|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 15, 2016 22:58:04 GMT -5
That was the take on MLB TV/radio, that it wasn't just the Sox but an ongoing problem that other teams had experienced. Rosenthal, who was calling in by phone, was just about to name the other teams, I believe, when the connection went dead. It's been reported and it's pretty easy to figure out if you just look at who they traded with. www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/17556994/padres-general-manager-suspended-30-days-drew-pomeranz-investigationThe key question is whether the Red Sox were materially disadvantaged by not receiving access to that additional medical information. That's a question that we don't know the answer to. If the additional information was immaterial-- if, say, he got extra stretching after his starts, or he took an oral analgesic to alleviate soreness, and it could not have reasonably affected the Red Sox' decision-making process, then the Red Sox really should not receive any compensation. I don't see how you can't think they were materially disadvantaged. They recieved, what amounts to, fraudulent information. I don't know how the Sox could even determine the decision making process if they had the information, it's not at all a part of the trade equation as it went down. Preller was suspended for 30 days for this trade. I think MLB finds it easier to just suspend him, as compensation in the form of players or draft picks could set a precedent they don't want to get into, which I view as cowardly. Rosenthal has reported that the players were taking oral medications that were not disclosed. Do you really think that the Red Sox would have insisted that a different player be traded based on an oral medication that Pomeranz was taking?
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Sept 15, 2016 23:05:48 GMT -5
Here is another question what about the Kimbrel trade? We gave them 4 prospects this offseason.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 15, 2016 23:16:20 GMT -5
No way they get Sandoval. The people proposing that would have been suggesting Hanley if it were last year. Espinoza should be returned and S.D. gets Trey Ball in return.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 15, 2016 23:16:56 GMT -5
Mark it down. Sandoval will be great next year.
|
|
sdl
Rookie
Who the hell is Stan Papi?
Posts: 135
|
Post by sdl on Sept 15, 2016 23:31:47 GMT -5
No way they get Sandoval. The people proposing that would have been suggesting Hanley if it were last year. Espinoza should be returned and S.D. gets Trey Ball in return. I can live with losing Ball...
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Sept 16, 2016 0:53:27 GMT -5
I can live with losing Ball... It sounds very painful.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Sept 16, 2016 4:40:21 GMT -5
I don't see how you can't think they were materially disadvantaged. They recieved, what amounts to, fraudulent information. I don't know how the Sox could even determine the decision making process if they had the information, it's not at all a part of the trade equation as it went down. Preller was suspended for 30 days for this trade. I think MLB finds it easier to just suspend him, as compensation in the form of players or draft picks could set a precedent they don't want to get into, which I view as cowardly. Rosenthal has reported that the players were taking oral medications that were not disclosed. Do you really think that the Red Sox would have insisted that a different player be traded based on an oral medication that Pomeranz was taking? I mean I don't know, but it is probably fair to figure that MLB knows what it was and may have considered it innocuous. But this a 2 party transaction and an intentional tort was committed. If it was in the courts, there would be compensation. The fact that Preller is claiming there was no intent, despite the obvious intent, says alot to me. Just a suspension of the GM of the organization should occur when an organization condones illegal activity internal to their organization, this involved another team.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Sept 16, 2016 6:55:26 GMT -5
