Paxton

Moderator: Executive Committee

Post Reply
User avatar
Cardinals
Posts: 7787
Joined: Sat May 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Manch Vegas, CT
Name: John Paul Starkey

Paxton

Post by Cardinals »

Leave it to Bren.

Bren's challenging the fact that Brennan signed Paxton - given the fact that Paxton signed after January 1, but was drafted last year. He had the extended window to sign.

I don't really see how this is an issue. Paxton was drafted in '10. I was under the impression we were using Jan 1 as the cutoff for international signees, not amateur draftees as well.
12, 14, 15, 17, 22
Top
User avatar
Rangers
Site Admin
Posts: 3939
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:00 am
Location: Prosper, TX
Name: Brett Perryman

Post by Rangers »

Yep, our Jan 1 deadline has nothing to do with draftees.
Top
User avatar
Astros
Posts: 3066
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Location: PHX
Name: Ty Bradley

Post by Astros »

allow it
Top
User avatar
Reds
Posts: 3451
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:00 am

Post by Reds »

looks like a legal signing to me.
Top
User avatar
Padres
Site Admin
Posts: 4433
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 1:00 am
Location: Wells, Maine
Name: Jim Berger

Re: Paxton

Post by Padres »

Pirates wrote:Leave it to Bren.

Bren's challenging the fact that Brennan signed Paxton - given the fact that Paxton signed after January 1, but was drafted last year. He had the extended window to sign.

I don't really see how this is an issue. Paxton was drafted in '10. I was under the impression we were using Jan 1 as the cutoff for international signees, not amateur draftees as well.
This is laugable - and given the source, oh so predictable.
Top
User avatar
Dodgers
Site Admin
Posts: 5771
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Name: Shawn Walsh

Post by Dodgers »

Referring to both viewtopic.php?t=2517 and viewtopic.php?t=2771 (and big surprise that Bren was the one complaining about this issue there as well) it seems like a valid signing.
Top
Post Reply

Return to “ExCo General”