|
Post by sportnik on Sept 20, 2016 9:30:14 GMT -5
Prediction: The Winter Meetings are going to be politically very interesting this year. MLB has been bending the rules to favor small market teams for years & at some point Henry and the other large market owners need to push back. Does anyone doubt that if the Sox pulled this #(@* on the Padres, the trade would have been reversed in a heartbeat. Look at the penalties Manfred laid down on the Sox for bending the rules with International Signings. That was for a discretion that is widely believed to be commonly used across the league. What the Padres did was unprecedented & they got a slap on the wrist. I'm starting to think Manfred is Goodell's Boston-hating evil twin.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 20, 2016 10:22:00 GMT -5
If it had been the Sox then the Padres would keep Espinoza, Pomeranz would be returned, and the Sox would forfeit their 1st round pick next year.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Sept 20, 2016 11:23:27 GMT -5
I remember reading when this first came out the Red Sox weren't seeking a reversal of the trade... that is baffling to me.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 20, 2016 11:44:34 GMT -5
I remember reading when this first came out the Red Sox weren't seeking a reversal of the trade... that is baffling to me. It's because they still want Pomeranz. I don't see how that's baffling. They were willing to give up Espinoza for a guy who was set to blow past his previous IP high. That was already a red flag that there could be injury issues. They paid that price for him because they needed a reliable MLB-quality starting pitcher. If the trade is undone, they're a title contender who is back to having that hole in the rotation again. Consider that at the time, Buchholz was potentially not long for the roster. You can't change your mind and go back to the commissioner to undo the trade now that you have a bit more SP depth.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Sept 20, 2016 11:45:58 GMT -5
I remember reading when this first came out the Red Sox weren't seeking a reversal of the trade... that is baffling to me. Maybe the Sox know something about Espinoza.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Sept 20, 2016 12:15:11 GMT -5
I remember reading when this first came out the Red Sox weren't seeking a reversal of the trade... that is baffling to me. It's because they still want Pomeranz. I don't see how that's baffling. They were willing to give up Espinoza for a guy who was set to blow past his previous IP high. That was already a red flag that there could be injury issues. They paid that price for him because they needed a reliable MLB-quality starting pitcher. If the trade is undone, they're a title contender who is back to having that hole in the rotation again. Consider that at the time, Buchholz was potentially not long for the roster. You can't change your mind and go back to the commissioner to undo the trade now that you have a bit more SP depth. Wasn't there talk coming out that the sox wanted something back from this revelation and they couldn't get it from San Diego? If that came from the earlier revelations wouldn't MLB be wronging the Sox for not forcing the issue?
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Sept 20, 2016 14:14:09 GMT -5
I think Boston was clearly wronged here and they received no compensation for that.
Independent of how severe the League Office thinks the punishment should be to San Diego, Boston should get something in return. I don't think Espinoza coming back was ever realistic, but some sort of draft accommodation would seem to be fine. I would guess a 2nd-4th round pick.
This entire situation makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Sept 20, 2016 15:49:54 GMT -5
Michael McCann is also in the camp of the Sox should seek and should receive some compensation from San Diego. He feels the Sox were clearly harmed here. He said a trade reversal could happen after the season (since they need Pomeranz now - or did need him), but that would be unusual. His opinion was a player or draft pick would be the more likely compensation.
This was from his WEEI interview this afternoon (and I assume mirrors his SI commentary)
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 20, 2016 15:52:44 GMT -5
There's no chance the trade gets reversed at this point. If anything, the Sox would receive some small compensation. As we said on the podcast, getting one of the Padres' draft picks, something like a second or third round pick, seems to make the most sense in that it wouldn't affect the draft order.
That said, it seems like MLB isn't planning further action. I can't imagine anything else happens unless something new comes to light.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Sept 20, 2016 16:04:47 GMT -5
I just like when Chris says there is no chance of something happening, because that usually means it's going to happen.
I'm kidding of course and agree that if anything it will be a fringe pick/player.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Sept 20, 2016 16:11:53 GMT -5
I agree as well. I'd say they get a 2nd tier prospect back at best - or a draft pick. Just saying what McCann is saying. I think his opinion and views when it comes to sports law are very much worth paying attention to.
