IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )


11 Pages V  « < 9 10 11  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Sox not in teams watching Otani
Y2JImmy0
post Sep 14, 2017 -> 10:25 AM
Post #151


MVP
*********

Group: FutureSox Writer
Posts: 7,321
Joined: November 27, 2008
Member No.: 7,420



I wrote about Otani for FutureSox here: http://www.chicagonow.com/future-sox/2017/...-the-white-sox/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ptatc
post Sep 14, 2017 -> 10:34 AM
Post #152


Hall of Famer
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,954
Joined: February 3, 2005
From: sec 162 row 1
Member No.: 2,068



QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 09:25 AM) *
I can't help but think that with every potential advantage that the Sox might use to sell this team, there are multiple other teams who could offer better. If he wanted to go to a team that liked Japanese players, but can't offer money, why not LA? They worshiped Hideo Nomo. They have also signed a lot more Japanese players and have a bigger Japanese population base than Chicago does.

I believe I said some teams. Not all. LAD has that same advantage as the Sox. Your question "why not LA" could be said "why not the sox" from this point of view.

The difference in the money between the teams in this first contract is inconsequential to the next contract. It will be interesting how he chooses the first contract.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dam8610
post Sep 14, 2017 -> 02:50 PM
Post #153


Chat Crew Member
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,046
Joined: March 20, 2005
Member No.: 2,147



QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 08:37 AM) *
Cespedes signed his contract before the most recent CBA -- things are radically different now. All players under 25 that don't go through the draft are now subject to International Signing Bonus limitations AND those limitations are now hard caps instead of harsh penalties. Manfred has expressly said that anything that they consider to be "circumventing the spending limit" will be grounds for voiding the contract.


Here's a question: What if some team did violate the rules to get him to sign, he plays in MLB for a year, then his contract is voided? He's already a member of the player's union at that point. Does the voided contract make him a free agent? If so, is he still subject to the same restrictive rules? Would anything prevent him from resigning with the team with which he'd just played a full season? Could a voided contract be Otani's way around the new restrictive rules, allowing him to get the best of all worlds (enter MLB at 23, get mega deal at 24)?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southsider2k5
post Sep 14, 2017 -> 02:55 PM
Post #154


Soxtalk Group Thinker
******************

Group: Admin
Posts: 141,688
Joined: March 26, 2003
From: Michigan City, IN
Member No.: 298



QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 03:50 PM) *
Here's a question: What if some team did violate the rules to get him to sign, he plays in MLB for a year, then his contract is voided? He's already a member of the player's union at that point. Does the voided contract make him a free agent? If so, is he still subject to the same restrictive rules? Would anything prevent him from resigning with the team with which he'd just played a full season? Could a voided contract be Otani's way around the new restrictive rules, allowing him to get the best of all worlds (enter MLB at 23, get mega deal at 24)?


When MLB voided the Boston contracts, they also banned them from international signings for a period of time. My guess would be that it won't be the initial contract that would be a problem, it would be any additional extension which would come later.

But if it were proven that the initial contract violated the rules, yes they could void it and make him a free agent again, and block the violating team from signing him again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ptatc
post Sep 14, 2017 -> 03:36 PM
Post #155


Hall of Famer
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,954
Joined: February 3, 2005
From: sec 162 row 1
Member No.: 2,068



QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 03:55 PM) *
When MLB voided the Boston contracts, they also banned them from international signings for a period of time. My guess would be that it won't be the initial contract that would be a problem, it would be any additional extension which would come later.

But if it were proven that the initial contract violated the rules, yes they could void it and make him a free agent again, and block the violating team from signing him again.

Weren't the Boston contracts minor league contracts? I don't quite remember.

I think an MLB contract would be something entirely different, especially in the eyes of the Union. They would fight that with the huge amount of dollars involved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaliSoxFanViaSWs...
post Sep 14, 2017 -> 05:01 PM
Post #156


Minor League Instructor
***********

Group: Members
Posts: 12,916
Joined: August 1, 2004
From: Altadena, Ca.
Member No.: 1,677



QUOTE (ptatc @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 02:36 PM) *
Weren't the Boston contracts minor league contracts? I don't quite remember.

I think an MLB contract would be something entirely different, especially in the eyes of the Union. They would fight that with the huge amount of dollars involved.

I think you need to read the exchanges in this thread between me and SS2k5 . We went at it pretty good and discussed that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaliSoxFanViaSWs...
post Sep 14, 2017 -> 05:05 PM
Post #157


Minor League Instructor
***********

Group: Members
Posts: 12,916
Joined: August 1, 2004
From: Altadena, Ca.
Member No.: 1,677



QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 06:32 AM) *
MLB has fared EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY well in restricting earnings of players that are NOT in the Player's Union at the time of signing.

I was talking about in ancient times like in the Flood and Messersmith examples when the money damn was busted wide open.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eminor3rd
post Sep 14, 2017 -> 06:35 PM
Post #158


Hall of Famer
**********

Group: Forum Moderator
Posts: 8,130
Joined: December 10, 2009
From: Allentown, PA
Member No.: 7,886



QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 05:05 PM) *
I was talking about in ancient times like in the Flood and Messersmith examples when the money damn was busted wide open.


Right, but this is an example of the owners having JUST agreed to a new CBA that specifically restricts the earnings of the specific type of player that we're talking about here. It's so fresh and so clear, and this example is so under a microscope, it would be insane to expect them to allow it be circumvented.

Stranger things have happened, but this one would be a hail mary.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

11 Pages V  « < 9 10 11
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th September 2017 - 06:45 AM