MLB investigating Padres Over Pomeranz Trade

[YTF]

For Red(s)HawksFan

Oh, I get and pretty much agree with what you say here. My main reason for quoting you was just to state that I'm not exactly sure if DD contacted MLB or if it may have been the other way around. Or if once the Padres knew that they were fucked because of the Colin Rea deal maybe they reached out to DD as to try to lessen the blowback from this. McAdam hadn't touched on that when he was on T&R. I'm wondering if the 30 day suspension is just an initial starting point pending further investigation into the way San Diego conducts trades or any other transactions (DFAs, releases, etc..). I'm guessing they have to provide suitable medical history to teams that might be interested in those players as well. Presently we're only talking about the deals with Boston, Miami and the ChiSox, right? The Padres have made other deals this season, most notably Melvin Upton Jr. and Matt Kemp. Not saying that either the Braves or Blue Jays have a beef here, but guessing that MLB has to dig deeper into any transactions made during the Preller era.

 

[Alcohol&Overcalls]

For those asking to have picks swapped or to receive them from the Pads ... how much cash would you think was appropriate to "make Boston whole" (whatever that means in this situation)? What's the dollar value of the withheld information to the Red Sox?

Because studies on the value of draft picks, particularly first-rounders, indicate their value is in the 10s of millions, and drops significantly from $50-65 million the top 5 (where the Padres are likely to land) to $10-15 million at the end of the round (where the Sox will likely pick). We could easily be talking about a $15 million gap in value for that swap, even using discount rates and conservative estimates.

Is the information withheld really worth anything close to that value? Come on now.

 

[moonshotmanny]

Peter Gammons was on tv this morning saying that the punishment only has to do with the Red Sox trade. He said there is more to come because the situation with the other teams are more serious.

 

[Scoots McBoots]

Good. The fact that three separate teams were affected should certainly incur more than a month suspension for Preller.

 

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

On the plus side, I expect ESPN to devote all of their coverage to this in the same way they did the Astros/Cardinals scandal.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

There were and are opportunity costs involved in "undoing" the trade:
- Say the Sox valued a fully disclosed Pomeranz at 95% of what they valued Pom w/o the full medical info at. Would they not have gone forward with the deal? Depends on multiple factors, including who else was still available, since they were obviously interested in upgrading the current rotation. Would it have affected the trade discussions? Maybe. The Sox might have asked for a low-level prospect in return. I don't think you can assume it would not have had any impact on discussions, even if the undisclosed info would not have derailed the entire deal.
- Having dealt Espinoza, does that show other teams DD's hand (what he's willing to pay in a trade), making another replacement trade more difficult and costly and therefore undesirable? Plus, they dealt for Pom early, to get an extra start or two out of him before the trade deadline. Having to back up and make a different trade would have cost time and meant more starts for our less desirable SP options.

The Sox did not seek to undo the trade, probably because they still wanted Pom for this season and beyond. But that doesn't mean they didn't feel cheated.

As for compensation, there are myriad options, some already mentioned. For another example, MLB could void a Padres pick and give the other teams supplemental picks. Not that tough to come up with something reasonable.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

Having Pomeranz on a different routine between starts could mean a lot of different things. Maybe they had him taking a drug we wouldn't want him taking, maybe they had him throwing more between starts than we would want, maybe they didn't let him throw at all between starts because they thought his arm was about to blow out. No matter what it was, it was important enough that they set up fake records to cover it up.

When this came out, we were not in a position to ask to have the trade revoked, because the trading deadline had passed and we were locked in with Pomeranz as a starter for the pennant race. Getting Espinoza back would have left a hole in our rotation for this year-- even if we at that point would have preferred having Espinoza back in the long run, and/or if the info was enough of a surprise that we wouldn't have done the trade had we known it at the time, it's too late then to want to reverse it.

Maybe if we knew about this info before the deadline we would have passed on this deal and made another trade for a different starter instead, like Sale or Quintana. That opportunity is gone.

