|
Post by iakovos11 on Jul 6, 2016 6:46:14 GMT -5
Yeah, equating this to deflategate at this point is insulting to Tom Brady and the entire circumstances surrounding deflategate. This NOTHING like deflategate. Regardless of what else is going on, Sox are in the wrong here. Is the penalty too much? Maybe a bit. Whatever. Are other teams (NYY & TB) apparently doing the same this time around? Maybe, I don't know. But if they are, they should get more severe penalties. The Sox penalties put other teams on notice. But will MLB conduct fear-inducing interviews with these new signees, too? When? What will trigger this? I'd think it would be relatively easy to find out who offered what. If a guy signs with NY or BOS for $300k and they were offered $500k by someone else, it's pretty obvious. Look at what the Sox top guys are getting now - double what they supposedly got from the Sox. #F&%K Goodell I wasn't comparing as much as connecting. Most Sox fans are also Patriots fans. I think that a lot of sox fanx think the Pats are getting screwed, and they are. Those same fans also think the Sox are getting screwed here and we aren't. Even I don't believe that the penalty would be different for the Yankees if they were caught doing the exact same thing. What I am saying is that I think some people are having trouble looking at the two incidents as that, two separate incidents. Gotcha. I see how that reads now.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 6, 2016 9:04:13 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. I'm just joining this conversation, but this is a good representation of how I feel about it. I get that we could point the finger a little bit, but when you look at the history of signings you can see how obvious an outlier these signings were. I see wrong doing here, and with that comes a punishment, so be it. One thing I did not see pointed out with the penalty is the lost money. Red Sox lost 5 players who signed $300K each, which equates to a $1.5M fine. While losing those players and this signing period seems appropriate, the $1.5M lost seems way too high for this. I'm not advocating for the kids to lose that money, I just think that should have been a bigger consideration in the punishment. Eh, when Allen Craig makes $1.5M every 24 Triple-A games that he sits on the DL unable to play, $1.5M really isn't that big of a deal, especially to a team like the Red Sox. Factor in that they now keep the money they would have paid to the 2016-17 signees and it is even less of a big deal. To me, biggest deal was not being able to sign anyone this year (because they're almost certainly going to have to drop the second DSL team next year), then losing the 5 IFAs a close second. The "fine," which you are absolutely correct in diagnosing it as, is still a distant, distant third, all things considered.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 618
|
Post by alnipper on Jul 6, 2016 10:59:07 GMT -5
I'm just joining this conversation, but this is a good representation of how I feel about it. I get that we could point the finger a little bit, but when you look at the history of signings you can see how obvious an outlier these signings were. I see wrong doing here, and with that comes a punishment, so be it. One thing I did not see pointed out with the penalty is the lost money. Red Sox lost 5 players who signed $300K each, which equates to a $1.5M fine. While losing those players and this signing period seems appropriate, the $1.5M lost seems way too high for this. I'm not advocating for the kids to lose that money, I just think that should have been a bigger consideration in the punishment. Eh, when Allen Craig makes $1.5M every 24 Triple-A games that he sits on the DL unable to play, $1.5M really isn't that big of a deal, especially to a team like the Red Sox. Factor in that they now keep the money they would have paid to the 2016-17 signees and it is even less of a big deal. To me, biggest deal was not being able to sign anyone this year (because they're almost certainly going to have to drop the second DSL team next year), then losing the 5 IFAs a close second. The "fine," which you are absolutely correct in diagnosing it as, is still a distant, distant third, all things considered. I agree it effects our future farm system. The full effects won't be known ever. Wish we could trade our assigned international bonus pool money this year for other teams prospects.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jul 6, 2016 13:45:51 GMT -5
Mike (Virginia): A two part question: 1) What are the chances of an international draft for next year's signing period? 2) How aggressive will the Red Sox be if there isn't a draft? Ben Badler: I've talked to a lot of different well-connected people on this, and there isn't a strong consensus on whether we'll have an international draft next signing period under the new CBA. But I do think the rules will change significantly because owners want greater cost control of what they're paying international players and the union will have no problem giving the owners that as a concession if it means they get some marginal benefits in return for major league players who are on 40-man rosters. But I can tell you the Red Sox, Yankees and some other teams are already planning to go all out again in 2017 if the rules allow them to do so and the penalties aren't too harsh. Joe H (Syracuse NY): I know Boston can't sign players from this July 2 class, but can they still trade their pool slots? Ben Badler: I believe so. MLB hasn't actually made any public statements or released any public information about this case (hmmmmm....), but there's nothing I've seen that would disqualify them from trading away their slot values, although I'm not sure how many trade partners there are looking for more pool space this year. Jose (Washington, DC): How impactful is the penalty that was handed down on the Red Sox? What are you hearing from folks in the field? Ben Badler: We're going to have more on this later because I want to be thorough and there's a lot more here than what's out there in the public right now. But it's safe to say that most people I talk to from other clubs are not happy with MLB. And from the standpoint of just being a decent human being, what MLB did to the 2016 players who were planning to sign with the Red Sox on July 2 is terrible. MLB went in one day before the signing period opened and shattered the plans and lives of 16-year-old kids who had no involvement in any of this and did nothing wrong. www.baseballamerica.com/chat/?1467777391
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Jul 7, 2016 13:43:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 7, 2016 13:53:11 GMT -5
So it's this year and next year now? I thought it was only this year?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 7, 2016 14:01:58 GMT -5
So it's this year and next year now? I thought it was only this year? Anyone want to revise their opinion on how just the punishment is while no other team is getting investigated? Why stop at just 2 years? Make it permanent? The commissioner can decide whatever he wants without the ability to question him. This pretty much destroys the entire DSL infrastructure for the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 7, 2016 14:11:50 GMT -5
So it's this year and next year now? I thought it was only this year? Anyone want to revise their opinion on how just the punishment is while no other team is getting investigated? Why stop at just 2 years? Make it permanent? The commissioner can decide whatever he wants without the ability to question him. This pretty much destroys the entire DSL infrastructure for the Red Sox. I just asked BA
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 7, 2016 14:19:19 GMT -5
Annnnd Heyman is wrong
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jul 7, 2016 14:19:21 GMT -5
Badler had reported July 1 they signing ban for the Red Sox would apply only for the 2016-17 sighing period. It does appear unclear whether or not the Red Sox can trade those slots for 2016-17. The 2017-18 signing period is expected to be uncapped and the Red Sox would be expected to go big with signings during next year's signing period.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 7, 2016 14:22:02 GMT -5
Thanks for the prompt reply BA!
