SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Chapman to the Yankees
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 30, 2015 12:02:51 GMT -5
I'd have to imagine that the 46 games required for service time includes 46 games on the active roster, not 46 games pitched. Otherwise, starting pitchers would never become free agents. Where did 46 games come from? Upon more research, this entire discussion is bogus. Chapman will be a free agent next year no matter what. Service Time A player earns Major League service time for each day he spends on the active (25-man) roster or on the Major League 15-day or 60-day disabled lists. A player also continues to earn service time while serving any disciplinary suspension or serving in the military. www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/transactions-glossary/
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 30, 2015 12:10:43 GMT -5
Free Agency (and all other service time issues) qualification is related to days on an active roster, not games played (or available for).
I don't see why a player suspended by MLB will not accrue service time.
Here is the definition from the CBA:
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Dec 30, 2015 12:21:19 GMT -5
Nice coverage and opinions, as usual Oregon. Neither of these would probably happen, but best punishment for both Chapman, and the Yankees would be, if he's not suspended for the year, take him out for the last 49 games, and the postseason. That way the Yankees lose him to free agency and can't benefit as much this year, or trade him. By the way, I have fond memories of tenting up At Mt. Hood, spending several days exploring the coast- my favorite anywhere, and I'm a cold water swimmer- soaking at Breitenbush, and taking a one month workshop at the Ken Keyes Center in Coos bay (human relations/consciousness workshops) in the 80's. Your state, along with Washington and mine in Colorado are my favorite lower 48 for hiking/nature. It'll be interesting when visiting my former home, NY, this summer, to get my in laws take on this affair- both passionate Yankee fans and quite ethical attorneys, one a former assistant DA. Hopefully some women's groups in NY will scream for boycotts, and then when he goes free nobody would sign him, but that wouldn't be the case. I thought about this as when Barry Bonds was a FA in 2008 after he hit 28 HR for SF. I know he was like 41 at the time, but I felt the owners got together & said they wouldn't sign this tainted product. I like the last (44) game scenario. I don't think MLB should reward NY by giving them another year of control.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 30, 2015 13:03:40 GMT -5
Before this becomes a thing, Chapman will be a free agent next year unless he quits baseball. Suspensions count towards service time.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 30, 2015 13:30:13 GMT -5
So, I am probably wrong: they don't accrue service time it appears by the terms of the agreement. I was corrected on SOSH and re-read the policy: pbs.twimg.com/media/CM9aheDUkAAi8wh.jpg:largeFourth paragraph under C: "All disciplinary suspensions under the policy that are upheld are without pay and suspended players will not accrue Major League service."
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 30, 2015 13:35:30 GMT -5
Before this becomes a thing, Chapman will be a free agent next year unless he quits baseball. Suspensions count towards service time. They're discussing this on SOSH. Maybe it's only certain types of suspensions that count toward service time. I think it's PEDs and things like this that don't count toward service time. I believe that if he gets suspended for 45 or more games the Yankees would retain his rights for 2017.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 30, 2015 13:45:56 GMT -5
So, I am probably wrong: they don't accrue service time it appears by the terms of the agreement. I was corrected on SOSH and re-read the policy: pbs.twimg.com/media/CM9aheDUkAAi8wh.jpg:largeFourth paragraph under C: "All disciplinary suspensions under the policy that are upheld are without pay and suspended players will not accrue Major League service." Pretty stupid that they have conflicting rules between that policy and the actual CBA.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 30, 2015 13:48:48 GMT -5
DAYS
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Dec 30, 2015 14:03:41 GMT -5
Before this becomes a thing, Chapman will be a free agent next year unless he quits baseball. Suspensions count towards service time. They're discussing this on SOSH. Maybe it's only certain types of suspensions that count toward service time. I think it's PEDs and things like this that don't count toward service time. I believe that if he gets suspended for 45 or more games the Yankees would retain his rights for 2017. I can't imagine this being true; otherwise, why deal him for the garbage that they got? I have to think the Reds are smart enough to look at their options and realize that if he's out until the trading deadline that they could just retain him for next year and get a much better package. The Reds would have to be a truly terrible organization to just under-sell a major player under their control for woefully under value just because they didn't fully understand free agency rules for his particular suspension.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 30, 2015 14:04:59 GMT -5
DAYS Gotcha. Thanks. Unfortunately that works out even better for the Yankees.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 30, 2015 14:21:42 GMT -5
