2014 Draft Discussion

[Vinestal]

a "short" ucl? what the hell does that even mean?

Hey, it's not how much UCL you have, it's what you do with it.... Or something like that. Lol

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

This whole thing seems so stupid to me. If everyone's doctor and all their mothers say his ligament is structurally sound, maybe your team should get a new doctor. As far as inherent risk goes, HE'S A [expletive] PITCHER, DUH. The UCL hasn't evolved to take the stress of thousands of violent arm actions per year.

[Guest]

IMO, if they disliked Akein's MRI to the extent that they think he's a greater risk for arm problems you don't offer him a contract. If they only offered him a contract because of the CBA, that kind of sucks for the Astros. But if they used the results as a pretext to parley the other players, that's dirty pool.

 

If I was the Astros FO and I truly believed he was damaged goods, I would have petitioned MLB for some relief and not sign him. I think they were gambling their shady practice would pay off.

 

If the Docs think it's not a big deal, it's not a big deal.

 

But their doctor does think it's a big deal. The general public is going to take Andrews's word 100 times out of 100, but a team should trust its own doctors. If he says there's an issue, there's an issue.

 

The MLB was absolutely not going to give "relief" to the Astros so they could overslot lower round talents. I'd say MLB was quite happy with how this entire ordeal played out.

 

Why is it dirtier to use an injury concern discovered post-draft to offer a lower contract than to do it with a preexisting injury?

Their doctor is not an unbiased source. You know why a pre-existing injury is not the same as a concern about an injury, especially with pitchers. If the concern is big enough to lower my offer significantly, I think I claim damaged goods and seek help. It's what is fair.

[seanimal]

Why is it dirtier to use an injury concern discovered post-draft to offer a lower contract than to do it with a preexisting injury?

 

because one is a thing and the other is not

 

edit: i don't necessarily think of it as "dirty", so much as i think it's a flimsy pretext. draft a daywalker and lowball him based on the deleterious effects of the sun for all i care, but let's not pretend that's 1:1 with "had to reattach arm 24 months ago"

[SouthSideRyan]

Why is it dirtier to use an injury concern discovered post-draft to offer a lower contract than to do it with a preexisting injury?

 

because one is a thing and the other is not

 

edit: i don't necessarily think of it as "dirty", so much as i think it's a flimsy pretext. draft a daywalker and lowball him based on the deleterious effects of the sun for all i care, but let's not pretend that's 1:1 with "had to reattach arm 24 months ago"

 

But the Astros didn't change course until after the MRI. I mean, it's not like they planned from the beginning let's offer him this and then smudge the MRI with our fingerprints and call it trauma.

[CubColtPacer]

I was initially fully on Aiken's side, but the more I read suggests that the Astros weren't at fault here.

 

Let's review the timeline. As the BP article suggests, the Astros select Aiken and Nix, and do so in a way that suggests that 1) they are very confident in signing them and 2) Marshall isn't given a high importance. They then announce verbal agreements with both that match up very well with that strategy.

 

When Aiken goes into that MRI, in order for the Astros to be in the wrong they either had to be a) looking for something to use against him (which doesn't make sense with the clear strategy they were using and the relative unimportance they had shown Marshall), or 2) the doctor had to show this abnormality, declare it not a concern, and the team than hastily came up with this plan to play it up to try to gain leverage on talks that had already been completed rather amicably.

 

It seems much more likely that the doctor brought it up because he thought it was a concern. I do think the Astros made a mistake here. The doctor should have known he was not with most of the medical community on this issue, and the Astros should have known that Aiken would not be happy once he confirmed this with other doctors. As the BP article demonstrates, they did underestimate Aiken's ability to bet on himself knowing that other teams would not be scared off by this issue and the PR problems they would get.

 

If anybody's at fault, it's the MLB rules here. Not being able to get medical information beforehand combined with no ability to trade the selection gives teams very few options. The team is boxed into a corner and you then give them compensation, and it starts to seem to them like a way out of the situation which leads to things like this.

 

I believe the doctor did have what he thinks is a legitimate concern here. Comparing this to the other similar case recently (the Saffold contract with the Oakland Raiders) it seems far more likely in that case that things were dirty than it does in this one.

