Yu Darvish

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:51 pm

We changed the draft date the following, but we never voted on changing the date for Japanese or Cuban players, and we definitely didn't announce anything to the league. Pat is correct it looks like.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:41 am

Because we made an announcement earlier that Darvish and others were out and have not yet reversed that and during that period J.P. has acquired the top pick, I believe we cannot now reverse the decision... Even if it was done in error.

Let me first say this to J.P., I have no reason to doubt your integrity or not trust you, and I do not believe you acted in a sneaky or devious way in acquiring the pick. I hope that this issue does not negatively effect our relationship, which is important to me.

Since the first announcement was made there has been some comments on the forum, but the last comment by Dan is still working under the assumption that it stands. I believe the majority of the league still believes Darvish and others are out. If we were to announce a change at a time when one of us has, or is about to acquire the top pick it would look like an abuse of power.

If we had announced the change Nick, who owned the top pick would no doubt have receive several offers for it. It is that lack of opportunity for the others in the league that is my concern.

We on the exco knew we were likely going to reverse the decision because of some past communications, the rest of the league (except Nick) did not know that.

Because of these issues and the appearance irregularities I will not support reversing the initial announcement.

Sorry J.P., but trust me... my second job makes me quite aware of how things can be perceived.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:10 pm

Ken, if we're talking about things that could be seen as abuses of power, your actions last year with Houston while on the TRC, namely vetoing Gabe's CJ Wilson deal and dealing for Wilson as soon as the trade was vetoed, that was a lot worse than JP dealing for the #1 pick, which involves him trading up a whole 3 spots in the draft.

We had the rule wrong. It was pointed out by a non ExCo member who actually looked at the rules, something we didn't do. Now these guys are in. I know JP and Nick have been discussing a deal for a while because I've checked in on the #1 pick before as well. You've always been banging the drum that we can't change the rule right before the draft. Well, banning these guys now would be doing just that. Everything here is above board, if we want to look into changes after the draft then so be it, but Darvish and Cespedes are in.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:18 pm

My actions were fine and proven to be way above board... nice distraction technique though.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:30 pm

Back to the issue... We made the announcement the guys were out and never made the announcement they were back in... therein lies the problem. As far as most of the league is concerned they are still out because no additional announcement has been made. So go ahead and make another one now putting them back in and lets see how the reactions are from the rest of the league. I'm predicting two resignations, but I could be way off base, and hope that I am.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:39 pm

So had anybody else traded for the pick, then it'd be ok for the rule to be reversed, that's basically what you're saying. Which is unbelievably unfair. How much discussion has taken place in the ExCo forum about this versus the open forum? Hardly any. I said I think we f'd up in here, Brett said "we didn't reverse it?," and you said "well I wasn't on ExCo then."

I had been in discussion ever since I got Jennings for the pick. That includes before and after the announcement was made.

The great thing about ExCo is supposed to be that there's six members on it, so that there's really no way to abuse power.

"Nick would no doubt have received several offers for it." Really? So why weren't people asking beforehand for the pick? He's had it for awhile.

I also don't really know what past communications you're talking about. IM conversations? Those were all brought to light by Pat's posts, which, are in the open. You also said to me that people view me as the leader since I make most of the announcements, which is fine, but if that's the case, then I also posted in that thread that, "I actually believe Pat is correct and that we made an error in our last ExCo discussion."

And that was on Tuesday, prior to acquiring the pick. It's not an announcement, no, because half the time getting everybody to vote on things is like pulling teeth. Didn't we say in the Houston GM thread that we just need to vote on it and be done with it and I said I think he should go, Aaron said the same, Shawn said we'd better have good GM options, Aaron brought up Pat G and then it's been radio silence. And that's with the last post on Monday, Dec 12.

But hey, since this involves me, I'll recant myself from the vote on this one. But if people are really going to quit because I traded for a draft pick then I really have to wonder if I should be trusted to sim.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:53 pm

Pirates wrote:The great thing about ExCo is supposed to be that there's six members on it, so that there's really no way to abuse power.

"Nick would no doubt have received several offers for it." Really? So why weren't people asking beforehand for the pick? He's had it for awhile.

But if people are really going to quit because I traded for a draft pick then I really have to wonder if I should be trusted to sim.

First I did not say you abused power, I said it would look that way to others.

Nick would certainly receive more offers when a major league ready SP is available as the top choice, which most believed was not the case.

Like it or not there is some resentment within the league and this kind of thing may make it worse.

Finally it is not about me trusting you, because I do. I will back you and the rest of the exco whatever decision is made because we are a team. I just want to be sure whatever decision we make is the right one for the league.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:54 pm

I have brought it up to several GMs and nobody seems to have any type of issue with it. In fact, one e-mailed me to say:

I'd think moving up to #1 from #4 would be more valuable under the 12/31 drop dead signing cutoff than under the actual rules. Without the foreign pros there is less talent available at every pick slot on down the line. As I understand it, now that you have the #1 someone wants to enforce the 'reminder' instead of using the actual rules and leave less talent available to everyone else in the draft? Is that right? That's either retarded or I'm confused. With the #1 you'd benefit from the 12/31 plan, with the #4 you're much better off using the real rules.

Granted, I have only talked to three others about this, but it looks like you're making a mountain out of a pile of dirt, all because I traded for the pick and not somebody like Gabe or Hamlin.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 11:51 pm

Cardinals wrote:We had the rule wrong. It was pointed out by a non ExCo member who actually looked at the rules, something we didn't do. Now these guys are in.

