|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 1, 2017 9:18:08 GMT -5
Wily Mo Pena, Nick Hagadone, and Bronson Arroyo in one day. There was even a Justin Masterson workout rumor floating around! We love you, 20-aughts.
|
|
|
Post by rookie13 on Feb 1, 2017 21:52:46 GMT -5
Mark Reynolds back to the Rockies on a minor league deal. I know Coors influenced his numbers, but he was still just below league average on the road. He's a decent defender so if he's half decent it would make sense for them to slide Desmond back to the outfield.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 1, 2017 21:56:02 GMT -5
Carlos Martinez and the Cardinals agree to a 5 year 51 million dollar extension.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Feb 1, 2017 23:03:29 GMT -5
Carlos Martinez and the Cardinals agree to a 5 year 51 million dollar extension. Covering his 3 arbitration years and 2 years of FA? Certainly not too much of a risk for the Cardinals with an arbitration estimate of $4M or so for just 2017. Martinez has been very good each of the past two seasons
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 1, 2017 23:56:57 GMT -5
Carlos Martinez and the Cardinals agree to a 5 year 51 million dollar extension. Covering his 3 arbitration years and 2 years of FA? Certainly not too much of a risk for the Cardinals with an arbitration estimate of $4M or so for just 2017. Martinez has been very good each of the past two seasons Also 2 option years added at unknown value. Really good deal for the Cardinals controlling one of their best pitching assets for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 2, 2017 1:38:56 GMT -5
Covering his 3 arbitration years and 2 years of FA? Certainly not too much of a risk for the Cardinals with an arbitration estimate of $4M or so for just 2017. Martinez has been very good each of the past two seasons Also 2 option years added at unknown value. Really good deal for the Cardinals controlling one of their best pitching assets for a long time. That looks like a great deal for Cardinals.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Feb 2, 2017 9:11:27 GMT -5
Does anyone still want to pretend the Sox's punishment wasn't a personal agenda by the commish? In light of this, and the ridiculously soft (non-) punishment of Preller? Yeah, it's pretty obvious at this point. I think it was not so much against the Sox as being lenient toward St. Louis. We've seen it with the Pats and Football although come to think of it, bad example. But the point is just like in real life those with Power/Legacies are rarely punished as severely as others not as fortunate. In Football the old wealth is definitely slapped on the wrist compared to other owners and we've seen that time and again.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Feb 2, 2017 9:13:54 GMT -5
What the Red Sox did is not industry-wide practice. Packaging players is done all the time - actually funneling money through players to other ones to skirt signing restrictions is not. The severity of the Red Sox penalty wasn't just to punish the Red Sox, it was to set a precedent that they are going to treat teams playing games with the CBA and signing caps very, very harshly. It was to act both as a punishment and as a deterrent. I understand that and agree that's likely the reason regarding the Sox but wouldn't the same thing apply regarding St.Louis, why not set the deterrent much much higher?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 2, 2017 9:21:52 GMT -5
Nobody with the Red Sox ended up in the clink.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 2, 2017 9:53:40 GMT -5
Even with all of these new details, I still honestly think 46 months in federal prison (almost four years!) seems a little harsh (although apparently it's on par with the average sentence for burglary, which makes for an apt analogy). Those criminal charges are a pretty significant deterrent. By all accounts, this was a "lone wolf" and the organization was not aware of and did not facilitate his actions, which is a significant mitigating factor. The Cardinals still deserved significant punishment for lack of control over its employees, but that's a major distinguishing factor between what the Cardinals did and what the Red Sox did.
Preller, though... if he doesn't receive further punishment, no clue what the league was thinking there.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 2, 2017 10:04:23 GMT -5
So one of you lawyers may be able to help out on a specific question I have on this. I took a couple law courses a long time ago (including criminal procedure) and I think it was just enough to confuse me. Would Correa's lack of remorse have played a role in his sentencing? I know it cannot play a role if the defendant maintains his innocence - but that's not the case here: Correa pleaded guilty. So can his public statements (The Astros did it first, etc.) and lack of remorse be considered by the judge?