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,948
|
Post by jimoh on Jul 7, 2016 17:11:31 GMT -5
Could the error have risen because they voided our contracts for July 2015 so it's two years total?
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jul 7, 2016 20:10:27 GMT -5
Could the error have risen because they voided our contracts for July 2015 so it's two years total? I think it is more about inaccurate reporting on Heynan's part. MLB voided five Red Sox signings from 2015-16 and prevented them from signing anyone during the 2026-17 signing period,
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Jul 10, 2016 22:27:56 GMT -5
On CSNNE's Sports Sunday, they had DAN Shaughnessy talk about the punishment handed down. They obviously didn't get it. He said they're lucky they didn't lose Moncada over this. The host said they lost the ability to sign players this season and next season. No mention of the penalty that was already in place restricting the team. I get that baseball prospect signings aren't a big draw in terms of sports television, but why bring it up if you don't have the basic facts. Maybe this site/board has spoiled me.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Jul 11, 2016 8:47:38 GMT -5
Sounds like these people don't know that the 16-17 signing period isn't plural.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jul 11, 2016 17:24:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Aug 2, 2016 16:55:37 GMT -5
Jesse Sanchez @jessesanchezmlb Source: RHP Vlad Gutierrez, #3 on Top 30 Int'l Prospect list, weighing options, including Japan and waiting until next int'l period to sign.
If he waited, he could be available for the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Aug 2, 2016 17:07:54 GMT -5
Have we ever gotten any clarification if the Red Sox could trade their international signing slots for FY 2016-17?
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Aug 3, 2016 5:12:30 GMT -5
Have we ever gotten any clarification if the Red Sox could trade their international signing slots for FY 2016-17? Nope, but I assume they can't or it would have happened already.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 3, 2016 6:51:58 GMT -5
Have we ever gotten any clarification if the Red Sox could trade their international signing slots for FY 2016-17? Nope, but I assume they can't or it would have happened already. I wouldn't assume that. It's more that no team will give anything up for the slots.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Aug 3, 2016 7:00:43 GMT -5
Nope, but I assume they can't or it would have happened already. I wouldn't assume that. It's more that no team will give anything up for the slots. Last year, a legitimate prospect in Chase DeJong was traded for international pool money, so while that may be an exception, I think these slots are still valued by teams.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 3, 2016 7:04:01 GMT -5
I wouldn't assume that. It's more that no team will give anything up for the slots. Last year, a legitimate prospect in Chase DeJong was traded for international pool money, so while that may be an exception, I think these slots are still valued by teams. A team would only need the slots in very specific situations and then, they probably have half the teams in the league offering slot money.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Aug 3, 2016 7:54:10 GMT -5
Last year, a legitimate prospect in Chase DeJong was traded for international pool money, so while that may be an exception, I think these slots are still valued by teams. A team would only need the slots in very specific situations and then, they probably have half the teams in the league offering slot money. These slots get traded every year, I don't think it'd be too far fetched to expect the Red Sox to be able to traded some of their's. That's assuming that's still allowed despite the penalties. Not sure if these differ from the overspending penalties normally, but teams that are restricted have still been allowed to sell off their slots, for whatever that's worth.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Aug 4, 2016 7:53:21 GMT -5
Could one of you guys "explain" how the International draft works?
If I read correctly in the past, it's pretty much a free for all with Players signing with any team they choose correct?
But each Team can only spend a certain amount of money? Or is it something different.
|
|
badfishnbc
Veteran
Doing you all a favor and leaving through the gate in right field since 2012.
Posts: 390
|
Post by badfishnbc on Aug 4, 2016 13:04:35 GMT -5
Could one of you guys "explain" how the International draft works? If I read correctly in the past, it's pretty much a free for all with Players signing with any team they choose correct? But each Team can only spend a certain amount of money? Or is it something different. Teams have a pool of money they can spend on player signing bonuses, with the size of that pool inverse to record. There are penalties for going beyond that pool, but it's a free-for-all otherwise. The exception is players older than 23 who have already played professionally, including Cubans.
|
|