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.
MLB investigation Espinoza trade
|
Post by Smittyw on Sept 17, 2016 11:15:13 GMT -5
I would seek the courts. Manfred failed. Return Espinoza and the Padres give us another player as well (or a 2017 draft pick). We can send them Craig and maybe Trey Ball. I can live with that. Oh come on, now that's just cruel.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 17, 2016 11:21:05 GMT -5
The more I think about it, I'm really surprised the Sox weren't given at least a second or third round comp pick. Returning Anderson was a pipe dream, but a not first round comp pick may have offset the talent difference without really hurting anyone.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Sept 17, 2016 11:32:53 GMT -5
The fact that Preller is a repeat offender combined with the Padres intentionally hiding medical records on their from other teams warranted significantly higher penalties to both Preller and the Padres. Horrible job by Manfred and MLB.
Makes you wonder if the Cardinals will get off easy as well for hacking into Astros payer system.
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Sept 17, 2016 13:40:21 GMT -5
One aspect that I do not understand is why the Player's Association is not vocally condemning Preller. With incomplete medical information, a player may receive improper medical care include a team physician prescribing medication that have a contraindication with something a player is already taking (but not revealed to team).
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Sept 17, 2016 13:47:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by honestlyabe on Sept 17, 2016 15:31:22 GMT -5
Elbow discomfort... screw this guy, I want Espinoza and dumb fun nickname discussions back
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Sept 17, 2016 15:32:27 GMT -5
I was listening to the Red Sox radio broadcast while Bradford was on earlier today. He said that GMs are not happy that Preller and the Padres got away with intentionally deceiving other teams by maintaining two separate sets of medical records. However, he also indicated that this central medical reporting system may also used for insurance purposes. Thus Preller and the Padres may also be subject to possible insurance fraud charges.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 17, 2016 16:17:52 GMT -5
Just an opinion, but if it was really fair Espinoza would be returned to the Red Sox, Pomeranz would remain with the Red Sox for the remainder of the season, be returned to San Diego in the offseason, and the Red Sox would have the first dibs on a revised Pomeranz deal in the offseason, although San Diego wouldn't be required to deal him back to Boston.
I know this is far fetched and would never happen, but I think it's a more fair solution than the ridiculous slap on the wrist Preller got.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,914
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 17, 2016 16:52:28 GMT -5
What's most disturbing here is that the Padres team has actually not been punished in the least. Taking away their first-round pick is kind of a devastatingly easy no-brainer penalty. You can debate what the Sox should get in return (I'd go for the first unprotected pick in the draft, but settle for a comp pick after the first round), but there has to be some penalty that has an impact on the team.
If I were Tom Werner I'd be on the phone with other team executives, trying to see how many of them would go along with signing a statement expressing the practical reality of MLB's decision. To wit, as long as there remains no tangible penalty for cheating the medical records system, the undersigned teams will be forced to seriously consider doing what the Padres were doing, in order to restore fairness.
The huge penalty MLB handed the Sox for the Venezuelan bundle deals is consistent with the general idea of punitive justice. The penalty for cheating has to be much more severe than merely offsetting the advantage gained. If you cheat on a test at school, they don't merely make you take the test over. While the Sox are merely entitled to value commensurate with what they might have gotten back from the Padres had they had medical concerns about Pomeranz, the Padres have to be hammered, hammered, hammered.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Sept 17, 2016 16:54:48 GMT -5
I think you're close here. Since the Sox are in a postseason race and made the trade explicitly for that purpose, they should keep Pomeranz through the season and then have the choice about whether to reverse the trade. That way they have the seasoned pitcher for now while running the risk that his injury flares up before the end of the season, and then they can with the benefit of having evaluated him medically decide whether or not to keep him or reverse the deal. This does not disadvantage other teams as an extra draft pick would and largely expunges the deceit if SD. In fact that should be the method to ameliorate all the trades done by Prellar where this was an issue. The punishment of Sand Diego by their losing picks or what have you is thus separated from compensating the trading partners.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Sept 17, 2016 16:59:48 GMT -5
Eric, I agree about the idea of retributive justice, but giving the Sox (or any trading partner) an extra pick disadvantages all teams whose subsequent picks are lowered, which is why I modified champs040713's idea of reversing the trade but giving the Sox the option after the seaon.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 17, 2016 18:48:19 GMT -5
Eric, I agree about the idea of retributive justice, but giving the Sox (or any trading partner) an extra pick disadvantages all teams whose subsequent picks are lowered, which is why I modified champs040713's idea of reversing the trade but giving the Sox the option after the seaon. Not if you take away the Padres' pick at the same time. Reversing the trade is probably not going to happen, and I doubt the Sox are going to get anything here, but it really is shocking that the Padres are suffering *no* downside to what they've done. Preller taking a one-month breather in the quiet part of the year for him? That's literally nothing, probably a bonus for the Padres since they save a little money. I love the idea of them being prosecuted for insurance fraud.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 17, 2016 23:44:05 GMT -5
Based on the international signings penalty levied against the Sox I would say the equivalent penalty would be the Sox keeping Pomeranz. The Padres returning Espinoza. The Padres stripped of their 2017 1st round draft pick. And Preller banned for life from MLB.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 17, 2016 23:46:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Sept 18, 2016 7:01:19 GMT -5
While I agree that the penalty assessed against San Diego feels light, it isn't clear the Red Sox have actually suffered any damage as a result of the deception, and to provide them compensation when there is no loss would harm the other four AL East teams, who did nothing wrong.
