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 Chris Hatfield on Sept 23, 2016 10:00:58 GMT -5
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. MLB has said that it considers the matter with the Pomeranz trade closed. There will be no further penalties.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Sept 23, 2016 14:35:54 GMT -5
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. MLB has said that it considers the matter with the Pomeranz trade closed. There will be no further penalties. Sorry need to clarify. The incident I am referring to is the double medical records. not the promeranz deal. Also the other 2 teams complaining.I also think that if the padres are smart they dump preller. Who is going to want to trade and deal with them? Also if you are a prospect in the system or to be drafted are you going to want to play for them?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 24, 2016 4:16:46 GMT -5
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." 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. I'm pretty sure the MLPA's biggest agenda items will be the draft pick associated with signing qualified free agents changing the service time rules such that there's less incentive for teams to try to get 6.9999 years service time.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 24, 2016 4:22:26 GMT -5
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. MLB has said that it considers the matter with the Pomeranz trade closed. There will be no further penalties. Somewhere I read that the Sox have the right to request arbitration on the matter. I don't see anything happening until the Sox are finished for the year, it's a distraction they don't need while there's still action on the field.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Sept 24, 2016 5:53:37 GMT -5
The Padres Ownership in good faith should send a prospect back to Boston.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Sept 27, 2016 16:01:46 GMT -5
Michael Silverman @mikesilvermanbb 2m2 minutes ago Pomeranz scratched for Thurs, Owens instead. Sore forearm. Unclear if related to medical issues from SD. Unclear if avail for postseason.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 27, 2016 17:39:39 GMT -5
I have defended this trade, because I like Pomeranz's stuff, and I figured he could contribute this year and next. But if he has an arm problem that the Padres had any sense of and hid, then they should have to send AE back. They seem really to have willfully cheated in their med reports, and the fact that there was no compensation for the Sox strikes me as at once unfair and also bad precedent. Given that the Padres were very active traders and got a slap on the wrist, this behavior hardly seems discouraged in the future -- if a team is out of contention, and they keep double books on health, they can accumulate great prospects with little risk of punishment.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Sept 27, 2016 17:41:07 GMT -5
Rob Bradford @bradfo 16s17 seconds ago From my understanding, Pomeranz case will remain closed even despite this latest development
|
|
|
Post by templeusox on Sept 27, 2016 17:47:56 GMT -5
The Sox got themselves a lemon.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Sept 27, 2016 18:14:46 GMT -5
Rob Bradford @bradfo 16s17 seconds ago From my understanding, Pomeranz case will remain closed even despite this latest development That sucks, especially giving up our best pitching prospect rated in the top 20 for Pomeranz with a forearm injury which could possibly lead to TJ surgery. Not sure we will ever find out what the differences were between the two sets of medical records maintained by the Padres given HIPA limitations. It stings a little more knowing the Padres got away with such light penalties for essentially committing fraud.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Sept 27, 2016 18:48:29 GMT -5
But, Your Honor, we'd like to present new evidence . . . . .
Well, no idea if this is truly new evidence, but this really doesn't look good.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Sept 27, 2016 18:58:45 GMT -5
The Marlins returned damaged goods. The Red Sox should be allowed to, as well.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Sept 27, 2016 20:59:21 GMT -5
What's needed here is all the teams that have complained or felt taken advantage of by the Padres, corner Manfred and tell him they will be looking to fire him when his contract is up. That'll get his attention. He has totally screwed this up.
|
|
|
Post by templeusox on Sept 27, 2016 21:05:18 GMT -5
What's needed here is all the teams that have complained or felt taken advantage of by the Padres, corner Manfred and tell him they will be looking to fire him when his contract is up. That'll get his attention. He has totally screwed this up. It's just us. Marlins got their player back. No one else cares.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Sept 27, 2016 21:23:59 GMT -5
I'm recalling those early reports that the Red Sox were not going to seek compensation, even though the Marlins did. Were those reports true? If they were, what was DDo thinking?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 27, 2016 22:14:32 GMT -5
It's bad enough you deal one of the best pitching prospects for a guy who is in his mid to upper 20s who has never had a strong full season as a starter, but now the guy could be damaged goods. It's horrendous and the irony is that they really didn't need him. E-Rod finally got healthy and Buchholz got the help he needed from Brian Bannister.
The trio of Espinoza, Groome, and Kopech would have been great to have in the system still.
I do have to acknowledge - to be totally fair - that Pomeranz did have a good stretch of about a half dozen starts or so, so he wasn't a total lemon - he just wasn't that good in totality and now there are injury issues.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Sept 28, 2016 9:24:03 GMT -5
It's just weird to me that the Red Sox did not get any restitution, even if it was an insignificant amount. Like the Padres had to give the 30 days of salary to the Red Sox, or an international draft slot, or anything.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Sept 28, 2016 9:27:39 GMT -5
I haven't been around as much to keep close tabs on this but are we 100% sure we aren't getting anything more when the season ends? I don't think they would undo it but maybe we get their competitive balance pick or something?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 28, 2016 10:41:02 GMT -5
For whatever it's worth, the Red Sox knew they were dealing for a guy with barely any track record of being as good as he was in the first half and who was going to blow by his career high in IP (this latter thing being another reason the club has cited for why he won't make his final start, by the way). There were red flags there regardless of any information the Padres withheld. That was why I was so against the deal at the time.
At this point, the Padres could argue that it's not clear what elbow fatigue is attributable to his pitching after the trade versus what was before, as well as that the Red Sox, who were absolutely desperate for starting pitching, did get value out of Pomeranz in lieu of having to get multiple starts from the likes of Henry Owens. For these reasons, Espinoza is likely not coming back (as opposed to Rea and Castillo, where the Marlins got nothing out of Rea and his injury happened immediately), and I'd argue he shouldn't, to be honest. As I've said, the move here would've been for the Padres to forfeit something like a second-round draft pick to the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 30, 2016 8:43:20 GMT -5
At this point, the Padres could argue that it's not clear what elbow fatigue is attributable to his pitching after the trade versus what was before, as well as that the Red Sox, who were absolutely desperate for starting pitching, did get value out of Pomeranz in lieu of having to get multiple starts from the likes of Henry Owens. For these reasons, Espinoza is likely not coming back (as opposed to Rea and Castillo, where the Marlins got nothing out of Rea and his injury happened immediately), and I'd argue he shouldn't, to be honest. As I've said, the move here would've been for the Padres to forfeit something like a second-round draft pick to the Red Sox. Trying to return a pitcher as defective after you've given him 13 starts is a little like trying to return underwear after you've worn it 13 times.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 30, 2016 9:11:38 GMT -5
Is it the case that the Rea trade happened prior to it being known the Padres were concealing medical information?
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 2, 2016 12:56:47 GMT -5
“@brianmacp: Manfred: The Red Sox were offered the opportunity to rescind the Pomeranz-Espinoza trade, but they declined.”
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Oct 2, 2016 12:57:00 GMT -5
Brian MacPherson @brianmacp 1m1 minute ago Manfred: The Red Sox were offered the opportunity to rescind the Pomeranz-Espinoza trade, but they declined.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Oct 2, 2016 12:57:56 GMT -5
I hate Dave Dombrowksi.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Oct 2, 2016 13:00:04 GMT -5
Right move or not, I don't know why anyone is surprised by this. They weren't gonna send back their big trade deadline acquisition in the middle of a pennant race.
If they could have done it for lesser compensation, then yeah, that's just insane.
|
|
|