MLB investigating Padres Over Pomeranz Trade

DrBoston

New Member
Sep 29, 2016
52
Central PA via Boston
A lot of people were saying the same thing a year ago about the Rick Porcello trade.
True, but at least there weren't the lingering medical questions hidden by the other team in the background.

I'm hoping Drew can turn it around and start fresh next season and have a good year as the #4 starter.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
A lot of people were saying the same thing a year ago about the Rick Porcello trade.
Right. I'm honestly relieved that we'll have Pomeranz for next season. If not, we'd likely be giving Rich Hill a three year deal or trading Benintendi for Teheran. There's nothing out there.

From Porcello and Price to Owens and Johnson, we have eight options, four to six of whom are good, depending on how you feel about Buchholz and Wright. We just need to add one or two O'Sullivan type veterans to fill out the Pawtucket rotation.
 

Valek123

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
979
Upper Valley
Right. I'm honestly relieved that we'll have Pomeranz for next season. If not, we'd likely be giving Rich Hill a three year deal or trading Benintendi for Teheran. There's nothing out there.
Under two more years of control at likely nothing numbers...
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member

Bottom line: The Red Sox did not get what they paid for.
Determining how much of that is because the Padres cheated the system and how much is because Dombrowski took a bad risk relies on information we don't have.
But where do you assign the blame? Up until now, Pomeranz has made 13 starts for the Sox and in that time had one start pushed back a couple of days. In those 13 starts he's given up 2 or less earned runs 8 times, 3 once, 4 once and 5 three times. At this point how do you determine that THIS injury isn't new? Or to what point might it be the Sox fault if they kept pitching him after the disclosure of the private medical chart? I get what you're saying but it's not like he pitched three or four games and his arm fell off.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I get what you're saying but it's not like he pitched three or four games and his arm fell off.
Bingo. Even if the info the Padres hid was related to Pomeranz' elbow or forearm, the fact that he made 13 starts for the Red Sox in seeming good health before it flared up makes putting blame on the Padres dicey at best. Every pitcher's arm is a ticking time bomb no matter what the medicals say at the time he's acquired.

The Red Sox figured out something was missing in the medicals they received from the Padres fairly early on, perhaps before Pomeranz ever took the mound for them. They had time to figure out the nature of the missing info, either from Pomeranz himself (if it was a medication issue) or by giving Pomeranz a full physical upon arrival to rule out anything that they might deem too much of a risk. Then they let him pitch with regularity for almost two months without any apparent issues. At this point, as relates to his current injury, I think the Padres hands are clean.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Sure, but they paid a premium to get a guy who would be a) good enough to displace our 4th-best starter as part of our playoff rotation and b) on a long-enough contract to plan on him being part of the rotation beyond 2016. And even at the time, people worried aloud that Pomeranz's innings and injury history, respectively, made each of those a risky proposition. I can't imagine that knowing he was being treated for elbow pain wouldn't have exacerbated those concerns and made paying the premium an even worse idea.

Bottom line: The Red Sox did not get what they paid for. Determining how much of that is because the Padres cheated the system and how much is because Dombrowski took a bad risk relies on information we don't have.
If "even at the time people worried," doesn't that mean that they got exactly what they paid for? You might disagree with the trade but you can't possibly be saying that the Sox got hoodwinked somehow. If we all knew about his potential innings limitations, and there is no evidence that his current struggles are anything more than that, then I don't buy into the conspiracy stuff.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
The case is closed, the deal will not be voided and the Sox will get nothing else from the Padres.
He wasn't as good as the Sox hoped he would be but he did help the Sox this year and he will be around two more years.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Bottom line: The Red Sox did not get what they paid for. Determining how much of that is because the Padres cheated the system and how much is because Dombrowski took a bad risk relies on information we don't have.
You know, it's quite possible the Paddes feel similarly about Espinoza, who didn't exactly resemble the future Cy Young Award winner they were promised.

The Red Sox gave up a lottery ticket for an All Star with 2 years of control left.

They did ok.
 

SpaceMan37

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2013
225
You know, it's quite possible the Paddes feel similarly about Espinoza, who didn't exactly resemble the future Cy Young Award winner they were promised.

The Red Sox gave up a lottery ticket for an All Star with 2 years of control left.

They did ok.
Espinoza was a top 20 prospect. That is not a lottery ticket in terms of prospects.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
You know, it's quite possible the Paddes feel similarly about Espinoza, who didn't exactly resemble the future Cy Young Award winner they were promised.