If, on the other hand, Pomeranz elbow were to give out in the relatively near future, compensation might be justified. MLB should have at least made provision for that contingency.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 18, 2016 14:30:12 GMT -5
While I agree that the penalty assessed against San Diego feels light, it isn't clear the Red Sox have actually suffered any damage as a result of the deception, and to provide them compensation when there is no loss would harm the other four AL East teams, who did nothing wrong. If, on the other hand, Pomeranz elbow were to give out in the relatively near future, compensation might be justified. MLB should have at least made provision for that contingency. IMO the damages result in future years. Sox didn't just get the guy for 1 year. Now other years are more suspect. They'll have to be even more cautious than otherwise they would have been so it shouldn't just be whether he gets hurt or not.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 18, 2016 14:38:22 GMT -5
While I agree that the penalty assessed against San Diego feels light, it isn't clear the Red Sox have actually suffered any damage as a result of the deception, and to provide them compensation when there is no loss would harm the other four AL East teams, who did nothing wrong. If, on the other hand, Pomeranz elbow were to give out in the relatively near future, compensation might be justified. MLB should have at least made provision for that contingency. The chances that Pomeranz' elbow were to go out is now higher than they believed it may have been when the trade was made. Also, if they tried to trade him, his value would be lower than they believed it was. The damage is already done and it doesn't matter if he tears his elbow or not. They are already harmed.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Sept 18, 2016 14:45:42 GMT -5
Eric, I agree about the idea of retributive justice, but giving the Sox (or any trading partner) an extra pick disadvantages all teams whose subsequent picks are lowered, which is why I modified champs040713's idea of reversing the trade but giving the Sox the option after the seaon. Not if you take away the Padres' pick at the same time. Reversing the trade is probably not going to happen, and I doubt the Sox are going to get anything here, but it really is shocking that the Padres are suffering *no* downside to what they've done. Preller taking a one-month breather in the quiet part of the year for him? That's literally nothing, probably a bonus for the Padres since they save a little money. I love the idea of them being prosecuted for insurance fraud. Well that works if the Sox are the only team that was hoodwinked but since there were at least 3 that would mean 2 slots down for everyone else even if you dock SD 3 picks.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Sept 18, 2016 18:32:02 GMT -5
While I agree that the penalty assessed against San Diego feels light, it isn't clear the Red Sox have actually suffered any damage as a result of the deception, and to provide them compensation when there is no loss would harm the other four AL East teams, who did nothing wrong. If, on the other hand, Pomeranz elbow were to give out in the relatively near future, compensation might be justified. MLB should have at least made provision for that contingency. This logic is flawed. Do you punish the action or the reaction. You punish the action, as the reaction is inconsequential because it can differ for instance to instance. If you want to curb behavior then focus on the action.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Sept 19, 2016 13:58:06 GMT -5
I guess we'll have some recourse if during a pitch, Pomz arm flies off into the crowd behind the Red Sox dugout.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Sept 19, 2016 15:07:52 GMT -5
While I agree that the penalty assessed against San Diego feels light, it isn't clear the Red Sox have actually suffered any damage as a result of the deception, and to provide them compensation when there is no loss would harm the other four AL East teams, who did nothing wrong. If, on the other hand, Pomeranz elbow were to give out in the relatively near future, compensation might be justified. MLB should have at least made provision for that contingency. This logic is flawed. Do you punish the action or the reaction. You punish the action, as the reaction is inconsequential because it can differ for instance to instance. If you want to curb behavior then focus on the action. No. The logic made perfect sense; you just didn't understand it. While punishment meted on the Padres is based on the seriousness of what they did, compensation to the Red Sox has to be based on actual damage. It would be reasonable to demand that the Padres forfeit their first round draft pick, but awarding it to the Red Sox would unfairly penalize the other four teams in the AL East. At the moment, I don't think we really know what the extent of the Red Sox' compensation should be. If Pomeranz continues to pitch as a middle of the rotation starter, I think the compensation would arguably be trivial. On the other hand if he were to blow out his arm in the relatively near future, I would think the Red Sox should receive some substantial compensation.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 19, 2016 15:37:01 GMT -5
