I think they had a hearing over it. One team was dealing with street agents, I think the Cubs, while the Giants were dealing by text with what they believed to be their registered agent. Cubs win. Hopefully their last one for a while.

I doubt it, but it will be extremely interesting to see how the Cubs move their glut of young talent. At some point, the game changes from "Develop the kids" to win now. They already have an AL team where they need a DH to really field their whole team, but soon pieces are going to have to move.

Re: Reinsdorf and the spending limits, let's be clear that the way the Cubs and some others are doing it is not cheating. Breaking the rules implies that they have acted against them. The Cubs and their ilk are acting within the rules, which specify various consequences when you spend beyond the limit. They think it is better to do it this way and the rules allow them to. Jerry can do this as well and I would imagine the reason he doesn't do that is because it is very expensive and very risky, two things he really has never supported in terms of amateur players.

 

They did break the rules. They just don't care about the consequences.

They did break the rules. They just don't care about the consequences.

 

I disagree. They are dealing with the consequences of spending over allotted/recommended money. It's like the luxury tax in basketball. You can go over it, but there will be ramifications if you do. In the end, you don't lose players nor is it considered cheating.

As Donald Trump would say, about declaring bankruptcy 3 or 4 times, he was only taking advantage of the system as it was constituted.

 

Now, of course, the system often works to the advantage of the large market teams, just as it does to the billionaires who can hire lobbyists to influence the legislation that eventually protects them.

 

Did he break the rules? Of course not. As long as the consequence for declaring bankruptcy or overspending on Latin American talent isn't too onerous, teams will continue to do so.

 

Is it immoral or unethical or somehow inherently "unfair"? Well, that's a much tougher question to answer. Just like giving teams like the Tigers and Cardinals competitive balance picks when they both operate much more like a large market team than the Sox over the last decade or so.

Yeah seriously, they haven't done that since... oh wait...

 

Carlos Rodon.

Carlos Rodon.

 

 

Aka 1 Keppinger or Bonifacio at $800k x 5-6 Rodon overages.

 

Color me blown away. Was there any other choice dealing with Boras where they would dare not sign him?

 

Just the cost of doing business at the top of the draft and not some radical or newfangled trend.

 

 

And Abreu or Rodon have little or nothing to do with investing in guys like Yoan Moncada or Eloy Jimenez or Eddy Julio Ramirez that are under the age limit.

Edited October 20, 201510 yr by caulfield12

Aka 1 Keppinger or Bonifacio at $800k x 5-6 Rodon overages.

 

Color me blown away. Was there any other choice dealing with Boras where they would dare not sign him?

 

Just the cost of doing business at the top of the draft and not some radical or newfangled trend.

 

Nice move of the goal posts + name drops. No, plenty of other teams go underslot with their top picks.

Nice move of the goal posts + name drops. No, plenty of other teams go underslot with their top picks.

 

Yeah, like the Cubs with Schwarber.

 

Let's see what happens to the 3-4 young pitchers they were consequently able to afford in the first ten rounds and compare it with Spencer Adams in three seasons.

Houston didn't draft Rodon or Kris Bryant so they could have a few more dollars to go around. If they actually did draft the best player available, they might still be playing right now.

Or perhaps if Appel developed quickly enough to be used in their bullpen...

 

The problem wasn't offense or starting pitching, it was defense and the bullpen having no flamethrowers who could avoid pitching to contact.

Edited October 20, 201510 yr by caulfield12

Yeah, like the Cubs with Schwarber.

 

Let's see what happens to the 3-4 young pitchers they were consequently able to afford in the first ten rounds and compare it with Spencer Adams in three seasons.

 

So now you are arguing that is OK to go under?

In the draft now you have a set amount of $$ to spend. so who cares if you go over/under on any one pick in particular as long as you use all the money you are able to.

In the draft now you have a set amount of $$ to spend. so who cares if you go over/under on any one pick in particular as long as you use all the money you are able to.