 

[AB in DC]

For those asking to have picks swapped or to receive them from the Pads ... how much cash would you think was appropriate to "make Boston whole" (whatever that means in this situation)?

Maybe San Diego should pay for all of those oral medications that Pomeranz needs to take...

 

[Idabomb333]

1. That is insane. MLB is never, ever going to do this - nor should they. MLB has an interest in all 30 teams being competitive. Stripping the Padres of an asset that would allow them to possibly sell tickets and/or win ball games is like... the most short-sighted, selfish, stupid idea I've ever heard.

I know this is hyperbole (or at least I hope it is) but it still seems exceedingly odd and silly to me. Suppose the also ridiculous happened and MLB said, "Hey Sox, you want Espinoza back? You can keep Pomeranz either way." You think there's any chance the Sox say, "nah, we want the Padres to be competitive too?" That would be unselfish, but totally moronic. MLB wants balance, but that doesn't mean each team wants other teams to take assets so that they can be good too. And if you meant it would be dumb for MLB to do that to the Padres, why did you use the word "selfish?" It isn't selfish for a league to penalize a team unless the league is taking a fine, which happens all the time. I don't think sending Espinoza back would make sense to MLB, but because it's overkill, not because of balance. If the Padres had been the buyer team in these trades, and better than average now, you think that should make a difference to MLB in determining their punishment?

 

[PudgeFIST]

So apparently Tom Werner is not in agreement with those of you who purport to be so logical and even tempered saying we don't deserve "justice". He apparently feels wronged. He owns the team. He knows more than we do about the situation.

 

[mauf]

So apparently Tom Werner is not in agreement with those of you who purport to be so logical and even tempered saying we don't deserve "justice". He apparently feels wronged. He owns the team. He knows more than we do about the situation.

If this is how you feel, why did you join a forum dedicated to discussion of the Red Sox? Management and beat writers will always know things we don't; therefore, let's just uncritically accept what those folks say at face value!

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I think the fair remedy in a deadline-trade situation like this would be for the Red Sox to have until Dec. 31 (or Nov. 30, or whatever) to decide if they want to reverse the deal. Obviously reversing it now wouldn't make the Sox right, because they lose irreversibly the benefit of having traded for someone who can help them win this year, and even if Pomeranz isn't what they thought they were getting, he is (obviously) way better than nothing. But they should be able to reverse the deal once the season is over if they so choose.

 

[soxhop411]

Said quotes from MLBTR

8:45pm: Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe has more on the Red Sox’ perspective. Boston became aware of the issues with Pomeranz after conducting an MRI on his shoulder and elbow, per the report, identifying “an injury he was receiving treatment for” that hadn’t been logged.

The club still felt it needed to move forward with the July 14th trade, and evidently didn’t feel the issue was severe enough to scuttle the deal. Still, though, Boston “sought compensation in the form of a player but didn’t succeed,” a source tells Cafardo. It is not immediately clear whether the team pursued that remedy directly with the Padres or through the league in some form.

7:55pm: Red Sox chairman Tom Werner had harsh words today for the decision of the commissioner’s office relating to withheld medical information in the summer trade for lefty Drew Pomeranz, as Tom Caron of NESN reports (Twitter links). (Video link via NESN.)

“We were extremely disappointed in the decision,” said Werner. “We felt that some wrong was committed and that it’s important to have a level playing field. The Padres didn’t play on it.”

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/09/red-sox-chairman-tom-werner-criticizes-mlb-decision-on-pomeranz-deal.html

 

[singaporesoxfan]

Peter Gammons was on tv this morning saying that the punishment only has to do with the Red Sox trade. He said there is more to come because the situation with the other teams are more serious.

30 days for just the Red Sox trade and more to come is better and more likely to make the system fair.

 

[benhogan]

Apologies if this has been mentioned up thread or reported BUT how long have Preller/the Padres been keeping 'two sets of medical books'? Is the Kimbrel trade being investigated?