I was a bit distracted a couple times, so I had hard time with his tone. I think he believes the Sox were harmed and feels they could have a case in arbitration. I didn't get the sense he was expecting this outcome at this point. But he certainly doesn't seem to write it off to the degree you seem to.
His point, that makes sense, is that they were harmed in negotiations, even if Pomeranz is healthy his whole time with the Sox. Depending on the medical information withheld, the Sox might not have been willing to part with Espinoza with that additional risk (potentially) involved. And the market may not have necesitated it either. Whether they matched up for a deal otherwise, who knows.
ADD: He said the 2 sets of medical records is prima facie fraud. Damages are arguable, for sure.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 20, 2016 19:21:33 GMT -5
The Sox wanted Pomeranz for 2.5 years ... it's entirely possible the medical issue with Pomeranz was very minor and unlikely to impact the negotiations substantially. It's possible MLB made the right call that the Sox shouldn't get compensation. Not necessarily likely, but possible ...
But it's abundantly clear that if they don't do more to the Padres, this is a travesty. The Padres just totally get away with this ... ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 20, 2016 22:29:00 GMT -5
Another thing the Padres did was supposedly making an offer to Groome where Groome was supposed to present himself as unsignable outside the first few picks in the draft so that he would fall to the Padres. Is that within the rules? It does not sound like it should be. And BTW. Am I wrong in thinking that on the International signings the Sox lost all the players they had signed and on top of that were banned from making signings in the following year?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 21, 2016 2:33:02 GMT -5
Dream scenario, Sox clinch the World Series at Fenway. When Manfred comes out to present the Series MVP trophy he's drowned out on national TV by "biased" chants.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Sept 21, 2016 5:47:30 GMT -5
Yeah that'll really show 'em.
It would also require this story to be something casual Red Sox fans are even aware of or care about. Most of them couldn't name the commissioner of baseball if you put a gun to their head.
|
|
badfishnbc
Veteran
Doing you all a favor and leaving through the gate in right field since 2012.
Posts: 406
|
Post by badfishnbc on Sept 22, 2016 11:12:07 GMT -5
Here's the problem with reversing the trade now (or even in late August). The team has based its postseason run on having a pitcher of Pomeranz' caliber (I'm not here to debate what that caliber in fact represents). By the time the investigation concluded that SD was at fault, it was far too late to add a similar talent. To return Pomeranz now would be to put the Red Sox at a disadvantage for the stretch run (again, presuming Pomz performed as advertised - not debating actual results here).
The only scenario that doesn't harm the Red Sox' postseason chances involves announcing and executing the trade's reversal - or augmentation - after the season's end.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 22, 2016 14:33:27 GMT -5
Another thing the Padres did was supposedly making an offer to Groome where Groome was supposed to present himself as unsignable outside the first few picks in the draft so that he would fall to the Padres. Is that within the rules? It does not sound like it should be. And BTW. Am I wrong in thinking that on the International signings the Sox lost all the players they had signed and on top of that were banned from making signings in the following year? 1) That's not what happened. He had a high price tag. The Padres were planning on picking him and paying that number. They didn't collude to get him to fall to them, or at least nobody has ever said as much. 2) You're wrong there too. They lost five players and were prohibited from signing players for a year, notably one in which they were already going to be restricted to $300k or lower signing bonuses. A higher penalty than what SD got but, to me, the issue is that the SD penalty is inappropriately low rather than the Sox penalty being inappropriately high. Again, we don't know the exact nature of the information withheld, which really makes this difficult to judge (not that I'm saying the Padres were dealt with appropriately). There's a big difference between, say, Pomeranz saying his elbow was sore after a couple starts versus Pomeranz having so much elbow pain that he was unable to throw bullpens between starts or something.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 22, 2016 22:04:42 GMT -5
What we do know is that Pomeranz was taking oral meds for elbow discomfort and that's the information that wasn't disclosed. He's a pitcher, we're not talking about acne cream here. It's an egregious omission of information and the two sets of medical records is clearly proof of intent.