This logic is flawed. Do you punish the action or the reaction. You punish the action, as the reaction is inconsequential because it can differ for instance to instance. If you want to curb behavior then focus on the action. No. The logic made perfect sense; you just didn't understand it. While punishment meted on the Padres is based on the seriousness of what they did, compensation to the Red Sox has to be based on actual damage. It would be reasonable to demand that the Padres forfeit their first round draft pick, but awarding it to the Red Sox would unfairly penalize the other four teams in the AL East. At the moment, I don't think we really know what the extent of the Red Sox' compensation should be. If Pomeranz continues to pitch as a middle of the rotation starter, I think the compensation would arguably be trivial. On the other hand if he were to blow out his arm in the relatively near future, I would think the Red Sox should receive some substantial compensation. If the Red Sox tried to trade Pomeranz this winter, teams will now know what the Red Sox didn't when they traded for him - that he is/was dealing with a sore elbow. That certainly affects what another team would offer. The actual damage is already done. They have a less valuable asset than what they thought they were trading for. Obviously, his performance hasn't helped, but the elbow soreness gets tacked onto that. It's also not unreasonable to think that he's not pitching that well since we acquired him because of the sore elbow. I personally wouldn't be surprised to see him shut down completely in the next few weeks.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Sept 19, 2016 15:38:33 GMT -5
This logic is flawed. Do you punish the action or the reaction. You punish the action, as the reaction is inconsequential because it can differ for instance to instance. If you want to curb behavior then focus on the action. No. The logic made perfect sense; you just didn't understand it. While punishment meted on the Padres is based on the seriousness of what they did, compensation to the Red Sox has to be based on actual damage. It would be reasonable to demand that the Padres forfeit their first round draft pick, but awarding it to the Red Sox would unfairly penalize the other four teams in the AL East. At the moment, I don't think we really know what the extent of the Red Sox' compensation should be. If Pomeranz continues to pitch as a middle of the rotation starter, I think the compensation would arguably be trivial. On the other hand if he were to blow out his arm in the relatively near future, I would think the Red Sox should receive some substantial compensation. I disagree. The medical info withheld from the Red Sox affects Pomeranz trade value, which ultimately boils down to some projection of his performance over the course of his contract while taking into account injury risk. Regardless of how Pomeranz does in fact pitch, his trade value would have been different (even if marginally so), if we had proper access to all information needed to gauge his future injury risk. Therefore any compensation should be tied to the difference between Pomeranz's trade value with partial knowledge of medicals versus Pomeranz's trade value with full knowledge of medicals. I have no idea what that equates to, but how he performs this year (and the next two) should have nothing to do with determining compensation.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Sept 19, 2016 19:23:59 GMT -5
While I agree that the penalty assessed against San Diego feels light, it isn't clear the Red Sox have actually suffered any damage as a result of the deception, and to provide them compensation when there is no loss would harm the other four AL East teams, who did nothing wrong. If, on the other hand, Pomeranz elbow were to give out in the relatively near future, compensation might be justified. MLB should have at least made provision for that contingency. The harm was done during the negotiations. The Padres artificially raised their players value by fudging the records. Here is a good read on on the topic: Breaking down Red Sox’ legal case against Padres over Drew Pomeranz trade
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 20, 2016 2:51:36 GMT -5
Prediction:
The Winter Meetings are going to be politically very interesting this year.
|
|
|