I'm not implying anything here, just curious.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Apologies if this has been mentioned up thread or reported BUT how long have Preller/the Padres been keeping 'two sets of medical books'? Is the Kimbrel trade being investigated?

I'm not implying anything here, just curious.

The original Olney story indicated it was this spring when the Padres hired a new trainer coordinator .. The story indicated there was a lot of grumbling from the existing training staff about the change so one imagines one of them was the source of much of the info.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Is this the first it's been reported as elbow discomfort?

http://www.espn.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=14354

 

[johnnywayback]

Is this the first it's been reported as elbow discomfort?

http://www.espn.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=14354

I've been pretty sanguine about this, but if the Padres actually hid elbow discomfort (as opposed to just "he takes a couple Advil after side sessions"), then I don't understand how the trade can stand as is, and I don't understand why Dombrowski didn't demand and/or isn't now demanding that we be compensated.

 

[PudgeFIST]

I've had chats with Friends for years about how owners in most sports don't actually take action when really dumb things are done to their team/billion dollar business. You have to guess that like the NFL most "franchise" agreements preclude the ability to sue the league or other teams. That would seem to be a tough position to be in if you've invested $1 billion in a business. You have to assume they all just makes so much money that it's never worth the fuss. But as fans we get pissed off and we certainly aren't compensated for the aggravation.

 

[bankshot1]

According to Castig, (on the today's Sox pregame show) several GMs are upset that the Padres got off without any real penalty or compensation due back to the Sox. While none here know the details of the investigation, on the surface, the MLB ruling is truly a head-scratcher. There is absolutely no deterrent to other teams attempting to mislead/cheat others.The non-paid early vacation for Preller is a joke.

 

[bradmahn]

I've had chats with Friends for years about how owners in most sports don't actually take action when really dumb things are done to their team/billion dollar business. You have to guess that like the NFL most "franchise" agreements preclude the ability to sue the league or other teams. That would seem to be a tough position to be in if you've invested $1 billion in a business. You have to assume they all just makes so much money that it's never worth the fuss. But as fans we get pissed off and we certainly aren't compensated for the aggravation.

Trusts will do that to their participating members... it's sort of the cost of the immense economic benefits awarded to trusts.

 

[soxhop411]

I've been pretty sanguine about this, but if the Padres actually hid elbow discomfort (as opposed to just "he takes a couple Advil after side sessions"), then I don't understand how the trade can stand as is, and I don't understand why Dombrowski didn't demand and/or isn't now demanding that we be compensated.

Look up thread... FO/ownership is/was pissed. They can demand but that does not mean MLB will listen


Said quotes from MLBTR

8:45pm: Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe has more on the Red Sox’ perspective. Boston became aware of the issues with Pomeranz after conducting an MRI on his shoulder and elbow, per the report, identifying “an injury he was receiving treatment for” that hadn’t been logged.

The club still felt it needed to move forward with the July 14th trade, and evidently didn’t feel the issue was severe enough to scuttle the deal. Still, though, Boston “sought compensation in the form of a player but didn’t succeed,” a source tells Cafardo. It is not immediately clear whether the team pursued that remedy directly with the Padres or through the league in some form.

7:55pm: Red Sox chairman Tom Werner had harsh words today for the decision of the commissioner’s office relating to withheld medical information in the summer trade for lefty Drew Pomeranz, as Tom Caron of NESN reports (Twitter links). (Video link via NESN.)

“We were extremely disappointed in the decision,” said Werner. “We felt that some wrong was committed and that it’s important to have a level playing field. The Padres didn’t play on it.”

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/09/red-sox-chairman-tom-werner-criticizes-mlb-decision-on-pomeranz-deal.html

 

[PudgeFIST]

Trusts will do that to their participating members... it's sort of the cost of the immense economic benefits awarded to trusts.

