Hugh2

No that's not the issue, even if MLB is right all evidence suggests they singled out the Red Sox. That's what I take issue over.

I never said they were, only that it was common practice. And why would MLB clear them in the first place if they knew they all came from the same camp? Why not just tell them they can't do that then and there and end it.

Nothing I said was inaccurate. The packaged deals circumnavigate the rule that they can't sign a guy over 300K who is likely worth over 300K, and as is widely recognized....has been common practice. The fact that the Red Sox haven't filed a grievance yet isn't evidence of the contrary.

All international contracts are not effective until cleared by MLB, as they were almost a year ago.

I don't buy that bs. I'll trust the experts in the industry over a clever poster (I mean that as a compliment) who wants to win an argument. And here is my problem with your argument. If the Sox challenge the rule then they are throwing all the other teams under the bus too. If me you and 3 other guys went out to the tittie bar and left our wives at home, and then get into a fight and only I got arrested and end up in the newspaper, I'm not going to run and tell the world that everyone else was there too just because I got in trouble. That is exactly how you make enemies, I seriously doubt that John Henry wants to make an enemy of 1/2 the other teams in the league. Again, the Sox didn't exceed their bonus pool, they didn't exceed 300K on any one player they DID try to circumnavigate that rule by bundling contracts. However they are the only team that is getting in trouble for the latter of those even though it's been widely reported that bundled contracts is common. Reported by respected industry insiders. Reported not just today buy a year ago when teams were entering the second signing period of having to work around such restrictions. Again I'll take the word of respected industry insiders over choosing not to believe what they reported just because the Sox havent' pushed back against it. And for all we know they may, this is day ONE.

So you ignore the industry insiders saying that this is common practice???

The Sox did not exceed their total bonus pool, nor did they sign one player to more than 300K. They packaged players from the same camps in multiple 300K deals. Which as you said MLB is now saying against the rules, but it's been widely reproted that this is not uncommon so that is why I say it seems not fair to the Sox.

yes I read that, I've also read that what the Sox did was common practice. It looks like they were made an example of, which I say is unfair. Also not too mention that every kid who had a deal lined up with the Sox has now been rung up to dry for tomorrow. That's not fair to the kids either.

Yes except all 33 of the Sox international signees in the 2015 signing period did not exceed their $3,681,000 million dollar bonus pool.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/international/mlb-takes-away-prospects-red-sox-hammers-boston-international-penalties/#SBWxUtOaH8s8Thy2.97 "Package deals are not uncommon among Latin American signings" "All of these five players (and the players who signed with the Red Sox from the same trainers’ programs) signed last year and had their contracts approved by MLB, with the knowledge that they were all coming from the same program." Not to mention that article does make it sound to me that some bullying may have been going on by MLB investigators who effectively threatened the sox signees careers to get them to negotiate. In the end, we lost players who never would of had if we didn't circumnavigate the rules. And 16 year old international free agents are more lottery picks than high school draftees (although the Sox have done VERY well here in recent years) But I'm not 100% convinced the Red Sox aren't being singled out here. They just got Rodger Goodelled.

Also worth pointing out is that every contract that MLB voided today, they APPROVED last year.

What is your take on Baseball Americas Ben Badler and ESPN's Keith Law saying that packaged deals are not uncommon among MLB teams?

Well technically the Sox didn't go over their bonus pool. They weren't allowed to sign a guy to more than 300K so if there was a guy who was worth more than 300K they'd give him 300K and another guy or two from their camp who were highly regarded prospects money as well. http://news.soxprospects.com/2016/05/report-mlb-investigating-red-sox-for.html

He's hitting .298/.353/.423 in AAA with 22 SB's and excellent defense in CF. Sure could of used us some Margot right about now.

Here is an excerpt from ESPN's KEITH LAW from a chat earlier. Matt Neffer: Keith, in your opinion, should the Red Sox be penalized for their actions in the last international signing period or are they just doing what every other clubs does but on a larger scale? Klaw: Most clubs do it. Boston got caught. I don’t think the penalty is that big of a deal, though, as they’re going to lose a handful of low-probability 16- and 17-year-old prospects, none of whom projected (yet) as average or better guys. Maybe it will end up hurting them, but this seems more like a message sent to other clubs not to pull the same maneuver … even though the system provides plenty of incentive for everyone to do this. See my previous answer

I hope the Sox go ape-s*** crazy on July 2nd 2017 and just sign every single highly regarded International free agent as a giant F.U. to MLB.

Perhaps the Sox were more open and deliberate about it and they thought they had to put their foot down as slasher said. The thing that doesn't sit right with me is that these guys were signed over a YEAR ago, and it wasn't that secretive. You would think that the league would have been clearer and warned teams or clarified the rules prior. Do I think the Sox probably did it more than any other team and thats' why they are being punished? Yes, but I'm skeptical that if they were a smaller market team that they'd be coming down on them like this. All these spending rules, and bonus penalties are derived from the fact that baseball is trying to pump up small markets and create more parity in baseball.

Well....to be fair that's so pretty legit credento's there. Still I think you'd need maybe a year or two as an assistant G.M. before you might be able to take over a team. You could call it your "minor league development"

I actually new the Sox were doing this a year ago. There was talk all around baseball BEFORE they signed any of these guys that this is what all the teams who went over budget prior years and were limited to 300K per player were talking about doing. Soxprospects were talking about teams doing it, baseball america were talking about teams doing it, it was an open secrete. It really seems a bit odd that the Sox are being made an example of here when there are other teams that surely should be penalized as well.

You think you could run a team better? I bet I couldn't.

They didn't go over budget, they tried to circumnavigate the rules to try and bring in talent without handing out big bonuses. It wasn't technically wrong as their is/was no policy against what they did. It was an open secrete, they weren't hiding it and while anyone can make a good argument that what they did was wrong and perhaps they do deserve penalties the frustrating thing is that many other organizations have been doing the same exact thing.

Just realized this sounded sort of stand offish, didn't mean for it to be.

I think we need to give up on Ball and drop the expectations based on his draft spot. Guys are what they are and Ball isn't in the same Tier as the other two, and Espinoza is in a tier of his own. I know they drafted him because everyone they liked was off the board, the 2013 class was very very weak and they saw him as raw but highly athletic, perhaps he's a late bloomer and still has #3#4 starter potential. But Espinoza is easily this organizations best bet for a TOTRS, Groome too if we sign him.

"A's pitchers always look good pitching at home. It seems when they leave they get crushed." Yes, you didn't say every but you didn't say some either. When you say A's pitchers it infers everyone who has pitched for the A's, when replying to comment about an A's pitcher who used to pitch for Boston and has a 1.65 ERA there. The question now becomes.....which way do you wish to move the goal posts now?

Do you seriously lack any reading comprehension skills? Yes I said they are overrated, that is not analogous with non existent. If it was I wouldn't call them overated I would call them wrong, false, or make believe. Also the example I used when using the term "pitcher friendly ballpark" was used in such a manner to point out of pitchers have pitched better in hitters parks and sometimes worse in pitcher friendly thus strengthening my argument that they are over-rated. This isn't complicated stuff here.