 

because this could affect negotiations with a later pick, thats why teams care

so what is the right strategy then?

so what is the right strategy then?

 

strategies change with drafts, there shouldnt be a blanket strategy for every draft. Sometimes special talents are identified that you have to shell out a little bit more money than you anticipated, and you have to lowball other picks in order to retain the guy.

strategies change with drafts, there shouldnt be a blanket strategy for every draft

 

that is exactly my point. because a team went over/under on a pick means nothing in isolation about whether it was dumb/smart/cheap/aggressive, whatever.

 

that is exactly my point. because a team went over/under on a pick means nothing in isolation about whether it was dumb/smart/cheap/aggressive, whatever.

 

thats not quite the same as "who cares how much you spend on any one player"

that is exactly my point. because a team went over/under on a pick means nothing in isolation about whether it was dumb/smart/cheap/aggressive, whatever.

I still think you pick the best player available. Very rarely do teams have more than 2 or 3 players in the same draft wind up with more than a 1.0 career WAR. This saving money for the 7th or 8th round I would bet hasn't been so fruitful. If from what we are told when we mention the Samardzija comp pick, that it is not so valuable, it has to be more valuable than the guys teams lowball their #1 pick to sign later, and lowballing a pick could mean you wind up with Mark Appel and not Kris Bryant, and Brady Aiken instead of Carlos Rodon. While a couple of people here say it was no big deal, if the White Sox did that, it would mean everyone who has ever even thought about working for the White Sox should be fired.

Nick Hostetler does have that job for a reason, now.

 

Obviously Buddy Bell is still in his job, so the talent selectors are being blamed more than the coaches/development side, rightly or wrongly, guess we'll know more in 5-7 years what kind of difference it will actually make.

 

 

I still think you pick the best player available. Very rarely do teams have more than 2 or 3 players in the same draft wind up with more than a 1.0 career WAR. This saving money for the 7th or 8th round I would bet hasn't been so fruitful. If from what we are told when we mention the Samardzija comp pick, that it is not so valuable, it has to be more valuable than the guys teams lowball their #1 pick to sign later, and lowballing a pick could mean you wind up with Mark Appel and not Kris Bryant, and Brady Aiken instead of Carlos Rodon. While a couple of people here say it was no big deal, if the White Sox did that, it would mean everyone who has ever even thought about working for the White Sox should be fired.

 

They didn't lowball when they drafted Appel. They just flat out missed that pick. And going low worked great for the Astros in 2012 when they got Correa with the first overall pick and then were able to get McCullers with their compensation pick. Last year I would have taken Rodon if I was them but there were a lot of people that loved Aiken. It just sucks for the Astros that he has elbow issues. I agree with you that passing up on a premium talent to save money is in most instances is a mistake but I don't think that is really what happened in the Astros' case.

They didn't lowball when they drafted Appel. They just flat out missed that pick. And going low worked great for the Astros in 2012 when they got Correa with the first overall pick and then were able to get McCullers with their compensation pick. Last year I would have taken Rodon if I was them but there were a lot of people that loved Aiken. It just sucks for the Astros that he has elbow issues. I agree with you that passing up on a premium talent to save money is in most instances is a mistake but I don't think that is really what happened in the Astros' case.

They lowballed Appel. He signed for well under slot, as he had no leverage. Bryant would have cost the slot and then some., and Rodon was going to cost the slot and then some. Aiken originally agreed to below slot.

Edited October 20, 201510 yr by Dick Allen

I disagree. They are dealing with the consequences of spending over allotted/recommended money. It's like the luxury tax in basketball. You can go over it, but there will be ramifications if you do. In the end, you don't lose players nor is it considered cheating.

 

I didn't say they cheated. Cheating is trying to get away with something WITHOUT suffering the consequences. Are you not breaking the law when you speed, simply because you don't care about paying the speeding ticket? Doesn't mean you are cheating the law, it just means you don't care if you get penalized.