Unfortunately so it seems with all sports trusts.

I'm not at all a football fan, but passively follow all other non baseball Boston sports teams.(I'm from Ct)

As an outsider I was disgusted at what was done TO Brady and the Pats. I'm no lawyer but I'm familiar with the law and certain aspects of it and wonder why Kraft didn't put up more of a fight.
No contract, public or private can override Federal law, so no matter how broad article 46 is it can't supersede federal labor law or subsequent precedents. How the idiots in the lower courts let Goodell slide, and how Kraft did as well, infuriated a me as a non football fan.

Then the Sox punishment came down recently and thought WTF?

Now this, the Sox lose players, money, and a year of international signings(albeit at the under $300k range) and the Padres GM gets a month unpaid vacation? Wow.... my head still hurts from trying to process that level of bullshit.

 

[Fred in Lynn]

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.

Why must the decision to seek compensation have to be tied to the decision to accept the player? I don't see what is unreasonable (or silly) about that. The Sox were the harmed party here. They were in a pennant race with two weeks to the trade deadline. Even reversing the deal would have impacted them to some degree, since they'd then have to start over. We accept goods or services all the time that are different than promised, and entertain ways to seek a remedy that doesn't simply involve giving back or accepting the thing in whole.

At some point - perhaps now that the MLB investigation is supposedly complete and punishment to SD rendered - the door has to close on the potential to seek compensation. I think MLB should ensure that the harmed parties have had the opportunity to negotiate final compensation considering one party acted in bad faith - or if Dombrowski's sentiments from August you noted remain - none at all. It's the process, not the outcome, that interests me.

 

[EvilEmpire]

I think defining the degree of harm is pretty tough if the Sox are unwilling to reverse the trade and are determined to keep the player. Quantifying the lost opportunity cost is also tough. I suspect the Red Sox discovered the issue shortly after Pomeranz reported. If so, how much is a few days of opportunity cost worth? Why not reverse the trade and come up with a new agreement? I think the answer is that the Sox didn't want to risk losing Pomeranz, and while pissed off, the value didn't change much for them at all.

If the Padres gave up a player of their choice outside their top 30 to the Sox, would that be fair? And would the Sox even want it? Somehow I doubt it.

 

[PudgeFIST]

If the Padres gave up a player of their choice outside their top 30 to the Sox, would that be fair? And would the Sox even want it? Somehow I doubt it.

Ultimately the angry part of me still just wants
Espinoza back. It would send a powerful message,
As the punishment to the Sox clearly was meant to.
(They could have just granted the players freedom to get top dollar, which still would have been pretty harsh)

But nothing? Not a SD 2nd round draft pick, not "you have to pay Pomerance's salary for this year", not a $1mil donation to the jimmy fund?..............nothing?
How does that work for anybody but the actual perpetrators of the "crime"??

Who was the "judge", the guy who let that rapist off easy?

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Ultimately the angry part of me still just wants
Espinoza back. It would send a powerful message,
As the punishment to the Sox clearly was meant to.
(They could have just granted the players freedom to get top dollar, which still would have been pretty harsh)

But nothing? Not a SD 2nd round draft pick, not "you have to pay Pomerance's salary for this year", not a $1mil donation to the jimmy fund?..............nothing?
How does that work for anybody but the actual perpetrators of the "crime"??

Who was the "judge", the guy who let that rapist off easy?

You're comparing this to rape. Take a break. Go for a walk or something.

 

[EvilEmpire]

Ultimately the angry part of me still just wants
Espinoza back. It would send a powerful message,
As the punishment to the Sox clearly was meant to.
(They could have just granted the players freedom to get top dollar, which still would have been pretty harsh)

But nothing? Not a SD 2nd round draft pick, not "you have to pay Pomerance's salary for this year", not a $1mil donation to the jimmy fund?..............nothing?
How does that work for anybody but the actual perpetrators of the "crime"??

Who was the "judge", the guy who let that rapist off easy?

