DePaula

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:33 pm

It's rare that I agree with Jag, but I agree with him here. Tullar signed Jose DePaula, and here's what BA says about him:

Righthander Jose Rafael DePaula, who agreed to sign for a $500,000 bonus with the Yankees in November 2010, has had his visa approved by the U.S. Consulate, according to Charisse Espinosa-Dash, who is one of DePaula's representatives. DePaula is expected to travel to the United States next week for his physical, one of the final contingencies of his contract being approved and his bonus being paid.

I don't really see how it can be a valid signing if the contract hadn't been approved until now.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:39 pm

Yeah if it is just now being approved, we can't count it as a legit signing

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:15 pm

Tough one. My inclination would be to allow this signing since we haven't ruled otherwise, then to vote on when we consider a guy to have signed - when they sign or when MLB approves it.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:29 pm

Pirates wrote:It's rare that I agree with Jag, but I agree with him here. Tullar signed Jose DePaula, and here's what BA says about him:

Righthander Jose Rafael DePaula, who agreed to sign for a $500,000 bonus with the Yankees in November 2010, has had his visa approved by the U.S. Consulate, according to Charisse Espinosa-Dash, who is one of DePaula's representatives. DePaula is expected to travel to the United States next week for his physical, one of the final contingencies of his contract being approved and his bonus being paid.
I don't really see how it can be a valid signing if the contract hadn't been approved until now.

He is a 2012 signing until I see proof that he was signed earlier ... agreeing to sign and signing are two different acts. I asked Patti to marry me in 1995 and she agreed ... we got married in 1996. Same thing. If the MLB sez he signed earlier then I get on board but based on what I have seen so far his contract is effective in 2012.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:24 pm

I don't really know anything about contracts, so I don't know what the difference is between:

"signing" a player with contingencies in the contract stipulating that he must meet certain requirements for the contract to require any kind of payment or not be voided

and

"agreeing to sign" a player, contingent on meeting certain requirements (presumably before the two parties actually put pen to paper?).

I think we're getting into a real grey area by using this distinction. I'd use this Beras thing as a comparison. News entities reported that as a "signing" but it is almost exactly the same status as DePaula was in until MLB approved the deal.

Forgetting Pat's signing for a moment, I think that we need to decide whether an international player's eligibility is determined by the "signing" or MLB's approval, not by "signing" or "agreeing to sign."

If you guys disagree with that, I assume we'll negate the signing and continue trying to pick apart beat reporters' verbiage even though they probably don't understand the technicalities of contract law or the CBA.

If you do agree with it, after thinking about it a bit more I actually do think that we've set a precedent of sorts on this with Wagner Mateo. His situation was a bit different (signed a voided contract, ahem), but as of our eligibility date, he did not have an MLB-approved contract and I was therefore not allowed to retain his rights after drafting him.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:28 pm

WhiteSox wrote:He is a 2012 signing until I see proof that he was signed earlier ... agreeing to sign and signing are two different acts. I asked Patti to marry me in 1995 and she agreed ... we got married in 1996. Same thing. If the MLB sez he signed earlier then I get on board but based on what I have seen so far his contract is effective in 2012.

I don't know what your answer to this will be, so I'm just curious. If you and Patti signed your wedding license and went to the courthouse and submitted your paperwork on Thursday the first of March, said your vows on Saturday the third of March, and the state processed your license on Monday the fifth of March, on what day would you celebrate your anniversary? The fifth?

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:06 am

My initial thought was that this seemed open and shut, the contract wasn't approved yet so he's not eligible to be signed. However I agree we're getting into a very gray area and am beginning to think that the only solution is to restrict the eligibility to sign these foreign guys.

Interestingly, Rotoworld has him listed as "International Player", not "Yankees", and his latest player note seems damning: According to Ben Nicholson-Smith of MLB Trade Rumors, Dominican right-hander Rafael DePaula has finally obtained a work visa.
The Yankees agreed to sign DePaula way back in November of 2010. He worked out at the team's academy in the Dominican Republic last season, but his pro career has been on hold because his contract isn't yet official. DePaula, who turns 21 this month, was previously suspended by MLB in 2009 after lying about his age and identity. Mar 22 - 3:08 PM

Not official contract and agreement to sign both seem to point to invalidating this signing.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 7:15 am

Rangers wrote:
WhiteSox wrote:He is a 2012 signing until I see proof that he was signed earlier ... agreeing to sign and signing are two different acts. I asked Patti to marry me in 1995 and she agreed ... we got married in 1996. Same thing. If the MLB sez he signed earlier then I get on board but based on what I have seen so far his contract is effective in 2012.
I don't know what your answer to this will be, so I'm just curious. If you and Patti signed your wedding license and went to the courthouse and submitted your paperwork on Thursday the first of March, said your vows on Saturday the third of March, and the state processed your license on Monday the fifth of March, on what day would you celebrate your anniversary? The fifth?

The 3rd ...

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:42 am

Ben Badler sent Tullar this email when asked about it:

Hi Pat,

That's a terrific question about DePaula's service time, and I will have to check on the exact answer about how many years the Yankees will get until they have to put him on the 40-man roster because I am not certain what the rule is in such an unusual case. However, DePaula's signing date is still November 2010, for a $500,000 bonus. Once he passes his physical, his contract should be complete, but that's only an enforcement of the same contract they agreed to in Nov. 2010, which will still be his signing date.

