so for 1/12 of a GM salary (lets call it $500K) the Padres get one of the highest ceiling prospects in baseball.
Its sounds like a steal.
Its sounds like a steal.
MLB investigating Padres Over Pomeranz Trade
- Thread starter jon abbey
- Start date
Stripping the Padres of an asset - Espinoza, a draft pick, etc. - makes absolutely no sense. There's no precedent for it. The ancillary effects on the Padres would be terrible. MLB is absolutely invested in keeping all 30 teams competitive. Stripping teams of an asset for not using the medical database properly is ... overkill.
I hope that clarifies.
That's a matter of his contract, and I'm not sure an MLB rules violation is misconduct, particularly if the standard is at all murky. If he sexually harasses someone, then yeah, probably.
Well, the Red Sox did get Pomeranz and he hasn't died yet, so it's not like the Padres stole something.
Maybe they should have to send the Red Sox a lottery ticket to even things out.
Yes we are! In year five of his MLB career, when the Padres are desperate to recoup any of his vaule.
Preller's been suspended for rules violations before, so if the language in his contract is anything less than clear, the Padres deserve what they get (or get stuck with).
Well .. MLB stripped the Red Sox of five assets .. For a practice that was only unacceptable when a team was over the signing limit.
So there IS a precedent here. If the Padres gained a prospect upgrade from the Sox by not properly updating the database shouldn't the Sox - or any other team in the same position - be somehow "made whole"?
Fining Preller does not make the Sox whole.
So let's say they offer the Red Sox an immediate opportunity to reverse the trade. Would they have the guts to do it in the middle of the pennant race?
I think allowing the Sox to just completely reverse the trade when this first came up would have been reasonable.
A window to exchange 1st round picks might suffice in lieu of a lottery ticket.
But I would be interested to hear you expand upon why a team cheating another (several) and unfairly enriching itself should not be more severely punished than just not paying its GM $500k. I'm not sure what the organizational punishment is.
OK. The two situation are not comparable, but I'll play along for a moment. I have a few questions, though:
Is there a published MLB rule on international signings?
Is there a published MLB rule on use of the medical information sharing system?
Did the Red Sox already publicly state that there was no need to alter the trade? That they would not pursue compensation?
What is a realistic way to "make the Red Sox whole" from your perspective?
The suspension is pretty weak IMO. I hear all the arguments about keeping teams competitive, but if you screw up badly and break the rules you have to be penalized. Like, like, the Sox were.......So the Sox can lose actual members of the organization, the opportunity for more Int. picks/signings in 2016 AND the money they spent previously, but the Padres can't lose Espinoza for a blatant, devious, insulting cooking of the books?
Yeah, that don't work in my world.
Yeah, that don't work in my world.
Why do we consider the Red Sox unwhole in this thing? They got Pomeranz. That's what they were after in the first place. He's not broken, he can still pitch. Supposedly, the info the Pads withheld had to do with how they were treating the guy, not that he had some hidden injury.
This is a procedural violation. The Red Sox didn't get ripped off.
The Sox penalty was pretty harsh, and you can guess it was done to "send a message" as it was the first(that i'm aware of) penalty of its kind.
I would send that same message to San Di-ah-go......we get Espinoza back.
Wouldn't you imagine that sends a powerful message to any other team who might be, or ever considers "cooking the books" like that?
The entire team was in on it. They should punish the team instead of only Preller.
To the best of knowledge ..
Yes
Yes
Yes
I don't know .. Maybe something like giving the Sox a percentage of the Padres' signing pool in the June draft? There has to be something that penalizes the Padres AND compensates the Red Sox - or any other team.
Right, I don't believe we know the full extent of the penalty yet. If the Padres lose a draft pick does that suffice? Remember, there are three "aggrieved" parties here, plus MLB. The Padres aren't swapping picks with all of them.
As I said earlier, I'd be shocked if Preller wasn't also on notice that any future incidents like this would result in a permanent ban. He lost a strike? ;-)
Please, direct me to the the published rules on the use of the medical information sharing system.
EDIT: Per the post above, it doesn't exist. So, you made a mistake?
Does anyone know if DD had the opportunity to reverse the trade? The Padres and Marlins went through a variation of that on their own. What if he did have the opportunity but didn't take it? Would folks honestly think the Sox deserved more?