The Red Sox gave up a lottery ticket for an All Star with 2 years of control left.

They did ok.
Espinoza wasn't setting Greenville on fire before he was traded. I think his time with the Padres was more or less the same.

I have a sneaky suspicion the Dombroski was less high on Espinoza than most prospect mavens and decided to sell high. No proof of course.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,441
Haiku
The case is closed, the deal will not be voided and the Sox will get nothing else from the Padres.
He wasn't as good as the Sox hoped he would be but he did help the Sox this year and he will be around two more years.
There might be further punishment for Preller -- one month's unpaid vacation seems like encouragement for some other GM to repeat the deception -- but the penalty will be specific to the Padres, and will not directly benefit the Red Sox.

Pomeranz pitched pretty well, but how many starters can survive throwing >50% knuckle curves? That looks to me like a TJ waiting to happen, just like Carson Smith's wicked painful motion.

Inferences about Dombrowski's modus operandi: he will always trade the future for the present; he likes pitchers who can miss bats; he accepts injury risk as part of the package; and TINSTAAPP.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
12,630
guam
Espinoza wasn't setting Greenville on fire before he was traded. I think his time with the Padres was more or less the same.

I have a sneaky suspicion the Dombroski was less high on Espinoza than most prospect mavens and decided to sell high. No proof of course.
Wait, isn't the proof the deal?
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,277
“@brianmacp: Manfred: The Red Sox were offered the opportunity to rescind the Pomeranz-Espinoza trade, but they declined.”
 

wibi

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,839
Anyone who says they should have rescinded the trade just remember that means Henry Owens is starting those pivotal games in August and September instead of Pomeranz
 

paulb0t

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,884
“@brianmacp: Manfred: The Red Sox were offered the opportunity to rescind the Pomeranz-Espinoza trade, but they declined.”
Can we rescind it in mid-November?

Kidding of course – and I guess I don't blame DD for declining. But, Pomeranz's inconsistency and late arm discomfort combined with Preller's shady practices really made a questionable* trade worse.

* TINSTAAPP. Also: Hindsight.
 
Last edited:

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Can we rescind it in mid-November?

Kidding of course – and I guess I don't blame DD for declining. But, Pomeranz's inconsistency and late arm discomfort combined with Preller's shady practices really made a questionable* trade worse.

* TINSTAAPP
There was nothing questionable about the trade, even if you assume Espinoza is guaranteed to be an above average major league starter.
 

paulb0t

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,884
There was nothing questionable about the trade, even if you assume Espinoza is guaranteed to be an above average major league starter.
Yes, thus the asterisk. I suppose "Controversial*" would've been better. I didn't love the deal it when it was announced, only because I was in camp "Espinoza is the best Red Sox pitching prospect in the last 20+ years." After that shock went away, I went into the "That's the price you have to pay" camp.
 

mt8thsw9th

anti-SoSHal
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
17,120
Brooklyn
Anyone who says they should have rescinded the trade just remember that means Henry Owens is starting those pivotal games in August and September instead of Pomeranz
They were 6-7 in games he started. They've been 8-8 in games Owens has started. I don't really think Pomeranz is more than a win or two better than Owens over a two month stretch on his best day. And that is with knowing that Pomeranz was heading into uncharted territory innings-wise.

I wonder how far past the deadline the offer was made, because you obviously have two separate decisions if it's pre or post Wright's injury.
 

Broda

New Member
Sep 12, 2016
86
Anyone who says they should have rescinded the trade just remember that means Henry Owens is starting those pivotal games in August and September instead of Pomeranz
I'd say they likely would've eaten one of those bigger deals, like a Nolasco.

owens has proven he's not a major league pitcher.
 

Broda

New Member
Sep 12, 2016
86
Right. I'm honestly relieved that we'll have Pomeranz for next season. If not, we'd likely be giving Rich Hill a three year deal or trading Benintendi for Teheran. There's nothing out there.

From Porcello and Price to Owens and Johnson, we have eight options, four to six of whom are good, depending on how you feel about Buchholz and Wright. We just need to add one or two O'Sullivan type veterans to fill out the Pawtucket rotation.
I'd rather dive into the Henderson Alvarez, Mike Minor, Kris Medlen pool.