With Preller, it's possible that the league thinks that additional penalties are unnecessary because it will enforce itself with other teams being less willing to work with the Padres? Just thinking of their inability to unload Tyson Ross for even peanuts here. I'm not arguing that's a good enough reason for that comparative leniency, just a feeling that it plays/played a role in the punishment.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 2, 2017 11:52:25 GMT -5
At the time of his sentencing (July 2016), I think he was still fairly apologetic and remorseful. Here's what he said right before he was sentenced: At his sentencing, he did argue that he should receive a lower sentence because he thought the Astros had stolen the Cardinals' data, but that argument was rejected by the judge, and he didn't push it too much. Here's how that defense was described in a recent article: I doubt that the judge increased the sentence because Correa made that argument, but you never know. The most recent (and least remorseful) statement that he released wouldn't have played into it since it was only just released and, by most accounts, he didn't seem defiant at the time of sentencing.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Feb 2, 2017 14:13:18 GMT -5
Nobody with the Red Sox ended up in the clink. But that is society's penalty not MLB's.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Feb 2, 2017 14:16:47 GMT -5
Even with all of these new details, I still honestly think 46 months in federal prison (almost four years!) seems a little harsh (although apparently it's on par with the average sentence for burglary, which makes for an apt analogy). Those criminal charges are a pretty significant deterrent. By all accounts, this was a "lone wolf" and the organization was not aware of and did not facilitate his actions, which is a significant mitigating factor. The Cardinals still deserved significant punishment for lack of control over its employees, but that's a major distinguishing factor between what the Cardinals did and what the Red Sox did. Preller, though... if he doesn't receive further punishment, no clue what the league was thinking there. I don't believe in the "lone wolf". Sure, It happens but the onus to prove that should be on the company after all with great power comes great responsibility, you should know what is going on with your company. The lone wolf is what all companies now run to when caught doing something illegal. Most know that that is crap but it's power and money and well they play by different rules.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 2, 2017 14:35:27 GMT -5
Nobody with the Red Sox ended up in the clink. But that is society's penalty not MLB's. I'm speaking specifically as a deterrent, though. It makes a lot of sense that the MLB would need stricter internal enforcement of things that are against the rules of the CBA but are not illegal. The legal system penalized Correa's hacking, not the Red Sox method of disguising payments. The fact that you don't believe the court findings is fine, but whatever evidence MLB found couldn't support that. Penalties based on bad things they think the team might have been involved with but didn't find proof of would be Goodellian.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 2, 2017 15:14:47 GMT -5
The Indians are loading up even more. They just signed Boone Logan to bolster their bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Feb 2, 2017 15:18:45 GMT -5
But that is society's penalty not MLB's. I'm speaking specifically as a deterrent, though. It makes a lot of sense that the MLB would need stricter internal enforcement of things that are against the rules of the CBA but are not illegal. The legal system penalized Correa's hacking, not the Red Sox method of disguising payments. The fact that you don't believe the court findings is fine, but whatever evidence MLB found couldn't support that. Penalties based on bad things they think the team might have been involved with but didn't find proof of would be Goodellian. Simply blaming a lone wolf (which we both know 90% + of the time is BS) is what all nearly all companies would do. They should have the Onus be on them to prove someone was acting as a lone wolf otherwise suffer the same fate if not more so to actually influence companies to police themselves. If CEO's etc want all the perks should they not suffer some if not all the arrows. That is not Goodellian if they are given a chance to prove they had a Rogue One situation. To do otherwise actually encourages corrupt companies to behave at best poorly.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 2, 2017 16:00:14 GMT -5
Lets put it this way. If I was doing what Correa was doing at work, my employer would turn me in to the police before anyone else found out about it. And at that point, you'd know that my employer wasn't complicit or involved.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Feb 2, 2017 16:22:42 GMT -5
The investigation would have large amounts of data as to what computers accessed the database, what user names and passwords were used, and what data they accessed. They would have a very good idea if someone else was logging into the database. I guess you can't prove that others in the Cardinals organization knew about what he was doing, but it seems like an act he wouldn't want to allude to others.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 2, 2017 19:04:09 GMT -5
Both prosecutors and MLB investigated the possibility that others in the organization aided or were aware of Correa's actions. They found no evidence that that was the case. Notwithstanding that finding, the Cardinals (like most other entities involved in "rogue employee"-type cases) were still penalized fairly heavily (MLB imposed the maximum financial penalty allowed under the CBA and, for the first time in MLB history, stripped the Cardinals of draft picks, and multiple draft picks at that) for inadequate supervision and control.
I'm not sure what else you think they could have done. I mean, maybe they could have taken next year's first-round pick instead of this year's third-round pick, but once you take into account the time value of money (i.e., that a pick this year is more valuable than a pick next year), it's not really that much more of a punishment.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,438
|
Post by nomar on Feb 2, 2017 19:17:34 GMT -5
It's natural to feel a bit bad for Correa, but it is a serious crime which he committed. Private data for billion dollar companies is nothing to play with. I think everyone can now see that the payoff wasn't anywhere near worth the potential consequences, but he still has to pay. Hopefully the next 4 years pass as quickly as possible for him and he learns from the experience.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 2, 2017 19:26:00 GMT -5
Given the importance of pooling draft resources, next year's first rounder would've been a much bigger penalty than a 3rd this year. On the other hand, the Astros getting two picks this year is arguably a bigger award than a 2nd this year and 1st next year, especially with the time value of money considered. Lots of money to pool for a tough-to-sign player, potentially.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 2, 2017 20:12:38 GMT -5
I'm speaking specifically as a deterrent, though. It makes a lot of sense that the MLB would need stricter internal enforcement of things that are against the rules of the CBA but are not illegal. The legal system penalized Correa's hacking, not the Red Sox method of disguising payments. The fact that you don't believe the court findings is fine, but whatever evidence MLB found couldn't support that. Penalties based on bad things they think the team might have been involved with but didn't find proof of would be Goodellian. Simply blaming a lone wolf (which we both know 90% + of the time is BS) is what all nearly all companies would do. They should have the Onus be on them to prove someone was acting as a lone wolf otherwise suffer the same fate if not more so to actually influence companies to police themselves. If CEO's etc want all the perks should they not suffer some if not all the arrows. That is not Goodellian if they are given a chance to prove they had a Rogue One situation. To do otherwise actually encourages corrupt companies to behave at best poorly. God someone went to the "corporations are the devil" school, but in all seriousness the team was punished for the actions of their employee. There weren't other individuals punished because there wasn't proof they knew of it or did anything. That being said; there is only so accountable a company should be held for a rogue employee on certain matters.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 2, 2017 20:17:27 GMT -5
The Indians are loading up even more. They just signed Boone Logan to bolster their bullpen. 5.5 million for a LOOGY type on a 1 year deal with a 1 million dollar buyout on a 7 million dollar option. Holy Moly. Get your left handed kids to throw a baseball. This makes me like the Abad deal a little more.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 2, 2017 21:11:17 GMT -5
Oof “@usatodaymlb: Hal Steinbrenner says Yankees fans love Aroldis Chapman despite DV incident. ”Sooner or later we forget, right?“ t.co/iQxwzBSLkk
|
|