[Guest]

I don't think MLB rules prohibit getting medical information pre-draft. If Callis is correct on Twitter, it's mostly a logistical problem. Ultimately I think very few people are of the mind that the Astros maliciously tried to drive Aiken's price down, it's the insensitivity to the process that makes them absolutely in the wrong. Dropping your valuation for medical reasons that only you think are a problem is at best ignoring the dynamics of the situation, at worst not negotiating in good faith. By drafting a player you carry some responsibility, lest you not only lose that player but the faith of the larger community. The Astros ignored that responsibility, and worst of all did so for very little benefit and even more loss than just Aiken.

[jersey cubs fan]

Dropping your valuation for medical reasons that only you think are a problem is at best ignoring the dynamics of the situation, at worst not negotiating in good faith.

 

This makes absolutely no sense.

[SouthSideRyan]

Right what the Astros think is a medical problem is the only thing that matters.

[Guest]

Right what the Astros think is a medical problem is the only thing that matters.

Why offer him a contract?

 

They saw a way to use information obtained to try to get the best possible draft results. They did knowing they had a handshake agreement with Aiken.

[davell]

Right what the Astros think is a medical problem is the only thing that matters.

Why offer him a contract?

 

They saw a way to use information obtained to try to get the best possible draft results. They did knowing they had a handshake agreement with Aiken.

 

Agreed.

[seanimal]

did the astros seek a second opinion prior to acting?

 

if not, then this talk of being legitimately concerned that their pick was damaged goods is nonsense. and even if they had legitimate concerns regarding his ucl to the point of it being a deal breaker, none of that excuses them salting the earth for this kid. their actions following the disclosure of the adjusted offer, raising the bonus in the final hour, saying they reached out to his "representative", are pieces that are hard to reconcile in the "did what they were supposed to do" narrative

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

This should be Aiken's reaction to the Astros:

 

 

http://i.imgur.com/RHTANis.gif

 

[davell]

At any rate, a grievance was filed today by the MLBPA on Aiken and Nix's situation.

[Guest]

Nice of the MLBPA to care now, as oppose to when it mattered during the CBA negotiations.

[davell]

Nice of the MLBPA to care now, as oppose to when it mattered during the CBA negotiations.

 

Seriously. It's such a slippery slope with this. Boras, Close, Tellem-all the too agents are licking their chops.

 

Personally, I'd just like the old system back.

[SouthSideRyan]

Right what the Astros think is a medical problem is the only thing that matters.

Why offer him a contract?

 

Because they had to in order to sign any of the 3? It's clear you don't know the mechanisms of the draft.

[SouthSideRyan]

did the astros seek a second opinion prior to acting?

 

if not, then this talk of being legitimately concerned that their pick was damaged goods is nonsense. and even if they had legitimate concerns regarding his ucl to the point of it being a deal breaker, none of that excuses them salting the earth for this kid. their actions following the disclosure of the adjusted offer, raising the bonus in the final hour, saying they reached out to his "representative", are pieces that are hard to reconcile in the "did what they were supposed to do" narrative

 

Does the 2nd opinion automatically invalidate their own doctor's opinion? They said they reached out to him and he wouldn't return their calls. That doesn't jeopardize his amateur status.

[mul21]

Right what the Astros think is a medical problem is the only thing that matters.

Why offer him a contract?

 

They saw a way to use information obtained to try to get the best possible draft results. They did knowing they had a handshake agreement with Aiken.

 

I'm somewhere in the middle here. I kind of understand the Astros point of view in trying to minimize their risk after the abnormality was discovered. You planned on getting 2 pitchers for $8MM, but now you have doubts about the durability of one of them, so rather than just take a blind chance, you try to hedge your bets by getting him to sign for less and pick up an additional high upside arm as insurance in Marshall.

 

On the other hand, what's the point of making the "official" offer at 40% of the max when you're making an unofficial offer of $5MM at the same time? That's the part I don't really understand. I also think it would be a great idea to allow the teams to pull in maybe a half dozen to ten guys for medical evals pre-draft like they allow a certain number in the NFL draft.

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

let's get rid of the draft and just make guys free agents when they graduate high school. it'll be like college football recruiting except all the bribes are legal

[davell]

Right what the Astros think is a medical problem is the only thing that matters.

Why offer him a contract?

 

Because they had to in order to sign any of the 3? It's clear you don't know the mechanisms of the draft.

 

That's fine. But they only needed to offer 40% of slot for that. They upped their offer to 5 mill from their initial offer. They let 1.5 mill keep them from signing him.