They're discussing this on SOSH. Maybe it's only certain types of suspensions that count toward service time. I think it's PEDs and things like this that don't count toward service time. I believe that if he gets suspended for 45 or more games the Yankees would retain his rights for 2017. I can't imagine this being true; otherwise, why deal him for the garbage that they got? I have to think the Reds are smart enough to look at their options and realize that if he's out until the trading deadline that they could just retain him for next year and get a much better package. The Reds would have to be a truly terrible organization to just under-sell a major player under their control for woefully under value just because they didn't fully understand free agency rules for his particular suspension. Unless they know more about the situation and his value is actually less than that.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 30, 2015 14:54:13 GMT -5
I can't imagine this being true; otherwise, why deal him for the garbage that they got? I have to think the Reds are smart enough to look at their options and realize that if he's out until the trading deadline that they could just retain him for next year and get a much better package. The Reds would have to be a truly terrible organization to just under-sell a major player under their control for woefully under value just because they didn't fully understand free agency rules for his particular suspension. Unless they know more about the situation and his value is actually less than that. It's no given that he'll get suspended for that long, for one thing. Joel Sherman has speculated 10-25 games. Also, again, the drop in trade value has to do with his market drying up after the news of the allegations came out. At least the Red Sox and Dodgers pulled out entirely once they learned about this, and I'm sure many (most?) other teams would not have traded for him at any price after that. Demand cratered, so the price did too. The Reds were probably getting a package centered around Peraza from the Dodgers before they pulled out. That's a lot better than what the Reds wound up getting, if not overwhelming.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Dec 30, 2015 15:01:43 GMT -5
Unless they know more about the situation and his value is actually less than that. It's no given that he'll get suspended for that long, for one thing. Joel Sherman has speculated 10-25 games. Also, again, the drop in trade value has to do with his market drying up after the news of the allegations came out. At least the Red Sox and Dodgers pulled out entirely once they learned about this, and I'm sure many (most?) other teams would not have traded for him at any price after that. Demand cratered, so the price did too. The Reds were probably getting a package centered around Peraza from the Dodgers before they pulled out. That's a lot better than what the Reds wound up getting, if not overwhelming. But even assuming it's 10-25 games the Reds would hold a significant chip for the trading deadline. If Craig Kimbrel, Andrew Miller or any other high leverage, late-inning reliever goes down with TJ or is simply ineffective his trade value sky rockets back up. Worst case scenario the Reds hold onto his rights and get a draft pick which probably has more value than what they got back in the deal.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 30, 2015 16:33:19 GMT -5
That is a bizarre contradiction in the rules. Leaves me thinking that there could be a player's association lawsuit filed on Chapman's behalf if there really is that much ambiguity. Weird.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 30, 2015 17:08:15 GMT -5
That is a bizarre contradiction in the rules. Leaves me thinking that there could be a player's association lawsuit filed on Chapman's behalf if there really is that much ambiguity. Weird. The pa agreed to the domestic violence policy.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 30, 2015 18:22:05 GMT -5
It's no given that he'll get suspended for that long, for one thing. Joel Sherman has speculated 10-25 games. Also, again, the drop in trade value has to do with his market drying up after the news of the allegations came out. At least the Red Sox and Dodgers pulled out entirely once they learned about this, and I'm sure many (most?) other teams would not have traded for him at any price after that. Demand cratered, so the price did too. The Reds were probably getting a package centered around Peraza from the Dodgers before they pulled out. That's a lot better than what the Reds wound up getting, if not overwhelming. But even assuming it's 10-25 games the Reds would hold a significant chip for the trading deadline. If Craig Kimbrel, Andrew Miller or any other high leverage, late-inning reliever goes down with TJ or is simply ineffective his trade value sky rockets back up. Worst case scenario the Reds hold onto his rights and get a draft pick which probably has more value than what they got back in the deal. Fair. I guess they either really wanted to get rid of him or really liked someone they got back.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Dec 30, 2015 19:02:06 GMT -5
I'm totally confused. All I'm reading makes the Yankees position sound even better than I thought.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 30, 2015 19:18:02 GMT -5
Should they be nominated for worst team of all time if neither of those things are true?