1) Yes, I'm sure some fans would love to keep Pomeranz and get Espinoza back. That would be a tremendous windfall for the Sox.
2) It seems obvious that MLB doesn't see much severity in the "crime" specific to the Red Sox. But other teams are also involved, and I'm sure we see more penalties for the Padres.
3) Using rape imagery to make a point on something like this is disgusting. You should think about that.

 

[TSC]

Ultimately the angry part of me still just wants
Espinoza back. It would send a powerful message,
As the punishment to the Sox clearly was meant to.
(They could have just granted the players freedom to get top dollar, which still would have been pretty harsh)

But nothing? Not a SD 2nd round draft pick, not "you have to pay Pomerance's salary for this year", not a $1mil donation to the jimmy fund?..............nothing?
How does that work for anybody but the actual perpetrators of the "crime"??

Who was the "judge", the guy who let that rapist off easy?

This is solid messageboarding. A+ stuff here - from the misspelling of Pomeranz, to the near Godwin at the end. Quality all around.

 

[johnnywayback]

I think defining the degree of harm is pretty tough if the Sox are unwilling to reverse the trade and are determined to keep the player. Quantifying the lost opportunity cost is also tough. I suspect the Red Sox discovered the issue shortly after Pomeranz reported. If so, how much is a few days of opportunity cost worth? Why not reverse the trade and come up with a new agreement? I think the answer is that the Sox didn't want to risk losing Pomeranz, and while pissed off, the value didn't change much for them at all.

If the Padres gave up a player of their choice outside their top 30 to the Sox, would that be fair? And would the Sox even want it? Somehow I doubt it.

Only part of this is about the degree of harm done to the Red Sox. Part of it is about the Padres suffering for cheating.

On the first part, I think you could make an argument that merely offering the Red Sox the chance to reverse the trade would be the best you could do to make the Red Sox whole. And, by the way, it's possible that MLB asked the Red Sox that, and that they said no, as well they should have, given the timing. Which sucks for us, but trying to negotiate some kind of fair extra compensation seems fraught with difficulty and complication. So maybe we just get screwed here. And, whatever.

But that doesn't mean the Padres shouldn't pay a meaningful price for causing the whole mess anyway. I'd dock them a first-round pick for each trade, frankly, but if MLB feels like that's too much to do to a struggling small-market franchise, I'd settle for just docking them their 2017 first-round pick to account for all of it. And it's insane, given that this wasn't just lazy bookkeeping but a deliberate withholding of the single most important fact about Drew Pomeranz's health (that he had elbow pain), that they're getting off scot-free.

 

[bankshot1]

SD got the #15 ranked prospect (by BA) in MLB for a sore-elbowed pitcher. and it only cost them 1/12 of their GM's salary. Would their return have been as great if they had disclosed all pertinent information? I think it about impossible to believe it would have been if all the risk factors had been disclosed.

I really do not know the extent of the harm to the Sox, but in many regards it is irrelevant. The larger issue is the deception of the Padres. And as best as I can tell their penalty is not paying the GM for 30 days. Where's the penalty for cheating. Where's the deterrent? And deterrents probably work when the penalty (risk) exceeds the possible gain (reward) Not the other way around..

 

[EvilEmpire]

But that doesn't mean the Padres shouldn't pay a meaningful price for causing the whole mess anyway. I'd dock them a first-round pick for each trade, frankly, but if MLB feels like that's too much to do to a struggling small-market franchise, I'd settle for just docking them their 2017 first-round pick to account for all of it. And it's insane, given that this wasn't just lazy bookkeeping but a deliberate withholding of the single most important fact about Drew Pomeranz's health (that he had elbow pain), that they're getting off scot-free.

I agree that the Padres organization should face stiff sanctions from MLB. I'm curious what the rest of the penalties will be.

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.