The reason I said I thought the Winter meetings were going to be interesting is that the Padres are going to be lambasted at both the General Managers meeting and the Owners meeting. At this point it appears that only the Padres ownership will be able to right their ship and do the right thing. It needs to involve more than just dealing with Preller. Otherwise they are going to be pretty much shunned, it's a small tight community. You don't intentionally screw over other owners (plural). There's a difference between being competitive and being deceitful.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 22, 2016 22:15:33 GMT -5
Another thing the Padres did was supposedly making an offer to Groome where Groome was supposed to present himself as unsignable outside the first few picks in the draft so that he would fall to the Padres. Is that within the rules? It does not sound like it should be. And BTW. Am I wrong in thinking that on the International signings the Sox lost all the players they had signed and on top of that were banned from making signings in the following year? 1) That's not what happened. He had a high price tag. The Padres were planning on picking him and paying that number. They didn't collude to get him to fall to them, or at least nobody has ever said as much. 2) You're wrong there too. They lost five players and were prohibited from signing players for a year, notably one in which they were already going to be restricted to $300k or lower signing bonuses. A higher penalty than what SD got but, to me, the issue is that the SD penalty is inappropriately low rather than the Sox penalty being inappropriately high. Again, we don't know the exact nature of the information withheld, which really makes this difficult to judge (not that I'm saying the Padres were dealt with appropriately). There's a big difference between, say, Pomeranz saying his elbow was sore after a couple starts versus Pomeranz having so much elbow pain that he was unable to throw bullpens between starts or something. Just to be clear. So it's alright to communicate to a player "we will pay 'X' to you at this slot so unless you get offered more you should keep that in mind." Putting aside if that is the case or not; would that be within the rules? So five who had been signed and then no signings allowed the following year? Of the five signings that were lost where did those five fit in in terms of organizational priorities? Were they the top five? The bottom five? A mixed bag?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 22, 2016 22:28:19 GMT -5
It was the five that they broke the rules to sign.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 22, 2016 22:49:44 GMT -5
It was the five that they broke the rules to sign. My impression was the whole bit was an accounting scheme. In other words there was money being shuffled around in order to sign those five. However, I just don't know if that's the case. Which is why I'm wondering if those five were the top five in the opinion of the organization and most scouts.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 22, 2016 23:52:22 GMT -5
I'm guessing here but in regards to the IFA penalties imposed on the Sox, I fully expect the Sox to blow past the limits this comming year and pretty much be in a bidding war with the Yankees (who are also coming out of penalty) this coming July.
Manfred has opened up a giant can of worms here. I'm expecting negative comments from the Sox for being singled out for an infraction that is pretty common. Yes, the penalties were deserved but the Sox weren't the only team that should have been penalized. What they did is pretty much SOP. That brings up another major major issue here. I fully expect the MLPA to push for free agency for ALL IFA's signed as part of a package deal. There are several big names involved, Urias for example. Imagine what Urias would get as a free agent. MLB now has no case for not granting it.
The owners are likely to become disenchanted with Mr. Biased Commish. It's going to get far more interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 23, 2016 6:10:15 GMT -5
So it's alright to communicate to a player "we will pay 'X' to you at this slot so unless you get offered more you should keep that in mind." Putting aside if that is the case or not; would that be within the rules? So five who had been signed and then no signings allowed the following year? Of the five signings that were lost where did those five fit in in terms of organizational priorities? Were they the top five? The bottom five? A mixed bag? Not really. The conversation isn't generally like that. It's the team getting an idea of what the player wants and then potentially saying something like "if you're there at 24, we're taking you." I don't see why that'd be a problem rules-wise. If a guy gets picked earlier by another team, it's not like he can turn it down to get picked later - all you can do is go to school and come back later. It's really not as big of a deal as you're thinking it is. As for how good the IFAs were, at least 4 of the 5 were the club's top signings. Think about it - the best players were the ones they were going to have to (allegedly) funnel the money to in order to sign. It's not like you're funnelling money to the 25th-best player you're signing in a given year if you've got a $300k signing cap. But the point that jmei was trying to make is that it's not like MLB said "we're going to make the top 5 guys you signed free agents" so much as it was the more sensical "we're going to make the five guys you (allegedly) bent the rules to sign free agents." I'm guessing here but in regards to the IFA penalties imposed on the Sox, I fully expect the Sox to blow past the limits this comming year and pretty much be in a bidding war with the Yankees (who are also coming out of penalty) this coming July. Well, you're also assuming that the IFA system is going to be the same, which I think is pretty unlikely, especially after the whole issue with the Red Sox this year. It may or may not be a draft, but it's pretty clear that the penalties in place have absolutely no teeth, given that most of the league has deemed it prudent to suffer those consequences in order to go all-out for one year's worth of signings, so MLB is going to want to at least change that aspect of the system.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Sept 23, 2016 6:29:10 GMT -5