Sure some will flame out, but it's better than relying on some of the names you have there (Owens, Johnson and O'Sullivan).
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
11,257
San Francisco
“@brianmacp: Manfred: The Red Sox were offered the opportunity to rescind the Pomeranz-Espinoza trade, but they declined.”
Wow. I hope that doesn't come back to bite the Sox. I understand other options had passed, but I really hope Pomeranz works out, because they gave up a ton for an injured pitcher.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Wow. I hope that doesn't come back to bite the Sox. I understand other options had passed, but I really hope Pomeranz works out, because they gave up a ton for an injured pitcher.
Even with this revelation that they could have rescinded the deal, there is still zero indication that they received an injured pitcher. ZERO. They were misinformed about something, but we do not know that it was an injury. That he is hurt now is irrelevant to the deal.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
Unless I'm misinterpreting what people are saying, a bunch of these comments appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the timeline. The Sox were offered this option by the commissioners office after the San Diego malfeasance was discovered during the Colin Rea flap, which is to say, they were offered that option *after* the trade deadline.

At which point — Broda brought up Nolasco; let's use him as an example — Nolasco was already an Angel. Matt Moore was a Giant. Liriano was a Blue Jay. The option they were offered was sort of a false choice, because, well, they still needed a starting pitcher and lacked an obvious avenue to obtain another one if they sent Pomeranz back to SoCal.

There wasn't a lot of help available internally. I like Owens as a prospect better than most, but he's not currently ready to pitch competitively at the major league level as a starter in anything other than an emergency. (Perhaps he never will be, but he's still a year or two away from when I'd start to give up on him. He turns 24 next season, and he's a tall lefty with an out pitch.) Johnson had an encouraging second half after apparently successfully confronting his mental health issues, but the nature of those issues did not scream "throw this guy into the fire this season." Kelly is intriguing as a reliever. O'Sullivan is not intriguing at all.

So DD and Hazen basically had to find someone on the waiver wire or cross their fingers and stick with the deal they'd made, even after they learned the Padres were shady. They stuck with the deal they made.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Just seems to me one of the options that should have been offered was to allow an arbitrator to decide on appropriate compensation at the end of the season taking into account the non-disclosure and health of the pitchers at seasons end.. Either get back the prospect they gave up in return for a lesser prospect, or the Padres throw in a prospect, arbitrator decides.

Just giving the Red Sox the choice between giving up a pitcher they needed after the trade deadline which would prevent them from being able to acquire what they need seems a but unfair. However, when you didnt vote for the commissioner on the first ballot, he probably is not going to go out of his way to be your friend
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,470
Somewhere
They were 6-7 in games he started. They've been 8-8 in games Owens has started. I don't really think Pomeranz is more than a win or two better than Owens over a two month stretch on his best day. And that is with knowing that Pomeranz was heading into uncharted territory innings-wise.
You basically described the difference between an average player and a replacement-level one.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,692
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Even with this revelation that they could have rescinded the deal, there is still zero indication that they received an injured pitcher. ZERO. They were misinformed about something, but we do not know that it was an injury. That he is hurt now is irrelevant to the deal.
While I don't disagree with you, these things aren't always cut and dried. We've seen underperforming pitchers turn out to have serious injury after-the-fact. Lackey and Clement spring to mind as far as Sox starters go.
 

DrBoston

New Member
Sep 29, 2016
52
Central PA via Boston
I'm not so fussed with the fact that the trade wasn't fair, value-wise. I'm hoping Drew can turn it around next season and be a viable member of the rotation. What irks me more than anything is the miniscule punishment SD got for pulling what they did on the Sox and other teams.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
While I don't disagree with you, these things aren't always cut and dried. We've seen underperforming pitchers turn out to have serious injury after-the-fact. Lackey and Clement spring to mind as far as Sox starters go.
I wouldn't be surprised if he has some lingering damage somewhere in his body...pretty much ever pitcher does to some degree. But has Pomeranz significantly underperformed since arriving? Yes, he's not been quite as good as he was in San Diego, but did we really expect him to maintain that same sub-3 ERA moving to the AL East?

Clement is a good example though. He was signed, presumably with a clean bill of health (for a 30 year old pitcher, anyway), and pitched well for a good stretch before getting worse until it was discovered his shoulder was shredded beyond repair. His injury probably dated back to before he was signed, but it went undetected. Should the Red Sox have expected it to have been in any medical records from his Cubs days? Could they have picked it up in a physical? Same questions that can be asked of Pomeranz and the Padres, no?

