MLB investigating Padres for hiding health info

[bmags]

I absolutely think they could require that the Padres sent back certain players in the trade or even unwind the trade (if the other team involved wanted to). They could also force cash penalties to the teams involved and/or force Padres to exchange draft picks. The teams who were on the other side of the deal were directly impacted because information was allegedly withheld, which implies, the teams may not have made the same trades had they been provided with the appropriate information.

 

What is precedent here?

[Lip Man 1]

I understand this is frowned upon but we do get a chance to give physical so we should be more upset with ourselves.

 

 

Bmags:

 

I understand the Sox team doctors did have an MRI on his right shoulder and supposedly expressed some slight concerns.

 

Mark

[Lip Man 1]

I believe Toronto accused us of knowing Sirotka was injured.

 

But anyway, I agree, you don't allow teams to purposely mislead. Unfair to player/league/fans.

 

Correct. Toronto claimed Williams knew Sirotka was hurt. Williams told Selig in his investigation that he told Toronto there may be something wrong with him and offered Parque instead (who ironically was also hurt! Don't know if Kenny knew that or not though).

 

Selig felt that was important as it basically was the old business law rule of "let the buyer beware..." and said the Sox did nothing wrong.

 

Mark

[SCCWS]

This is kind of funny when Boston actually got swindled with Pomeranz. So I guess they aren't all that much smarter

 

Actually there is a big difference. Before they were traded, Pomeranz had won his last 4 starts. So visually there was no sign of injury. But Shields was struggling before his trade having lost 3 straight with the last loss the 10 run-2 inning outing.

 

[SoxAce]

This is the second time he's been suspended. Was in Texas system and got suspended for international signings) GMs from other teams are going to stop dealing with that piece of **** soon enough.

[Kyyle23]

Actually there is a big difference. Before they were traded, Pomeranz had won his last 4 starts. So visually there was no sign of injury. But Shields was struggling before his trade having lost 3 straight with the last loss the 10 run-2 inning outing.

 

Actually there isn't much of a difference. Before the ten run game, he gave up 2, 3, and 0 runs. So let's stop acting like prior to the one ten run outing there were tons of red flags, Shields was actually pretty decent.

 

Both Sox seem to have gotten swindled by Preller

[Bob Sacamano]

Doesn't seem to be as big a deal as initially made out to be. According to CBA, GMs don't have to disclose injury info when making a trade. They do, however, have to disclose treatments which is what he is suspnded for. My opinion? You wouldn't hear a peep out of the Sox if he had he been pitching good.

 

Edit: plus I'm sure teams' training staffs look at newly acquired players as soon as they get there.

Edited September 16, 2016 by soxfan2014

[SCCWS]

Actually there isn't much of a difference. Before the ten run game, he gave up 2, 3, and 0 runs. So let's stop acting like prior to the one ten run outing there were tons of red flags, Shields was actually pretty decent.

 

Both Sox seem to have gotten swindled by Preller

 

Pomeranz was 8-7 w a 2.47 ERA. He won his last 4 starts before trade deadline. Shields was 2-7 w a 4.28 ERA and lost his last 3 starts. That is a huge difference in my opinion but I guess you and Hahn both felt differently. More importantly Shields's fastball had lost velocity which was the main reason Boston backed away. So should the White Sox.

 

[Kyyle23]

Pomeranz was 8-7 w a 2.47 ERA. He won his last 4 starts before trade deadline. Shields was 2-7 w a 4.28 ERA and lost his last 3 starts. That is a huge difference in my opinion but I guess you and Hahn both felt differently. More importantly Shields's fastball had lost velocity which was the main reason Boston backed away. So should the White Sox.

 

You keep using losses as your reasoning, so I guess I do feel differently. Boston backed away from one injured guy and moved right on to another, and you are acting like they are smart for it because WINS

 

Shields has been god awful, there is no way around that. but at the time of the trade he had 1 bad start the entire season, the 10 run crap start before he was traded. Look at his game logs

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/...p&year=2016

 

Mostly QS until the last start

[southsider2k5]

You keep using losses as your reasoning, so I guess I do feel differently. Boston backed away from one injured guy and moved right on to another, and you are acting like they are smart for it because WINS

 

Shields has been god awful, there is no way around that. but at the time of the trade he had 1 bad start the entire season, the 10 run crap start before he was traded. Look at his game logs

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/...p&year=2016

 

Mostly QS until the last start

 

Which if you think about it, if Shields is injured, all of the sudden he starts pitching badly, and now SD changes their mind on trading him while withholding that info.

 

The timeline kind of makes sense if you think about it that way.

[caulfield12]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/the-story-of-...-135558074.html

 

Passan on the warpath with everyone this week...

[aryzner]

James Shields gave up a home run to Bartolo Colon.

 

Nobody should have needed a medical report to know he'd be bad.

[shysocks]

James Shields gave up a home run to Bartolo Colon.

 

Nobody should have needed a medical report to know he'd be bad.

 

But seriously, Shields' peripherals and velocity were foreshadowing trouble well before the 10-run outing. There was no way to know he'd be such a white-hot dumpster fire, but there were definitely reasons to oppose that trade as rumors of it came out.

 

I don't think the Sox have any excuses here, but if they can get some kind of remedy then good for them.

[elrockinMT]

Shields had a back problem. my guess is the Padres didn't know if it was real bad so they traded him out of their concerns. Now our medical staff to says it isn't worse than maybe the Padres thought but no doubt it has affected Big J. He looked real good yesterday but we know back problem cause real problems pitching and we saw that. I am banking he will be good in 2017 and in our rotation. We need him and Gonzalez with

Edited September 16, 2016 by elrockinMT

[elrockinMT]

 

But seriously, Shields' peripherals and velocity were foreshadowing trouble well before the 10-run outing. There was no way to know he'd be such a white-hot dumpster fire, but there were definitely reasons to oppose that trade as rumors of it came out.

 

I don't think the Sox have any excuses here, but if they can get some kind of remedy then good for them.

 

Velocity is always good but location is key in my opinion. If you have back trouble you leave the ball up and have a hard time locating. 92 mph orso is not bad

[SCCWS]

You keep using losses as your reasoning, so I guess I do feel differently. Boston backed away from one injured guy and moved right on to another, and you are acting like they are smart for it because WINS

 

Shields has been god awful, there is no way around that. but at the time of the trade he had 1 bad start the entire season, the 10 run crap start before he was traded. Look at his game logs

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/...p&year=2016

 

Mostly QS until the last start

 

Look at the ERA. There is a difference of 2 runs per game for guys on the same pitching staff. Pomeranz was having a good year and was on a good stretch when he was traded.

[Kyyle23]

Look at the ERA. There is a difference of 2 runs per game for guys on the same pitching staff. Pomeranz was having a good year and was on a good stretch when he was traded.

 

The ERA that was 3.06 before his 10 run outing? I see it. Hell, he was even striking people out prior to that outing too

[elrockinMT]

Padres GM was sanctioned by MLB. I wonder if we and others get some kind of restitution?

[GreenSox]

If the penalty is really 30 days in September, well, that's no penalty...it's an incentive to cheat.

 

[Dam8610]

If the penalty is really 30 days in September, well, that's no penalty...it's an incentive to cheat.

 

I see Rob Manfred attended the Roger Goodell Institute for Appropriate Discipline in Professional Sports.

[caulfield12]

MLB looked at all the trades and four allegations (including the Sox) and now considers the matter officially closed with the 30 day punishment.