.
|
|