I guess my point isn't that Pomeranz came to the Red Sox 100% healthy (because no one does), it's that we have been given zero reason to believe he's been pitching with a Lackey/Clement-level injury on the verge of ending his season/career. I guess I have a bit of faith that if the undisclosed information the Padres withheld was that significant, MLB wouldn't have just suspended Preller with no compensation for the Red Sox. Or at the very least, the book wouldn't be closed on the case leaving open the chance to undo or make good during the off-season.

If Pomeranz blows out his elbow or shoulder in the next couple weeks or next season or 2-3 years down the line, how would it be any different from Clement, Lackey, Matsuzaka or any other pitcher the Sox have given up assets to acquire (cash or prospects/players) that got hurt? What's the point at which it's just a "shit happens" injury and not the fault of the shady Padres GM?
 

Broda

New Member
Sep 12, 2016
86
I wouldn't be surprised if he has some lingering damage somewhere in his body...pretty much ever pitcher does to some degree. But has Pomeranz significantly underperformed since arriving? Yes, he's not been quite as good as he was in San Diego, but did we really expect him to maintain that same sub-3 ERA moving to the AL East?

Clement is a good example though. He was signed, presumably with a clean bill of health (for a 30 year old pitcher, anyway), and pitched well for a good stretch before getting worse until it was discovered his shoulder was shredded beyond repair. His injury probably dated back to before he was signed, but it went undetected. Should the Red Sox have expected it to have been in any medical records from his Cubs days? Could they have picked it up in a physical? Same questions that can be asked of Pomeranz and the Padres, no?

I guess my point isn't that Pomeranz came to the Red Sox 100% healthy (because no one does), it's that we have been given zero reason to believe he's been pitching with a Lackey/Clement-level injury on the verge of ending his season/career. I guess I have a bit of faith that if the undisclosed information the Padres withheld was that significant, MLB wouldn't have just suspended Preller with no compensation for the Red Sox. Or at the very least, the book wouldn't be closed on the case leaving open the chance to undo or make good during the off-season.

If Pomeranz blows out his elbow or shoulder in the next couple weeks or next season or 2-3 years down the line, how would it be any different from Clement, Lackey, Matsuzaka or any other pitcher the Sox have given up assets to acquire (cash or prospects/players) that got hurt? What's the point at which it's just a "shit happens" injury and not the fault of the shady Padres GM?
Fair point, but if you read Manfred's comments, he had no interest in taking a role the way the Cubs/Sox almost did over the Cub's embarrassingly classless and zero character way they took on the Theo compensation.

He basically said he's not in the business of determining who should give up what.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
They were 6-7 in games he started. They've been 8-8 in games Owens has started. I don't really think Pomeranz is more than a win or two better than Owens over a two month stretch on his best day. And that is with knowing that Pomeranz was heading into uncharted territory innings-wise.
And in those starts they performed as follows:

Pomeranz: 4.87 FIP, 3.90 xFIP, 9.22 k/9, 3.21 bb/9, .311 BABIP, 4.68 ERA, 67.1 IP
Owens: 5.00 FIP, 5.34 xFIP, 7.52 k/9, 4.66 bb/9, 2.99 BABIP, 5.19 ERA, 85.0 IP

Their performances were no where near as close as you are inferring by pointing to game results. Pointing to wins over the course of a month as a measure of value is sloppy, considering how much goes into each individual game that a starting pitcher does not control. If you are directly referencing WAR, yes, the difference between them over a season is probably roughly about 3 (replacement level versus comfortably better than league average), but any time you drill down that far into specific subsets of games, the value of WAR/Win Shares/Wins on the player level breaks down.

The Red Sox were unquestionably better off with Pomeranz on the mound than they would have been with Owens. If for no other reason than Owens having gone less than 5 innings in a much larger percentage of his starts than Pomeranz this year. Having Owens on the mound post trade deadline probably leaves the team with a much more beat up bullpen going into the playoffs.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
While I don't disagree with you, these things aren't always cut and dried. We've seen underperforming pitchers turn out to have serious injury after-the-fact. Lackey and Clement spring to mind as far as Sox starters go.
And then there was the Sauersuck *fleecing*.