 

It's pretty easy to see they looked at the MRI as a situation to take advantage of. By getting a 3rd guy signed as well. Who knows if 5 mill was even their final offer? They pissed off Aiken and Close enough that they didn't even bother re-engaging in talks at the end.

 

If they were so worried, I find it very hard to believe they'd keep upping their offer.

 

They lost their footing in this over getting greedy and trying to add a Carson Sands type prospect to standing pat with Aiken, Nix, and no future backlash.

[seanimal]

Does the 2nd opinion automatically invalidate their own doctor's opinion?

 

no, and that's not what i'm suggesting. what i'm suggesting is that any reasonable attempt to validate a serious, impactful medical finding would involve seeking a second opinion. seek a second opinion, and at least there is plausible deniability. a third and it's clear the intent was on getting it right. one team physician making a risk diagnosis that just happens to be awfully convenient towards the immediate goals of the franchise? how is this not suspect behavior?

 

They said they reached out to him and he wouldn't return their calls. That doesn't jeopardize his amateur status.

 

we don't know that yet as the ncaa hasn't ruled on his eligibility, afaik. that being said, that's just pure devil's advocate to refuse to acknowledge that the specific mention of calls to his "advisor" (as opposed to his family) were anything other than a smear

 

which is only a reminder that of all the exploitation that exists among the professional sports, no one, and i mean NO ONE, exploits harder than the ncaa. there may be nothing in all of sports that needs more comeuppance than the ncaa. [expletive] them hard

Edited July 25, 2014 by seanimal

[seanimal]

also, let's not forget that the astros have every right to change their mind. that's totally legit. it's the disingenuity and unprofessionalism that i take issue with

[SouthSideRyan]

Right what the Astros think is a medical problem is the only thing that matters.

Why offer him a contract?

 

Because they had to in order to sign any of the 3? It's clear you don't know the mechanisms of the draft.

 

That's fine. But they only needed to offer 40% of slot for that. They upped their offer to 5 mill from their initial offer. They let 1.5 mill keep them from signing him.

 

It's pretty easy to see they looked at the MRI as a situation to take advantage of. By getting a 3rd guy signed as well. Who knows if 5 mill was even their final offer? They pissed off Aiken and Close enough that they didn't even bother re-engaging in talks at the end.

 

If they were so worried, I find it very hard to believe they'd keep upping their offer.

 

They lost their footing in this over getting greedy and trying to add a Carson Sands type prospect to standing pat with Aiken, Nix, and no future backlash.

 

They upped their offer because they needed Aiken signed to get the other 2. I don't think they'd kick him out of bed for eating crackers but they certainly soured on him from the MRI. And if Close wouldn't even bother reengaging the Astros in talks at the end then he did more wrong by his client than the Astros ever could.

[SouthSideRyan]

Does the 2nd opinion automatically invalidate their own doctor's opinion?

 

no, and that's not what i'm suggesting. what i'm suggesting is that any reasonable attempt to validate a serious, impactful medical finding would involve seeking a second opinion. seek a second opinion, and at least there is plausible deniability. a third and it's clear the intent was on getting it right. one team physician making a risk diagnosis that just happens to be awfully convenient towards the immediate goals of the franchise? how is this not suspect behavior?

 

It wasn't the Assistant GM all of a sudden saying he didn't like his motion in some video review, this was an actual doctor giving his medical opinion. Talk of it being convenient for the Astros and how it's suspect seems to cast aspersions on him with no evidence. Like I said Andrews can disagree with it, and I'd side with him over the Astros doctor, but if I employed a medical professional for these things and his opinion was that there was a potential issue, you're damn right I'd go back with an amended offer. Even with 2 more medical opinions disagreeing with your team doctor, I don't know that it would change my opinion that much. My guy said there could be an issue, unless they exposed him as an utter quack, that concern is still there.

 

They said they reached out to him and he wouldn't return their calls. That doesn't jeopardize his amateur status.

 

we don't know that yet as the ncaa hasn't ruled on his eligibility' date=' afaik. that being said, that's just pure devil's advocate to refuse to acknowledge that the specific mention of calls to his "advisor" (as opposed to his family) were anything other than a smear

[/quote']

 

They haven't ruled yet, and they may yet rule against Aiken, but I haven't seen much in terms of evidence of malice on the Astros part when it comes to his amateurism. Luhnow has come across as a smart guy during his FO tenure, I guess I just find it hard to believe that he'd make an Amaro like gaffe like that.