sarcasmo
Rookie
Formerly known as mtomeo
Posts: 91
|
Post by sarcasmo on Jul 1, 2016 11:47:57 GMT -5
Yankees are expected to sign a top 30 player this year, so it will be interesting to see if there is extra scrutiny there. This is a good point. Maybe they don't end up signing him after all? Will be interesting to hear what the players whose contracts are voided have to say (if anything) and what the Red Sox as an organization have to say. What happens to these players now? Free agents, I assume? Would they now count towards teams caps for this signing period? Will it hurt them and their development as baseball players and/or hurt them personally as the relationships they've built (with coaches and other kids) are affected.
This whole thing does scream Int'l draft. From what I read they are free agents allowed to sign with anyone Starting tomorrow. Any bonus up to $300k will not count towards bonus pool limits. They will also be allowed to keep the money the Sox gave them (not sure how that works).
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 1, 2016 12:02:11 GMT -5
I am reticent to call things a disaster, but this is at the very least a calamity.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jul 1, 2016 12:04:54 GMT -5
So you think its totally normal to interrogate prospects that way, and it would have been handled no differently for any other team? Unfortunately in a case like this, where they can assume everyone has been coached to lie, where the investigators have all the leverage, and where MLB is probably eager to respond in kind to having noses thumbed at them, I do think it's normal, if not necessarily kind, to expect that interrogation would go that way. I don't think it's GOOD, believe me. But I can't say I'm surprised, and I don't think it would have been any different for any other team. FWIW this was already being reported on in May: www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/05/12/report-mlb-threatened-prospects-like-criminals-while-investigating-red-sox/I understand why you would disagree - do not think its fair to deem the other opinion idiotic.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jul 1, 2016 12:06:59 GMT -5
Doesn't MLB approve all international signings? This course of action leads one to believe that the approval process is limited at best and perhaps one or more teams complained to MLB that the Red Sox signed a couple of top 30 prospects while under the $300 k signing limit.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,814
|
Post by wcp3 on Jul 1, 2016 12:08:24 GMT -5
Did Roger Goodell make this ruling?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 1, 2016 12:08:36 GMT -5
Yankees are expected to sign a top 30 player this year, so it will be interesting to see if there is extra scrutiny there. This is a good point. Maybe they don't end up signing him after all? Will be interesting to hear what the players whose contracts are voided have to say (if anything) and what the Red Sox as an organization have to say. What happens to these players now? Free agents, I assume? Would they now count towards teams caps for this signing period? Will it hurt them and their development as baseball players and/or hurt them personally as the relationships they've built (with coaches and other kids) are affected. This whole thing does scream Int'l draft. What kind of odds would people put on the Yankees getting investigated for it? Or that they are breaking the rules? Or that they'll be punished for breaking the rules? I'd say 5%/95%/0%.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 1, 2016 12:12:00 GMT -5
So you think its totally normal to interrogate prospects that way, and it would have been handled no differently for any other team? I'm sorry if you believe thats idiotic but I don't. The way the kids were handled is insane. They were legally interrogated probably by people who are at the top of their profession, while underage and without legal advice. Presumably, I'd be pretty certain the interrogators had preconceived conclusions they were seeking. The kids would have admitted absolutely anything at all and it makes me question the entire investigation.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Jul 1, 2016 12:19:42 GMT -5
So the voided contracts make them free agents now, right? I'm assuming they are not allowed to sign with Boston?
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 1, 2016 12:25:13 GMT -5
So the voided contracts make them free agents now, right? I'm assuming they are not allowed to sign with Boston? Not for the next 12 months, at least.
|
|
|
Post by glassox on Jul 1, 2016 12:36:43 GMT -5
To me this is kind of like the pin tar incident with Michael Pineda. Several players use pine tar for grip but he made it so obvious that the sox had to call him out for cheating. The practice of combining bonus money is probably used by several teams but the sox were just so blatant last year the league had to do something.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jul 1, 2016 12:39:18 GMT -5
I actually think the Red Sox got off pretty easy. My fear was that the spending limits would be extended for an additional year or two, which is far worse than what they ended up getting.
When the Red Sox signed Moncada and Espinoza we were all expecting the team to by quiet on the international front for a couple years. The fact that they were able to sign Muzziotti and Guaimaro only happened because they broke the rules, so it only makes sense to void those contracts. That isn't the punishment. The absolutely should have never happened in the first place.
So the punishment is that the team can't sign guys this year. Well, they could only spend up to $300,000 anyways, so that isn't a huge penalty. The team will be back in the IFA game next year and can put all this behind them.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jul 1, 2016 12:55:39 GMT -5
Could have been worst. It sucks to lose those guys but being shut-out for the 17-18 signing period would have been worst.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jul 1, 2016 13:27:12 GMT -5
Totally justified. This isn't some BS about inflated footballs but real, flagrant cheating.
|
|
|
Post by telluricrook on Jul 1, 2016 13:31:47 GMT -5
Dom needs to offer an olive branch to the commish and make Castillo a FA as well. Hah by the looks of all those penalties the red sox would still have to pay him if they did.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jul 1, 2016 13:35:24 GMT -5
I actually think the Red Sox got off pretty easy. My fear was that the spending limits would be extended for an additional year or two, which is far worse than what they ended up getting. When the Red Sox signed Moncada and Espinoza we were all expecting the team to by quiet on the international front for a couple years. The fact that they were able to sign Muzziotti and Guaimaro only happened because they broke the rules, so it only makes sense to void those contracts. That isn't the punishment. The absolutely should have never happened in the first place. So the punishment is that the team can't sign guys this year. Well, they could only spend up to $300,000 anyways, so that isn't a huge penalty. The team will be back in the IFA game next year and can put all this behind them. Yeah. Not the worst penalty.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jul 1, 2016 13:39:38 GMT -5
The more I think about it, the more I'm ok with it in the long run, particularly if the rules stay the same for another year for Boston to recoup players. We shouldn't have had any decent players this past year with the spending limit, and we were even less likely to get anyone decent this year with the spending limit and extra scrutiny.