Due diligence -- as opposed to deep pocket surety coverage after the fact -- is a wonderful thing. Assume that everyone abides the morals of the marketplace. Do your own investigation and pay for it.
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,841
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
Clement is a good example though. He was signed, presumably with a clean bill of health (for a 30 year old pitcher, anyway), and pitched well for a good stretch before getting worse until it was discovered his shoulder was shredded beyond repair. His injury probably dated back to before he was signed, but it went undetected. Should the Red Sox have expected it to have been in any medical records from his Cubs days? Could they have picked it up in a physical? Same questions that can be asked of Pomeranz and the Padres, no?
Clement was a FA signing, not a trade. Do teams exchange medical records of departing FAs? Were the Cubs keeping "two sets of books" on their players, as I understand the Padres were?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,021
Oregon
Was it ever explained as to why rescinding the trade was the only option? Since the Red Sox clearly wanted Pomeranz, why couldn't they rework it for lesser value?
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,841
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
Was it ever explained as to why rescinding the trade was the only option? Since the Red Sox clearly wanted Pomeranz, why couldn't they rework it for lesser value?
The Man:

"Well there’s certainly consideration of that (giving the Red Sox compensation)," Manfred said Sunday at Fenway Park. "I think that it’s important to understand. That for a very, very long time, there has been a rule in baseball that if something happens in terms of lack of complete information or disclosure with respect to the trade that the remedy is to rescind the trade. And you saw that baseball rule operate. Unfortunately again with the Padres and again with their trade with the Marlins. We offered early on the opportunity to seek rescission in the trade and for good baseball reasons, the biggest one being we were past the trading deadline, they elected not to seek rescission.
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/clubhouse_insider/2016/10/commissioner_rob_manfred_red_sox_had_chance_to_nix_pomeranz
 

DrBoston

New Member
Sep 29, 2016
52
Central PA via Boston
^thanks for that. It's such a false choice for the Sox, though...if they rescind the trade, they end up without a starter and it's past the deadline so there's no way to make another deal. Oh well.
 

mfried

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 23, 2005
1,680
Pomeranz looked very good in relief, but he was shaking his arm with alarming frequency. If he maintains a 95 mph fast ball and a good curve he will be a tremendous bullpen resource. If his arm falls off he won't recover in time for April 2017.
 
Last edited:

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
Was it ever explained as to why rescinding the trade was the only option? Since the Red Sox clearly wanted Pomeranz, why couldn't they rework it for lesser value?
Well I raised this option earlier and was told it was because "the Padres only did the trade because they wanted Anderson Espinoza" which, yeah, still makes no sense.

It is true what was being hidden may not have been terribly impactful but then, the negotiated deal was predicated on some level by deception. Forcing SDP to uphold the trade but submit to a moderator's take on different, lesser compensation for Pomeranz struck me as fair.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,502
Well I raised this option earlier and was told it was because "the Padres only did the trade because they wanted Anderson Espinoza" which, yeah, still makes no sense.

It is true what was being hidden may not have been terribly impactful but then, the negotiated deal was predicated on some level by deception. Forcing SDP to uphold the trade but submit to a moderator's take on different, lesser compensation for Pomeranz struck me as fair.
Unless MLB was going to force players on to the Padres, the reason why reworking the trade is not feasible is because the Padres don't have any incentive to agree to any lesser package. I mean the Padres could say something like, "OK, we'll settle for Moncada and Benintendi because we think Espinoza is better than the two of them combined" and then MLB is in the position of either trying to figure out what Espinoza and comparable prospects are worth or the discussions don't go anywhere.

Much more possible is giving the Red Sox a draft pick of international cap from later years - at least those are easily valued.

I think it would have been fair - and set the correct precedent - that instead of suspending Preller (which the Padres could do themselves) is to transfer to the Red Sox the 4th or 5th round draft pick of the Padres (pool money approximately $500K, the same as the suspension), but alas, MLB didn't go that way.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Yeah that seems like it would have been reasonable recourse, or maybe something like the Red Sox got to pick a prospect with the Padres being able to exclude the top whatever number. Manfred's explanation on the recourse mostly makes sense to me. Anything that involved sending Espinoza back but not undoing the trade is problematic, but MLB saying "your actions were wrong and harmed team Y, so you are going to compensate additional y value" seems like it would be doable without having to figure out who would have been traded for what. Undoing the trade after the season is too much of a competitive advantage for the Red Sox.