Another thing the Padres did was supposedly making an offer to Groome where Groome was supposed to present himself as unsignable outside the first few picks in the draft so that he would fall to the Padres. Is that within the rules? It does not sound like it should be. And BTW. Am I wrong in thinking that on the International signings the Sox lost all the players they had signed and on top of that were banned from making signings in the following year? 1) That's not what happened. He had a high price tag. The Padres were planning on picking him and paying that number. They didn't collude to get him to fall to them, or at least nobody has ever said as much. 2) You're wrong there too. They lost five players and were prohibited from signing players for a year, notably one in which they were already going to be restricted to $300k or lower signing bonuses. A higher penalty than what SD got but, to me, the issue is that the SD penalty is inappropriately low rather than the Sox penalty being inappropriately high. Again, we don't know the exact nature of the information withheld, which really makes this difficult to judge (not that I'm saying the Padres were dealt with appropriately). There's a big difference between, say, Pomeranz saying his elbow was sore after a couple starts versus Pomeranz having so much elbow pain that he was unable to throw bullpens between starts or something. Excellent point chris, we don't know the exact nature of the info withheld. Also we do not know if there will be further penalties handed out on this situation. Lots of players over the years have tried to discourage teams from drafting them. At the same time many big market teams, specifically the Yankees come to mind, have let it be know before the draft that they will be willing to pay big bucks to certain prospects just to get them ,thus discouraging teams at the top of the draft from picking them. I think that is one of the reasons for the money pool concept in the draft. I strongly think that this winter there will be strong sanctions placed on the padres for this incident. I guess we have to wait to see what mlb does.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Sept 23, 2016 6:37:28 GMT -5
So it's alright to communicate to a player "we will pay 'X' to you at this slot so unless you get offered more you should keep that in mind." Putting aside if that is the case or not; would that be within the rules? So five who had been signed and then no signings allowed the following year? Of the five signings that were lost where did those five fit in in terms of organizational priorities? Were they the top five? The bottom five? A mixed bag? Not really. The conversation isn't generally like that. It's the team getting an idea of what the player wants and then potentially saying something like "if you're there at 24, we're taking you." I don't see why that'd be a problem rules-wise. If a guy gets picked earlier by another team, it's not like he can turn it down to get picked later - all you can do is go to school and come back later. It's really not as big of a deal as you're thinking it is. As for how good the IFAs were, at least 4 of the 5 were the club's top signings. Think about it - the best players were the ones they were going to have to (allegedly) funnel the money to in order to sign. It's not like you're funnelling money to the 25th-best player you're signing in a given year if you've got a $300k signing cap. But the point that jmei was trying to make is that it's not like MLB said "we're going to make the top 5 guys you signed free agents" so much as it was the more sensical "we're going to make the five guys you (allegedly) bent the rules to sign free agents." I'm guessing here but in regards to the IFA penalties imposed on the Sox, I fully expect the Sox to blow past the limits this comming year and pretty much be in a bidding war with the Yankees (who are also coming out of penalty) this coming July. Well, you're also assuming that the IFA system is going to be the same, which I think is pretty unlikely, especially after the whole issue with the Red Sox this year. It may or may not be a draft, but it's pretty clear that the penalties in place have absolutely no teeth, given that most of the league has deemed it prudent to suffer those consequences in order to go all-out for one year's worth of signings, so MLB is going to want to at least change that aspect of the system. This is interesting to me. The IFA system, qualifing offers, 25 man rosters, and the 189 salary limits have come up as items for the next players contract this winter. Has there been anything out about what is going on with the contract. I have not seen anything. Would have thought someone would have had a proposal out by now.
|
|