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Dec 30, 2015 21:47:24 GMT -5
Let's hope. If Chapman gets more than 46 games, his FA is delayed a year. The Yankees probably have a buddy (isn't Torre in charge of discipline?) in the league offices who will make sure it's as close to 46 as possible, **while going over**. 50 games will "look" good, and serve the Yankees' best interests. I can almost guarantee that's the final judgment. Pardon my cynicism, but I have seen this movie many times over the decades. The NYY will get a favorable decision by the NY based MLB, which will be supported by a breathless and sympatico NY based Media. Didn't that all change with Slappy McBlueLips? I grew up with many reasons for that kind of cynicism. About 10 years ago a national magazine did an article about the 10 worst calls in baseball history and 7 of them were in favor of the Yanks including the Jeffrey Maier kid, who Yankmees fans still try to claim he did not do anything wrong yet gave him tickets to proceeding games, of course it was Punch N Judy who hit the ball on what clearly should have been an out, the Knoblauch phantom tag made by an umpire who made the call based on the runner looking like he made no effort to avoid the tag because he literally missed by 3 feet, and the same 99 series had 2 additional horrible calls however A-Rod was the tipping point, since then there has been bad calls but it has not favored one team over another at least not with any consistent pattern. If anything there likely will be more scrutiny as this is baseballs litmus test for this situation.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Dec 31, 2015 1:39:27 GMT -5
What the Yankees traded for the marginal upgrade between Wilson and Chapman, and considering Wilson's longer team control, I don't think this is much of a win for them. Jagielo can't really stay healthy but has been a masher when he plays. Rookie is an up and coming back of rotation/good relief prospect too. I'm not sure why this topic is even worth such a debate.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 31, 2015 9:39:02 GMT -5
What the Yankees traded for the marginal upgrade between Wilson and Chapman, and considering Wilson's longer team control, I don't think this is much of a win for them. Jagielo can't really stay healthy but has been a masher when he plays. Rookie is an up and coming back of rotation/good relief prospect too. I'm not sure why this topic is even worth such a debate. I think the only real "non-win" for the yankees is the ick factor in Chapman, the player himself. I don't think anyone in the yankee organization is losing sleep over Jagielo or Rookie.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 31, 2015 10:05:22 GMT -5
What the Yankees traded for the marginal upgrade between Wilson and Chapman, and considering Wilson's longer team control, I don't think this is much of a win for them. Jagielo can't really stay healthy but has been a masher when he plays. Rookie is an up and coming back of rotation/good relief prospect too. I'm not sure why this topic is even worth such a debate. I think the only real "non-win" for the yankees is the ick factor in Chapman, the player himself. I don't think anyone in the yankee organization is losing sleep over Jagielo or Rookie. They were both listed by Baseball America as part of the 2019 projected team (Rookie as 5th starter). Not great prospects, but guys who projected to be the best available player at their position. They've eliminated the possibility that they exceed expectations and end up good enough to not be supplanted by a veteran acquisition.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 31, 2015 11:08:41 GMT -5
What the Yankees traded for the marginal upgrade between Wilson and Chapman, and considering Wilson's longer team control, I don't think this is much of a win for them. Jagielo can't really stay healthy but has been a masher when he plays. Rookie is an up and coming back of rotation/good relief prospect too. I'm not sure why this topic is even worth such a debate. I think the only real "non-win" for the yankees is the ick factor in Chapman, the player himself. I don't think anyone in the yankee organization is losing sleep over Jagielo or Rookie. Agreed. I think a lot of us are looking under rocks to find negatives for the Yankees' trade...whether it is a social, moral or criminal factor, a 'marginal' upgrade from what they had, that the players traded away represent value, that they will now trade away Miller etc. But when we sober up, the potential of that bullpen may never have been matched. 212 innings pitched and 347 SOs last year. For years, perhaps under baseball's collective noses, the Yankees have sold out for power pitching. It is not just in their now incredible relief corp. Pineda, Eovaldi, Tanaka when first acquired, Severino and even Nova can bring 96 +. They are now looking for yet another cost-contained young hard thrower in the Eovaldi mold. Other teams are starting to emulate that it appears...even the Sox. If that is truly the new path to success, let's hope that it does not take too long for us to catch up. Hopefully with a seeming plethora of young pitchers coming up capable of throwing 97-100, any such transition, if desired, won't take too long. But the Yanks do have a jump here and, painful though it may be, we have to admit it.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Dec 31, 2015 11:19:49 GMT -5
Call me crazy but I think the loss of a very good swing man in Warren and Wilson pretty much balances the acquisition of Chapman just looking at 2016 alone. I'm not claiming these trades are negatives but they aren't likely going to gain or lose the Yankees more than one net win IMO.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Dec 31, 2015 11:50:57 GMT -5
|
|
|