I can also see the case for the commissioner not wanting to be in that business. Preller is still a scumbag, but I don't feel as bad about it since the Sox were offered the chance to undo the trade.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
Unless MLB was going to force players on to the Padres, the reason why reworking the trade is not feasible is because the Padres don't have any incentive to agree to any lesser package. I mean the Padres could say something like, "OK, we'll settle for Moncada and Benintendi because we think Espinoza is better than the two of them combined" and then MLB is in the position of either trying to figure out what Espinoza and comparable prospects are worth or the discussions don't go anywhere.
Wait... what? They don't need incentive, it's a punishment. They're ordered to the moderator with Boston to rework it. No one would accept Moncada/ AB with a straight face? What are you even talking about?

Not sure why this is so tough a concept.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,502
Wait... what? They don't need incentive, it's a punishment. They're ordered to the moderator with Boston to rework it. No one would accept Moncada/ AB with a straight face? What are you even talking about?

Not sure why this is so tough a concept.
I agree that the concept isn't that tough but I don't think I'm the one that isn't getting it.

So let's think this through. MLB goes to the Padres and says you have to work out a package. SD keeps suggesting what you and I consider to be unreasonable packages. What happens next?

Either MLB has to step in and order the Padres to accept something. But that means that the MLB is going to have to get in the business of determining relative strengths between various prospects, team need, proximity to major leagues, etc. MLB doesn't want to do this.

OK you say, just order them to a mediator or (more likely arbitrator) to determine this. And how is this going to be determined? Does this mean that the mediator has to figure out the harm to the Red Sox and the relative values of other prospects and try to make a (not so) educated guess I mean the mediator could say that the Red Sox have to give up Kopech. What would we say then?

Finally, even assuming that it's possible for MLB to order two clubs to binding mediation (that would be determined by the organizational documents, which I assume are drafted broadly), neither the Sox nor the Padres have any interest in setting a precedent in which a third party - whether it be a mediator or the commissioner - is determining what players ought or ought not be in a trade, even if it is compensation for a wrongdoing.

So to put it another way - do you know of a situation where any professional US sports league has required a certain player to be traded or not traded as a punishment of any sort?
 

DrBoston

New Member
Sep 29, 2016
52
Central PA via Boston
Wait... what? They don't need incentive, it's a punishment. They're ordered to the moderator with Boston to rework it. No one would accept Moncada/ AB with a straight face? What are you even talking about?

Not sure why this is so tough a concept.
Exactly. THEY did something wrong, ergo THEY should be punished, what they want be damned. I don't get why MLB seems to reluctant to enforce this concept.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
Probably because of its arbitrary nature. MLB picking players to surrender based on rankings is not a good position for the league to be in. Honestly, the only real remedy short of rescinding the trade would have been a draft pick. As noted upthread, it's easily valued, damaging and a strong disincentive for bad behavior.
 

Broda

New Member
Sep 12, 2016
86
Probably because of its arbitrary nature. MLB picking players to surrender based on rankings is not a good position for the league to be in. Honestly, the only real remedy short of rescinding the trade would have been a draft pick. As noted upthread, it's easily valued, damaging and a strong disincentive for bad behavior.
Agreed. I can't imagine how hard it would be for MLB to evaluate prospects for other teams.
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,087
Rhode Island
A reasonable plan to me would have been to identify someone to mediate who had prior front office or scouting experience and can properly assign value to players.Both teams would have been instructed to identify 3 prospects that would be used to "trade" for Espinoza. The central idea would be that they should be lesser prospects than him. Each team could strike one player from the other list. They would then present to the mediator why they feel the players they identified would be appropriate compensation (legitimate, yet lesser prospect). If they each had the same player on their lists it would default to that player. You would want to make the process so the Padres don't go after someone like Kopech and the Sox don't offer some rookie league late rounder. It's not perfect, but it's the best scenario I can think of.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
A reasonable plan to me would have been to identify someone to mediate who had prior front office or scouting experience and can properly assign value to players.Both teams would have been instructed to identify 3 prospects that would be used to "trade" for Espinoza. The central idea would be that they should be lesser prospects than him. Each team could strike one player from the other list. They would then present to the mediator why they feel the players they identified would be appropriate compensation (legitimate, yet lesser prospect). If they each had the same player on their lists it would default to that player. You would want to make the process so the Padres don't go after someone like Kopech and the Sox don't offer some rookie league late rounder. It's not perfect, but it's the best scenario I can think of.
I've got just the guy