Yeah. I think we should further modify the rule, as I always have, but the timetable would have to be between now and next ASB and for the next draft.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:03 pm

Shawn, Jim? Right now it's 2-1 in favor of allowing Darvish/Cespedes et al for being in the draft this year and following the current rules rather than our reminder.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:46 pm

I'm done traveling for now...I've been kind of torn between the two sides here.

My main concern is that there's no way that we can push through a rules change to the draft two weeks before it, which our original vote apparently did (the written rules have long been outdated, nobody has maintained them unfortunately). As such, I think we have no choice but to recall our last statement and keep status quo (regardless of JP's trade, which I'm not convinced is actually significant to this discussion).

I hope that this a wake-up call that we need to review the rules, get an up to date version posted and then keep them up to date with any changes in the future. Also, any desired changes to the draft should also be discussed (I think I'm okay with changing the rules to Japanese free agents or players that are posted after the start of the draft are ineligible, but those who have been posted already should be included in the draft as they always have been).

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 5:33 pm

Dodgers wrote:I'm done traveling for now...I've been kind of torn between the two sides here.

My main concern is that there's no way that we can push through a rules change to the draft two weeks before it, which our original vote apparently did (the written rules have long been outdated, nobody has maintained them unfortunately). As such, I think we have no choice but to recall our last statement and keep status quo (regardless of JP's trade, which I'm not convinced is actually significant to this discussion).

I hope that this a wake-up call that we need to review the rules, get an up to date version posted and then keep them up to date with any changes in the future. Also, any desired changes to the draft should also be discussed (I think I'm okay with changing the rules to Japanese free agents or players that are posted after the start of the draft are ineligible, but those who have been posted already should be included in the draft as they always have been).

I am pretty much in accord with this ... Ken did a nice job on the revised announcement.

On a personal basis I am disappointed that I did not check the rules and instead went on personal recall and I do apologize for that. As an aside, I am pissed that my failure to do so gave our former Commissioner, now a wise ass "do-nothing" GM, the opportunity to take a cheap shot ...

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:48 pm

There's nothing I'd enjoy more than firing one across Bren's bow, if you want me to Jim I will commence firing

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:57 pm

2011 and early 2012 are kind of a blur for me, but I think we might have screwed up on this again by not completely resolving it? Tanaka's eligibility for this draft is obviously the question, and I may be missing something, but this post from Ken is the last announcement I see.

viewtopic.php?t=3865

It says that we are allowing Cubans and foreign professionals in if they sign right up to the season start but that we will review and advise for future drafts.

I think we also never updated the rule from the old standard for professionals (see below).

Hopefully I'm just missing some subsequent communication, but if not what do you guys think is our best course of action? I don't see how we can exclude Tanaka if we've never announced updates to the rules or Ken's announcement.

At the same time, I believe our vote at the time internally was to change the rule so that everyone who is going to be eligible for the draft has to sign by the end of December 31 PT. I still think that should be the rule moving forward and would be in favor of setting that rule for future drafts if we haven't already.

VIII. Drafts

1. Annual Rookie Draft
A. Prior to the start of each season a universal new player draft will
be held. The order will be determined by the records of the teams from
the previous season with the worst team picking first. Teams that made
the playoffs will pick last in order of round of elimination. Ties
will be broken by Pythagorean winning percentage, head to head record
and then finally record in the last ten days of the season.
B. Players subject to the draft will include any player who had not
been part of an MLB organization before the start of the prior
calendar year. (EXAMPLE: If a player had not been signed to a contract
prior to 2006 then he is eligible for the IBC 2006 draft, which is
held in January 2007).
1. Following the completion of the IBC draft, any players who were
drafted by or signed to a contract by an MLB team during the prior
calendar year (in 2006 for the example above) or earlier may be signed
as free agents.
2. A player will be returned to the draft pool for the next season
under the following conditions. If the player is a Cuban defector or
is from another professional league such as Japan, Korea or Mexico and
does not sign a contract with an MLB team by opening day (Opening Day
of the 2007 season in the example above). If the does not fall under
the exception above, he must have signed a contract with an MLB team
prior to January first of that year (prior to January 1st of 2007 in
the example above).
C. The draft will continue for as many rounds as members wish to
participate. Once a member misses a pick, he will be skipped from
there on out unless they clearly indicate an interest and dedication
to continue to draft.
D. Drafted Players are also not tradable until after a GM stops drafting.
2. Minidrafts for New Members
A. All new members may be subject to a minidraft. In the minidraft,
all players from the teams belonging to the new members will be placed
into a pool. The new members will then draft from that pool to
assemble their team. Draft order will be determined at random by the
ExCo prior to the draft. Current members may also be permitted to join
the minidraft if they so choose.

viewtopic.php?t=45

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:33 pm

I agree it doesn't look like we posted a ruling. I don't think it would be that crazy to exclude Tanaka because I don't think any moves have been made on the basis of him coming over like there had been in previous years.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Wed Dec 25, 2013 4:44 pm

12/31 is correct

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Dec 26, 2013 5:36 pm

We never formally changed any rules. I think Tanaka and other NPB players and Cubans should be subject to the same draft rules that they have been for the past few years -- Opening Day for their deadline, 12/31 for teenage foreign players and draftees.