When you look at the two trades, the first thing that jumps out is that both kimbrel and Drew have performed well. Not perfect but for the most part very good. They are both doing better than anyone we had in the roles. It does not appear that either one has any undisclosed injury that has impacted their performance. In the one trade they gave up a young outfielder with lots of potential, plus 3 parts that the jury is still out on whether they get close to the bigs. You can not get something for nothing. Benintendi filled the void in the outfield. Personally I would rather have beni. The second trade you gave up a pitcher who is still in A ball and not dominating yet, even though we all thought he was a stud, for a proven major league ready pitcher. Who knows Anderson may turn out to be another smoltz. The big punishment for the padres is that as long as they keep preller will anyone trust them to get a FAIR trade. I certainly think Dave will think long and hard before he trades with them again. I am also sure that Dave will be called by other gm's before they make a trade with the padres. This is going to hurt the padres rebuild bigtime. Much more than the loss of a couple of draft picks. The deception involves medical records, because of the law a lot of that stuff on the medical condition of a player can not be made public. Are we talking advil or opiate. I know opiate is a reach for sure. Would we have traded Anderson if we knew ALL the info on Drew, That is in Dave's hands and for the moment he seems happy with the ways things have been left. And he is the expert that Henry and the boys put their trust.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 16, 2016 7:38:11 GMT -5
It's highly doubtful the Sox would want to rescind either trade. However, it looks to me like the Padres are being given a pass. The suspension of Preller is no penalty at all. Compare to the draconian penalty MLB levied on the Sox for "everybody's doing it" accounting tricks involving the signing of international players.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 16, 2016 8:00:50 GMT -5
Rosenthal has reported that the players were taking oral medications that were not disclosed. Do you really think that the Red Sox would have insisted that a different player be traded based on an oral medication that Pomeranz was taking? I mean I don't know, but it is probably fair to figure that MLB knows what it was and may have considered it innocuous. But this a 2 party transaction and an intentional tort was committed. If it was in the courts, there would be compensation. The fact that Preller is claiming there was no intent, despite the obvious intent, says alot to me. Just a suspension of the GM of the organization should occur when an organization condones illegal activity internal to their organization, this involved another team.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 16, 2016 8:02:25 GMT -5
I as well would like to eat my cake and have it too.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Sept 16, 2016 8:04:40 GMT -5
Mark it down. Sandoval will be great next year, as the Patriots nose tackle.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Sept 16, 2016 8:37:43 GMT -5
Mark it down. Sandoval will be great next year. I'll use a pencil.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 16, 2016 8:40:50 GMT -5
But seriously, in the U.S. legal system, the amount of damages the Red Sox would receive in this sort of contract dispute would be equivalent to the harm that they suffered-- so-called compensatory damages. If the undisclosed information was immaterial (as all signs point to), the amount of compensatory damages would be nominal-- think the NFL's famous $3 payment it had to make to the USFL in the 1986 antitrust case.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Sept 16, 2016 8:49:07 GMT -5
I'm wondering why (if it was aspirin) didn't Preller include that in the paperwork. I'm in the car business & if I sell a car that I know had body work done (no matter the extent) & I knowingly don't disclose that, I HAVE to somehow reimburse that customer. Also, this month is the best month to not have a GM, especially for SD.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 16, 2016 9:07:30 GMT -5
|
|
sdl
Rookie
Who the hell is Stan Papi?
Posts: 135
|
Post by sdl on Sept 16, 2016 9:15:36 GMT -5
Mark it down. Sandoval will be great next year, as the Patriots nose tackle. If anybody can turn him into a football player, it's Belichick *grin* And speaking of football...if Roger Goodell was the MLB Commissioner, you can bet that Preller's suspension would be longer than 30 days; his previous antics with the Rangers would be taken into consideration as well as the Colin Rea fiasco. The Padres would also be stripped of draft picks (1st and second round) and fined several million dollars.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 16, 2016 9:19:56 GMT -5
Then Goodell would have to deal with four years of litigation for that type of crud and instead of a punishment it would turn into a self-defeating, league-embarassing fiasco.