--
Ben Badler

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:00 am

If this is true that his signing date is Nov. 2010, then we have to hold up the signing, as much as I don't want to. Our rules don't have any contingency plans built into them for contracts,

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:10 pm

Assume you mean uphold? Agree that if signing date is 2010 then P can sign him, but what do we do until we come up with a date for sure? P keeps him on roster or retains right of first refusal if proven to be eligible?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:42 pm

That's what I get for waking up too early. Yeah, Uphold

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:11 pm

Dodgers wrote:Assume you mean uphold? Agree that if signing date is 2010 then P can sign him, but what do we do until we come up with a date for sure? P keeps him on roster or retains right of first refusal if proven to be eligible?

He keeps him as a -0- player unless the date is later revised ... no reason to let him have rights to 41 players.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:10 am

WhiteSox wrote:
Dodgers wrote:Assume you mean uphold? Agree that if signing date is 2010 then P can sign him, but what do we do until we come up with a date for sure? P keeps him on roster or retains right of first refusal if proven to be eligible?
He keeps him as a -0- player unless the date is later revised ... no reason to let him have rights to 41 players.

Sounds like a good solution. I apologize for being absent regarding this, been incredibly busy.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:02 pm

Guys, Badler's response does not change the fact that the main issue here is whether we make an international signing eligible based on when the team signs him or when MLB approves.

MLB just approved the signing. There are other players in limbo this same way who suddenly become eligible if we allow this signing - and if we allow this signing, we are effectively changing our precedent set in the Wagner Mateo case. All of that is fine and I can see a good case made either way, but we need to realize that we're setting new precedent, put clear language in the rules, and inform the league of the new rule.

As far as "draft" year, why don't we just make him a -10- unless and until we find that he can be an -11- or -12-? Seems extra punitive to make him a -0- when the one thing we know is that he's not a -0-, doesn't it? It's not like Pat has done anything wrong here.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:54 pm

Here's a proposal for a rule moving forward, which doesn't really conflict with what we've done in the past:

If a signing is announced in Year 1, a team is free to draft or create that player in Year 2. However, if it comes to light that the deal was voided or MLB did not approve the deal until Year 2 such that the player never actually became an official member (employee) of an MLB organization, the signing team loses his rights, the player is deleted from the DB, and the player becomes eligible for Year 2's draft, which begins on January 1 of Year 3.

Under this rule, DePaula would be eligible for the 2012 draft. To me, this would only be further clarification of how we've essentially interpreted things in the past (again, using Mateo as an example).

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:58 pm

Rangers wrote:Here's a proposal for a rule moving forward, which doesn't really conflict with what we've done in the past:

If a signing is announced in Year 1, a team is free to draft or create that player in Year 2. However, if it comes to light that the deal was voided or MLB did not approve the deal until Year 2 such that the player never actually became an official member (employee) of an MLB organization, the signing team loses his rights, the player is deleted from the DB, and the player becomes eligible for Year 2's draft, which begins on January 1 of Year 3.

Under this rule, DePaula would be eligible for the 2012 draft. To me, this would only be further clarification of how we've essentially interpreted things in the past (again, using Mateo as an example).

I like this.

My main hangup after thinking about this whole situation is that, sure, DePaula agreed to, maybe even actually physically signed the contract in 2010. We don't know, but his signing date will end up being 2010 -- whatever. He wasn't able at all to appear in a game for the Yankees last year, and he's never been able to be placed on a roster. He was not an employee of the Yankees, like Brett said.

I don't really think allowing the signing would be in the spirit of the rule that we've used for years.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:09 pm

Okay, I don't really remember the Wagner Mateo situation, but that seems like a reasonable resolution to the problem.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:12 pm

Rangers wrote:As far as "draft" year, why don't we just make him a -10- unless and until we find that he can be an -11- or -12-? Seems extra punitive to make him a -0- when the one thing we know is that he's not a -0-, doesn't it? It's not like Pat has done anything wrong here.

Sorry about the -0- ... my mistake as I have been busy with family stuff this weekend and simply forgot that we haven't had the draft of -12- players yet ... Brett is correct.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:13 pm

Rangers wrote:Here's a proposal for a rule moving forward, which doesn't really conflict with what we've done in the past:

If a signing is announced in Year 1, a team is free to draft or create that player in Year 2. However, if it comes to light that the deal was voided or MLB did not approve the deal until Year 2 such that the player never actually became an official member (employee) of an MLB organization, the signing team loses his rights, the player is deleted from the DB, and the player becomes eligible for Year 2's draft, which begins on January 1 of Year 3.

Under this rule, DePaula would be eligible for the 2012 draft. To me, this would only be further clarification of how we've essentially interpreted things in the past (again, using Mateo as an example).

I concur with this proposal and resolution.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:00 pm

Ken, Aaron, are you on board with Brett's proposal?

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:08 pm

Yes, totally. Brett is the voice of logic and reason.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:23 pm

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:29 pm

Tullar is fine with our ruling, but offered this advice:

I was thinking about it while I was working and I think the easiest way to do it would be to invoke the Dave Taylor clause. Simply say that there was confusion as to DePaula's eligibility to be signed in the IBC and the ExCo has decided that it's in the league's best interest as far as fair play and competitive balance goes for everyone to get a shot at him, not just the pushy prospect whores, and he's going to go into next year's draft. Simple. No trying to write new rules and like I said earlier, hopefuly we won't have to deal with it again.

He also wants Grimm back, which Ken agreed to. But Ken also wants Blevins back, who Nate claimed, so I'll reverse that as well.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:07 pm

Looks like too much of a hassle regarding Blevins. Lets leave him on the Astros and I will fill the spot later. I shouldve been paying better attention on Grimm.

IBC

DePaula

DePaula

Re: DePaula

Re: DePaula

Re: DePaula