"The Padres aren't swapping picks with all of them"
why not?
You've yet to explain why the Padres should be allowed to cheat other teams and escape a real penalty. Again wheres the penalty in not paying Preller for 30 days? Hell he may deserve a 7-figure bonus for getting Espinoza for just $500k (his lost salary)
MLB should assess the damage to the respective organizations, rank them and come up with a penalty that both penalizes the Padres and makes the other teams whole. If it means that the Padres swap 1st round picks with 3 teams over some time period, would that be too punitive for knowingly trying to mislead those teams with incomplete medical data? It might be, but it would also act as a better deterrent than a 30 day suspension (and one that can be recouped in short order).
why not?
You've yet to explain why the Padres should be allowed to cheat other teams and escape a real penalty. Again wheres the penalty in not paying Preller for 30 days? Hell he may deserve a 7-figure bonus for getting Espinoza for just $500k (his lost salary)
MLB should assess the damage to the respective organizations, rank them and come up with a penalty that both penalizes the Padres and makes the other teams whole. If it means that the Padres swap 1st round picks with 3 teams over some time period, would that be too punitive for knowingly trying to mislead those teams with incomplete medical data? It might be, but it would also act as a better deterrent than a 30 day suspension (and one that can be recouped in short order).
Public in this sense refers to the fact that all MLB teams knew about it which is all that matters here. Who cares if the public knows about it.
That the punishment is excessive agree with and is likely the reason. The action is supposed to be punitive, theyre not avoiding that penalty because it would hurt the Padres at the box office or elsewhere, thats just kind of an odd thesis.
Think youd get farther w "theres no precedent."
Reading again I think we're saying the same thing. Just not sure its so much "interest in keeping the Padres viable"--its one prospect-- as it is just really excessive.
According to the Olney piece, the stated goal of keeping two sets of books was to give them an advantage when making trades. Evidently it worked, because the Red Sox and the other affected teams wouldn't have complained unless they thought the information that was hidden from them would have affected their offers. Don't you have to undo that advantage somehow since it was obtained maliciously?
I don't expect Espinoza to come back, but I'm on the side that the Red Sox should somehow be made whole. The Marlins already re-did their deal, it doesn't make sense to stop there.
I don't expect Espinoza to come back, but I'm on the side that the Red Sox should somehow be made whole. The Marlins already re-did their deal, it doesn't make sense to stop there.
Yeah, it was sloppily worded and that's my fault. Thanks for asking to clarify. Because so many teams are involved, and it's not just a Sox-Padres issue, anything involving assets moving is complicated and potentially very unfair to the Padres unless they were injecting players with Bird AIDS or something.
Well, I think your entire position on this is patently ridiculous and hopelessly biased. I think you don't give a shit about the Marlins or the White Sox in this situation, that your suggested penalty is overkill and potentially crippling to the Padres, and that you are grossly overrating Espinoza. Also, I don't think you've read or understood what your read in the Olney article and that your last paragraph is riddled with inaccuracy and supposition.
Aside from that, the full penalty is not known yet. If *all* the Padres and Preller get is what has been announced thus far - i.e. the suspension - that would be insufficient IMO. I think if the Padres lose a 2nd round draft pick that would be a "real" penalty to the organization.
"Well, I think your entire position on this is patently ridiculous and hopelessly biased. I think you don't give a shit about the Marlins or the White Sox in this situation, that your suggested penalty is overkill and potentially crippling to the Padres, and that you are grossly overrating Espinoza.."
You may think I'm biased, but I specifically asked you why the Padres knowingly misleading 3 teams should not be penalized more than just an early vacation for Preller. I used a draft pick swap as a potential remedy after you attempted to ridicule another poster with a snarky response. My opinion of Espinoza's value is irrelevant. The point remains the Padres were involved in serial attempts at misleading teams to gain a competitive advantage. And penalties, are supposed to hurt. I'm not sure the swap of picks is crippling, but opinions can differ.
Nonetheless I am heartened to see when you were pressed on the issue, you played along, and are now open to something more substantial than just Preller's suspension.