"That's not how Roger Goodell would've handled it" is pretty much the most glowing assessment one could possibly give of Mr. Manfred.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 16, 2016 9:28:27 GMT -5
Here is another question what about the Kimbrel trade? We gave them 4 prospects this offseason. Read the reports. As mentioned a few times in this thread, they started doing this in spring training.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 16, 2016 9:35:43 GMT -5
Fair enough, and I tend to agree that toradol is the likely candidate. Do you think that affects the Red Sox decision-making process? Honest question.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 16, 2016 9:44:20 GMT -5
Fair enough, and I tend to agree that toradol is the likely candidate. Do you think that affects the Red Sox decision-making process? Honest question. Probably not much. It's possible the price was driven up to Espinoza because every team bidding on him didn't know about it either. But SD should still be punished far more severely. Imagine that we traded for Rea instead and because of that trade and the unwinding of it, other trades were not made and unable to be made because of missed opportunity. SD's deception screwed with the entire league to some extent. They need to spell out these rules much more clearly with punishments outlined instead of just leaving everything up to the sole discretion of the commissioner. Because that's what leads to possible favoritism. If the Red Sox got caught doing this, is there any doubt it would be a more severe punishment?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 16, 2016 10:42:54 GMT -5
Fair enough, and I tend to agree that toradol is the likely candidate. Do you think that affects the Red Sox decision-making process? Honest question. Probably not much. It's possible the price was driven up to Espinoza because every team bidding on him didn't know about it either. But SD should still be punished far more severely. Imagine that we traded for Rea instead and because of that trade and the unwinding of it, other trades were not made and unable to be made because of missed opportunity. SD's deception screwed with the entire league to some extent. They need to spell out these rules much more clearly with punishments outlined instead of just leaving everything up to the sole discretion of the commissioner. Because that's what leads to possible favoritism. If the Red Sox got caught doing this, is there any doubt it would be a more severe punishment? A) Your hypothetical isn't what happened, which is why they didn't punish them based on the hypothetical. B) Yes, there is doubt that the punishment would've been more severe if it were the Red Sox. I seriously don't get the sentiment that everyone's out to get the Red Sox. Why on earth would that be?
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Sept 16, 2016 10:43:09 GMT -5
Fair enough, and I tend to agree that toradol is the likely candidate. Do you think that affects the Red Sox decision-making process? Honest question. Why do you (and others) have such a cavalier "buyer beware" attitude about this? The FO decision making process has really nothing to with it. They broke league wide protocols that teams rely on to make big financial / planning decisions. It's complete fraudulant behavior, and the best people can come up with is a silly commercial. You guys are about as deep as a puddle of water on this one, and I say that with the respect that often you (and others) get into the details heavily. MLB interests here, IMO, was to quash this by "rogue" behavior logic.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Sept 16, 2016 10:53:36 GMT -5
Here is another question what about the Kimbrel trade? We gave them 4 prospects this offseason. Read the reports. As mentioned a few times in this thread, they started doing this in spring training. Chris I read the reports and i think it is fair to question how far back this practice of withholding medical information was going on. Prefller has been the Padres GM since 8/5/14 and he was previously was suspended for 3 months (reduced to one upon appeal) for BS with international signings. It amazes me that he and the Padres appear to have gotten off lightly. If MLB only looked at the medical data since Spring 2016 then their investigation would not have been complete, particularly given the questionable ethics on the part of Preller. I also don't know why the Padres would keep him as the other 29 GMs probably have frozen him out at this point given all the BS he has done. www.baseballamerica.com/international/hiring-of-preller-also-brings-news-of-suspension/#3yiFSBX6mXGshvbe.97
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 16, 2016 11:31:17 GMT -5
Probably not much. It's possible the price was driven up to Espinoza because every team bidding on him didn't know about it either. But SD should still be punished far more severely. Imagine that we traded for Rea instead and because of that trade and the unwinding of it, other trades were not made and unable to be made because of missed opportunity. SD's deception screwed with the entire league to some extent. They need to spell out these rules much more clearly with punishments outlined instead of just leaving everything up to the sole discretion of the commissioner. Because that's what leads to possible favoritism. If the Red Sox got caught doing this, is there any doubt it would be a more severe punishment? A) Your hypothetical isn't what happened, which is why they didn't punish them based on the hypothetical. B) Yes, there is doubt that the punishment would've been more severe if it were the Red Sox. I seriously don't get the sentiment that everyone's out to get the Red Sox. Why on earth would that be? A) It did happen to Miami. Who knows what that trade being made and undone did to Miami's chances to improve their team at that moment in time? Which other trades they may have made at the time would have been made with all the required information disclosed? Which of those possible trades were no longer available after the trade was undone? We would be so much more pissed if what happened to Miami happened to us instead. Also, because it could happen again and have a much bigger impact on an MLB season is why you make sure it doesn't happen again with harsh punishment. B) I'm not going to get into that argument again. All I'll say is the international signings thing was a whole lot more than a slap on the wrist and the Yankees and Rays had some pretty similar signings that went uninvestigated.
|
|