 

[Gdiguy]

Maybe I've missed a note somewhere, but what surprises me is that while the GM was suspended, I haven't seen that the trainer (Mark Rogow) who apparently instituted the policy getting any sort of penalty. If the Padres fired him, then I could understand that... but as far as I can tell there's been no penalty for him whatsoever?

 

[nothumb]

I feel like the Pads have to lose something significant in this, like a 1st rounder or so. But that doesn't get at the issue of making the Sox "whole"... maybe instead of not having to pay Preller's salary, they have to give it to Boston? Maybe the portion of their draft signing pool that corresponds to the lost pick gets re-allocated to the aggrieved teams? That sounds like it would be in the ballpark.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

What about the Sox getting AE back, with the teams agreeing on another piece going to San Diego in his place? No chance that happens, but does that sound outlandish and I'm being crazy?

 

[Rasputin]

What about the Sox getting AE back, with the teams agreeing on another piece going to San Diego in his place? No chance that happens, but does that sound outlandish and I'm being crazy?

The Padres only made the deal because it was Espinoza they wanted, so yes.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

The Padres only made the deal because it was Espinoza they wanted, so yes.

Well no shit, the idea is that they did that under ostensibly false pretenses. Can't tell if you're serious. What the Padres "wanted" isn't really the idea when you're trying to punish their lying in conducting the swap.

Anyone with a logical reason I'd still love to hear it.

 

[PudgeFIST]

This is solid messageboarding. A+ stuff here - from the misspelling of Pomeranz, to the near Godwin at the end. Quality all around.

The misspelling is more just typing in a phone and perplexing autocorrect. Lighten up.

You guys actually took that last line as comparing something to rape? Are you the type that NEEDS to find something to be appalled at and there was a "Red Alert" buzzword to glom onto? Can you read? Context? Was the reference outside of your little bubble?(there was a MAJOR story recently about a judge who sentenced a Student to a rather short amount of time for rape, and has since removed himself from criminal cases)

I was obviously comparing the
rather simple concept of "Light sentencing" .......wake up.

 

[PudgeFIST]

Well no shit, the idea is that they did that under ostensibly false pretenses. Can't tell if you're serious. What the Padres "wanted" isn't really the idea when you're trying to punish their lying in conducting the swap.

Anyone with a logical reason I'd still love to hear it.

I agree, but the people on the other side have decided that they are the logical ones, and we are just bloodthirsty dullards(who can't spell).

I wonder just how rare the air actually is up on that high horse?

 

[JohntheBaptist]

I'm not even saying it is particularly realistic as a result, but it does strike me as closer to fair--the Sox get Pomeranz and the compensation for him is "docked"--not "nothing," but less than what they got under "false pretenses" (allowing that we don't know exactly how false those pretenses were yet, story still seems hazy on what exactly was withheld).

They still get a player, just not as good a player. I'm all ears as to something I'm missing that makes that untenable but "ya but the Padres only did this because Espinoza" ain't it. Obviously.

 

[Dogman]

The misspelling is more just typing in a phone and perplexing autocorrect. Lighten up.

You guys actually took that last line as comparing something to rape? Are you the type that NEEDS to find something to be appalled at and there was a "Red Alert" buzzword to glom onto? Can you read? Context? Was the reference outside of your little bubble?(there was a MAJOR story recently about a judge who sentenced a Student to a rather short amount of time for rape, and has since removed himself from criminal cases)

I was obviously comparing the
rather simple concept of "Light sentencing" .......wake up.

This site requires a much higher standard of posting ability via sentence structure, spelling, grammar and punctuation, and logical thought process.

You appear to be very poor at all of these. I'd heed the advice of the three posters who responded to your very poor post. They are asking you for more quality thought to further this conversation. I am now doing the same.

 

[PudgeFIST]

I'm not even saying it is particularly realistic as a result, but it does strike me as closer to fair--the Sox get Pomeranz and the compensation for him is "docked"--not "nothing," but less than what they got under "false pretenses" (allowing that we don't know exactly how false those pretenses were yet, story still seems hazy on what exactly was withheld).