But, as a Boston fan, this reeks of targeting (other teams going after Boston because it's Boston) and making up rules as you go along. Naturally some Boston fans may be sensitive to that kind of BS after suspending their HOF QB for a quarter of the season for supposedly knowing that someone else supposedly cheated. I'm not saying that Boston isn't reprehensible, but this "I'm pretty sure (through questionable methods) that you did something that was morally wrong and frowned upon but probably not explicitly in the rulebook, so I'm going to make up a random harsh punishment for you" thing is getting kind of old.
Now if Boston was suspected of something, specifically told to knock it off, and then continued to do it, then please disregard my post. I just feel like the leagues give itself way too much arbitrary power to make up punishments and enforce them based on public appeal/image. None of this would fly in a real court of law.
|
|
|
Post by sportnik on Jul 1, 2016 13:41:15 GMT -5
The real issue is that MLB is determined to slant the playing field in favor of small market clubs. If they keep this up, it's just a matter of time before the league implodes with the big market teams revolting. It's getting to the point where big market clubs can only use their financial means to sign over their prime players to bloated contracts and smaller market clubs have the advantage.
We haven't seen the full impact of the CBA that went into effect in 2009, because it takes a draft class 5 to 10 years to impact MLB, but as time goes on, it will be harder and harder for large market clubs to compete.
I give the Sox credit for trying to work around these harsh rules. I'd give them more credit if they band together with the other large market clubs and insist upon a fair CBA.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 1, 2016 14:30:22 GMT -5
From the Keith Law chat:
Matt Neffer: Keith, in your opinion, should the Red Sox be penalized for their actions in the last international signing period or are they just doing what every other clubs does but on a larger scale? Klaw: Most clubs do it. Boston got caught. I don’t think the penalty is that big of a deal, though, as they’re going to lose a handful of low-probability 16- and 17-year-old prospects, none of whom projected (yet) as average or better guys. Maybe it will end up hurting them, but this seems more like a message sent to other clubs not to pull the same maneuver … even though the system provides plenty of incentive for everyone to do this. See my previous answer. . . . My opinion, the penalty isn't all that bad considering we were already restricted again. It doesn't matter to me that other teams do it, if we in fact broke the rules, we should be punished. There's no need for my team to be dirty.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 1, 2016 15:16:14 GMT -5
From the Keith Law chat: Matt Neffer: Keith, in your opinion, should the Red Sox be penalized for their actions in the last international signing period or are they just doing what every other clubs does but on a larger scale? Klaw: Most clubs do it. Boston got caught. I don’t think the penalty is that big of a deal, though, as they’re going to lose a handful of low-probability 16- and 17-year-old prospects, none of whom projected (yet) as average or better guys. Maybe it will end up hurting them, but this seems more like a message sent to other clubs not to pull the same maneuver … even though the system provides plenty of incentive for everyone to do this. See my previous answer. . . . My opinion, the penalty isn't all that bad considering we were already restricted again. It doesn't matter to me that other teams do it, if we in fact broke the rules, we should be punished. There's no need for my team to be dirty. Any penalty is BS if it's just to send a message to all the other teams who do it.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 1, 2016 15:30:57 GMT -5
Deterrence is literally the foundation upon which all modern law enforcement regimes are based.
|
|
|
Post by sdiaz1 on Jul 1, 2016 15:48:12 GMT -5
My problem with this whole thing is the possible impact this may have on these kids. Are there bonuses forfeited? If so will they be able to sign this summer for any amount les to approaching what they deserved? The players with whom we had deals in place for this window; will any teams out there have enough to adequately compensate them.
Pretty much MLB is throwing a dozen or two black and brown Latino kids under the bus to keep an institution that was set up to save money for billionaire dickheads who can't fork up the money to pay for their f---ing 500 million dollar stadiums.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 1, 2016 16:04:20 GMT -5
As discussed upthread, sounds like the draftees will get to keep their bonuses and will be eligible to sign for additional bonuses this summer. Aside from the temporary break that will presumably come from having to leave the Red Sox DSL team and sign with another organization (which will probably be more than made up for by any additional bonuses they may receive), it doesn't seem to hurt them much.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 1, 2016 16:04:29 GMT -5
Deterrence is literally the foundation upon which all modern law enforcement regimes are based. This isn't law. It's a professional sports league which should treat all its teams equally. If they want to crack down on something, they should write rules down and outline punishments before making it all up on a whim. Especially when they know everyone is doing it.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jul 1, 2016 16:24:25 GMT -5
If I'm the Red Sox, I would flirt with an appeal just to stick my middle finger up at the league and the rest of the teams. Obviously if the appeal can end up making the punishment worse, then I won't do it (I'm pretty sure we can't anyway), but it'd make a larger point that we're not going to be bullied by the rest of the league and the mythological central power and its arbitrary and random authority. If we were a bad team, I'd consider not playing road games, but that's admittedly excessive. We can save that for the Pats subforum. As a Boston fan I've had a long time to think of ways to stick it to the rest of the league and the commissioner.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 16:37:03 GMT -5
I agree with some of the posts here as well as Keith Law's assessment. This is not a death blow to the franchise for the next 5-10 years. The likelihood of any of these prospects becoming impact big leaguers is very small. Losing Espinoza or Moncada would have been a much greater loss.
I'm not going to lose much sleep over this. They lost a couple of lottery tickets. Not a big deal. Organizational arrow still pointing upward.
|
|