You may think I'm biased, but I specifically asked you why the Padres knowingly misleading 3 teams should not be penalized more than just an early vacation for Preller. I used a draft pick swap as a potential remedy after you attempted to ridicule another poster with a snarky response. My opinion of Espinoza's value is irrelevant. The point remains the Padres were involved in serial attempts at misleading teams to gain a competitive advantage. And penalties, are supposed to hurt. I'm not sure the swap of picks is crippling, but opinions can differ.
Nonetheless I am heartened to see when you were pressed on the issue, you played along, and are now open to something more substantial than just Preller's suspension.
But what if it's past the trading deadline? Does the bilked team get to trade with any of the other teams for a replacement that does not have to go through waivers? (Just saying it's really hard to fashion a solution that is enough of a penalty to actually deter.)
Give Drew an extra three inches on the outside of the plate for the remainder of 2016.
I agree it's a tough situation. I still don't think there is a more appropriate way to make the wronged team whole other than to give them the option to revoke the trade, but I agree the penalty shouldn't end there. Some kind of league sanction to deter future wrongdoing is definitely in order. Taking away a draft pick or slot money or something would be fine. Doesn't need to go to the wronged team or anything, just take it away.
Edit: I suspect maybe DD had that option and that was what the early report about the Red Sox not pursuing any changes to the deal was referring to. I'm sure we'll all learn more sooner or later.
Getting Espinoza back doesn't make sense. The Sox getting a 2nd round comp pick probably would have been the best we could have hoped for, but it seems as though Pomeranz's medical situation wasn't bad enough to warrant the Sox getting anything.
I think the ideal scenario would be giving the Sox the option to reverse the trade at the end of the season. It wouldn't happen because of the precedent it would set, but I suspect DD would be far more interested in that option in November than September.
Part of the reason he was willing to move Espinoza in that deal was the extended control over Pomeranz beyond this season. He was not a rental and was not acquired as such. Pomeranz has settled in quite nicely and slots into the staff for the next couple years. AE has not pitched well since the deal and even if he had wouldn't be in the team's plans for at least 2-3 years. The market for pitching sucks the next couple years.
If your final sentence was meant as >0% - literally - then I agree. But the number isn't much higher than that. Otherwise I don't think DD is losing any sleep or else we would have seen him go after compensation.
If your final sentence was meant as >0% - literally - then I agree. But the number isn't much higher than that. Otherwise I don't think DD is losing any sleep or else we would have seen him go after compensation.
Agreed, I think DD could have had the entire deal reversed, but elected to keep Pomeranz.
I am thinking Toradol. Pure speculation on my part of course. Some teams don't permit its use, and if the Red Sox are one of them now and he has still pitched well, its hard to argue the need for compensation. Some pain post-surgery is perhaps not unexpected, so it does not necessarily signal anything that should be worrisome, other than the surgery itself which the Red Sox were aware of.
Of course, maybe something else, some other NSAID perhaps.
Again speculation but the Sox have a history with Toradol for those that don't recall.
http://www.espn.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/8938795/jon-lester-says-boston-red-sox-reviewing-toradol-policy
http://www.espn.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/8938795/jon-lester-says-boston-red-sox-reviewing-toradol-policy
2.99 FIP with Red Sox, and 3.17 FIP with the Padres playing against 22 year olds. I'd say he's pitched alright all things considered.
Sean McAdam was on T&R this morning. Apparently anything remotely related to anything medical needs to be documented. Even aspirin, massages and hot tub baths. It seems in Pomeranz's case it was a matter of a certain routine that he had post shoulder surgery to help him get physically ready to pitch. Evidently MLB is VERY strict with this stuff. I guess it would be one thing to claim ignorance to the need to document some of this stuff, but apparently there were two separate sets of "books" and one didn't document Pomeranz's routine.
So what it sounds like to me is the Padres training staff had some sort of routine/regimen for Pomeranz (presumably between starts) and it wasn't documented where the Red Sox would be made aware of it. Pomeranz arrived, met with the training staff, explained whatever that regimen was, and since then he and the staff have been able to do whatever it is they need to do. No real harm done. But Dombrowski wasn't happy that his staff was caught unawares, so he reported it.
I can't imagine that Dombrowski would have done the deal differently or not at all if that routine/regimen had been properly documented. The notion that he deserves a re-do or that the Red Sox should be compensated seems over the top.