They still get a player, just not as good a player. I'm all ears as to something I'm missing that makes that untenable but "ya but the Padres only did this because Espinoza" ain't it. Obviously.

100% in agreement. I'm not familiar enough with the players that got returned in the Miami deal, but just because that happened doesn't mean it was even "equitable". Its more than possible Florida made out on that reversal. If they didn't, wouldn't you think there'd be a bigger stink?

 

[Rasputin]

Well no shit, the idea is that they did that under ostensibly false pretenses. Can't tell if you're serious. What the Padres "wanted" isn't really the idea when you're trying to punish their lying in conducting the swap.

Anyone with a logical reason I'd still love to hear it.

You asked if the teams could agree to some other trade package. The answer is no because they weren't interested in any trade package that didn't involve Espinoza, so shove your attitude right back up your ass.

 

[PudgeFIST]

You asked if the teams could agree to some other trade package. The answer is no because they weren't interested in any trade package that didn't involve Espinoza, so shove your attitude right back up your ass.

Because you were in on every phone call between the two teams? I'll speculate as strongly as the next guy, but running your mouth in a forum as if you know it as absolute fact is next level arrogance.

Or does having 20,000 posts and being the resident forum hit man mean facts don't matter?
With the actual "facts" being something that not a single one of us are privy to.

 

[bankshot1]

You asked if the teams could agree to some other trade package. The answer is no because they weren't interested in any trade package that didn't involve Espinoza, so shove your attitude right back up your ass.

The problem with that line of reasoning is, could the Padres have successfully negotiated with any team (not just the Sox for Espinoza) if they disclosed the elbow red-flag. They chose not to disclose the medical information to boost the trade value. If the information was known, perhaps a #10-25 prospect would not have been offered by anyone, and the relevant range value might have been #50-75. But we will never know. But I do think this approach might have been examined by MLB in addressing redress.

 

[Dogman]

You asked if the teams could agree to some other trade package. The answer is no because they weren't interested in any trade package that didn't involve Espinoza, so shove your attitude right back up your ass.

I largely agree with you but, like everything else in baseball and life, it is never this absolute and part of JtB's point.

Cut the shit with the last line.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

What's galling is that there was the opposite of punishment for this action.

Yeh, Preller loses 1/12 of his salary, which goes right back into the Padres' pocket. It's like a "reverse fine". The organization makes money on the deal and Preller's not available during an inconsequential time of year (and is likely still 'working from home' regardless).

That's what's remarkable.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

The Red Sox should have the option of reversing the trade after the season is over. That gets rid of the pennant race and trade deadline angles that made it impossible for Boston to want the trade to be voided in August.

 

[EvilEmpire]

The Red Sox should have the option of reversing the trade after the season is over. That gets rid of the pennant race and trade deadline angles that made it impossible for Boston to want the trade to be voided in August.

There is no way MLB could allow that. Pomeranz could slip walking into the dugout tomorrow and get a serious injury. Then everything turns into even more of a shitshow. The time to talk to MLB about reversing the trade or doing something different was when it was first discovered. I'm thinking there had to be some kind of discussion with MLB about the Sox's options when this was first reported.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

You asked if the teams could agree to some other trade package. The answer is no because they weren't interested in any trade package that didn't involve Espinoza, so shove your attitude right back up your ass.

The "teams agreeing" would obviously be after it was determined that the Padres would be forced to do so as per a punishment, ie, "agree" because the replacement player wouldn't be determined for them, but "agreed" to once that was determined to be the punitive action.

It is ten different kinds of odd you're hung up on it not making sense because the Padres would only want the one player. They're getting punished, that's kind of the point here.

And I'd love to but it won't fit. I'll tread more lightly toward your sensibilities next time. Would just be easier if you thought it through for a second before the declarative stuff, but leopards and spots, I know.