Two parties agreed to a transaction where the compensation for Team A was X, and due to willful deceit by Team B that compensation is now X-Y, it would seem fair on the surface to make a fair attempt to estimate Y and compensate Team A by that value. The potential that Team B may have knowingly deceived numerous other teams in separate transactions seems to be Team B's problem. If all that comes out of it is that the person directly responsible for overseeing his activity for Team B is suspended for a brief period without compensation such as Y for Team A, then I think those in charge have failed. Team A being "made whole" would be Y coming from Team B. Merely punishing Team B with punishment Z doesn't do anything to help make Team A whole.
If Train A leaves Station 1 at 10:00 traveling 25 mph...
I think the Sox and other teams that were found to have been deceived in some way by SD through Preller's actions should be compensated to the degree it was calculated they were impacted, probably first by a negotiation by the teams and then with input from MLB if unsuccessful. I'm not a fan of and think its wholly inappropriate for governing bodies to use punitive measures to send messages.
If Train A leaves Station 1 at 10:00 traveling 25 mph...
I think the Sox and other teams that were found to have been deceived in some way by SD through Preller's actions should be compensated to the degree it was calculated they were impacted, probably first by a negotiation by the teams and then with input from MLB if unsuccessful. I'm not a fan of and think its wholly inappropriate for governing bodies to use punitive measures to send messages.
Last edited:
One point that seems to get lost here is that the Sox aren't in a very easy position when it comes to "making them whole." True Pomeranz wasn't great this week but the Sox can't just undo the deal and go back to Henry Owens-ville. Even if they leave Pomeranz off the playoff roster, assuming they make it that far, they're in a pennant race and can't afford to just punt every fifth game during the stretch run the way they did up to July. They need Pomeranz this year, damaged goods or not.
What would be extraordinary, tho probably very unlikely given that they've said the punishment of the Pads is final, would be if MLB allowed the season to play out and THEN gave the Red Sox the opportunity to reverse the deal and get Espinoza back. That, in my mind, would actually be fair. But of course also unprecedented and highly unlikely.
What would be extraordinary, tho probably very unlikely given that they've said the punishment of the Pads is final, would be if MLB allowed the season to play out and THEN gave the Red Sox the opportunity to reverse the deal and get Espinoza back. That, in my mind, would actually be fair. But of course also unprecedented and highly unlikely.
Didn't really hear what DD's path to discovery was here, it seems like there wasn't any hidden injury info in the case of Pomeranz other than his pregame routine of working the shoulder post injury. Regardless the whole need to keep two separate and different sets of books on anything seems highly questionable at best.
I'd guess if we got compensation it would be a draft pick SD was docked or a ptbnl from SD or cash.
There's a long tradition of "buyer beware" in MLB when it comes to trades. That means trust among GMs is vital; I continue to believe this misstep will be career-ending for Preller. It also means, however, that MLB was never going to give the Sox much in the way of compensation, even if DD had pushed for it.
This is getting silly. There is no X-Y if the Sox wanted to keep Pomeranz. And since the issue was discovered almost immediately after Pomeranz came over to Boston, and was reported in the media in early August some time after, looking at Pomeranz's recent performance or talking about reversing the deal after the Sox got a handful of starts out of him doesn't make sense. If fairly sure that if he had wanted to, DD could have contested the trade immediately upon discovering the problem. He chose not to, but if he had, the trade likely would have been reversed then. If DD tried to revoke the trade and was refused, I'll stand corrected.
No question that what the Padres were doing is questionable and worthy of punishment. My point is that the impact that their deceit had on the Red Sox appears to be minimal at best and there really isn't a need to make them "whole". Which is why they aren't getting anything in the way of compensation in this whole thing.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying some retroactive reversal after the season is over would or even should happen. True, DD made this deal well before the deadline but my guess is that this took some time to be properly investigated -- by which point the Sox were probably in a bit of a bind as to what to do. Do you try to reverse a trade with the hope that you could land somebody else before the deadline (with trading partners realizing you are now that much more desperate and demanding Espinoza as merely a starting point)? Or do you ride it out and hope that Pomeranz stays healthy?
All I'm saying is that Preller's actions put the Sox in a very tough spot -- and a fair remedy is one that is unlikely to happen.
All I'm saying is that Preller's actions put the Sox in a very tough spot -- and a fair remedy is one that is unlikely to happen.