One Team's loss is another team's gain

I don't know the story, but if he had a health issue and they didn't want to pay (Arizona) what he wanted, they had a right not to sign him.
FA usually doesn't get much. How would anyone know it's a loss or gain until their investment proves otherwise.
Congrats to the young man for getting the opportunity to play professional ball.

TPM,

What happened was they agreed on a contract that was accepted by both parties for the sixth pick of the draft, but when he came out to Arizona at the Diamondbacks invitation, expecting to sign the contract, they literally ignored him, essentially pulling their agreed upon offer. They had time before the draft to do their due diligence with regard to X-rays and such but waited until after the draft to decide they saw something they didn't like. He had just finished a campaign where he went 11-2. I believe because he already had an agent, his eligibily for college was already gone. The commissioners office took a dim view of the Arizona proceedings and luckily declared him a free agent. So luckily he was able to sign with Texas. Arizona kind of just left him high and dry.

I am glad that you brought this up because it's a good lesson for those reading to see how things can go wrong.

He failed his physical, which revealed a labrum tear and elbow problems after an MRI. He also had bone chips removed while in college. Should the Dbacks have done better homework? Actually all teams require that you submit any medical records, prior to consideration, I believe at college it is the players responsibility to get that info and forward. That's not to say that anyone knew anything. Teams do not do physicals before, but take the word that all info was provided that was necessary to make the decision to draft someone where they did. All drafted players are required to take a physical, there is a clause that states if findings prove an injury the offer can be withdrawn. In the case of top rounds, one usually doesn't sign until after that physical, and after results are known teams have the right to reconsider or withdraw or void the contract. Many teams passed on him before the Rangers gave an offer. He got a bonus of 312K which shows that the injuries are considerable bad and he was very lucky considering the circumstances he got signed with a team knowing full well that he probably would need surgery (ies). We don't know all of the circumstances either, most teams do not want to do the surgery, that's why medical info is necessary, in this case if documented he was injured, the school would have had to pay. Teams does the rehab. If he was a later pick, they would have voided the contract.

The blame is not necessarily on the player or the team, but the agent, who had to have been involved in the negotiations or made them sign an agreement prior to his signing. I am assuming since he lost eligibility. Teams often draft and take players that have prior injury, offer less, that's not uncommon, unless they did offer him less and he refused but sounds like they were pretty upset with the findings and offered nothing so maybe that is why he was granted free agency. Because he did not sign and taken in the first round the team gets another pick next year. What would you have done if you were the GM?

Last year the cards signed an international player (4M I think) and physical revealed he had a very bad eye disorder, they withdrew their offer. I beleive he was picked up by another team. Does that make them bad?

As I said, he is very lucky that someone believed in him. That usually doesn't happen often.

I won't pretend to be an expert on this stuff but as I understand it, Arizona agreed to a pre draft number with him and then after the draft backed off due to the results of the physical. He ended up going from over $ 2 m to around $300 k in bonus while Arizona ended up getting to draft again in this years draft because they didn't sign him. To me this is a sham and I would look for legal remedy against Arizona if I was him.
It seems the due diligence could have been done prior to draft and nit draft him if they weren't comfortable. Who says they drafted in good faith and maybe had the goal of getting two 2011 picks along?
I think this young man has recourse vs Arizona and or MLB for how he was treated in this matter.

I don't pretend to be one either, another good lesson, this is big business and the team usually wins. There is very little "good faith" in this business.

The predraft agreement leads me to believe that the player was too eager to sign possibly because he didn't have as much interest as it got closer?

You are assuming that the team didn't do their homework, how do we know if they did or not? Has the player ever come out to say that the amount was agreed regardless of knowing whether he had serious shoulder/arm issues?

Did the player tell them that he had some concerns about his arm or elbow? Or was he just crossing his fingers that he would pass his physical? Did the team tell him we will sign you under any circumstance? We were not there and we don't know both sides. Seeing how most do business in this business, I am definetly for the player. I don't see this as a sham on the team's part.

If you ask any team they would much rather have their first round pick sign than take another pick next year, that really isn't good for business, however, if you have a good reason not to sign the player, you look better with the fans, owners, etc.

Should they have signed him anyway with a lessor amount, perhaps, but again do we really know the entire story?

Are you saying the player deserved the agreed amount regardless of his physical?

Couple of messy facts:
1. Even MLB teams are required to negotiate in good faith.
2. MLB teams were granted much much more leverage with compensation pick.
3. Historically when they have max leverage they use it without any consideration for it's implications- "power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
4. Team could have done physical prior to draft and provided both with options if results were not what they wanted.
5. Team discarded him without any downside and with 2011 draft better than 2010 argument could be they benefitted while he really got financially hurt.
6. Just because that's the way things are done doesn't mean it's right nor that it should continue. Maybe what's needed for progress is this generations Curt Flood.
7. I really think the compensation pick could be a problem with MLB in that it over tilted the balance in teams favor if challenged.

Not too sure about #4, why would a player subject himself to a physical before the draft? Does a HS player submit himself to a physical prior to signing his NLI?

Why would a team pay for the expense of a physical and MRI when chances are the player may be taken beforehand?

Every player signing a pro contract is subject to a physical, some more scrutinized than others, due to bonus. I know there are parents here whose sons had prior injuries and teams did not pay for it, especially if the injury occured while in college, again, we were not there to know what was discussed and what was agreed upon, but I do think that your bonus agreed or not prior, is all contignent upon passing your physical.

What's really a travisty is when a healthy player gets seriously hurt with a career ending injury, surgery, rehabbed and then released, with NO compensation.

If you are talking about good faith, it is the player's responsibility to get all of his records to teams and their responsibility to mention any issues, before they sign any prior agreement with an agent (or have him do the talking) so as to not lose their eligibility. Perhaps the player thought that since they turned him down he could go back to school and he couldn't. Granting him free agency was the proper thing to do.

How about this one, if he knew he had an injury and didn't disclose, what happened was that he prevented a healthy player from getting that pick, I see it both ways.

Not sure if you know the story of Tim Stauffer, after all was said and done he admitted he had a shoulder issue but kept it quiet, failed his physical and lost lots of money, but took a reduced amount for signing anyway. When there is a lot of maony at stake, people tend to remain a bit quiet until they have to speak up.

The bottom line is, yes, teams do what tehy want and always don't conduct business like we think they should, and most of the time it's about money, but in this case, I don't see where the team was 100% in the wrong.

I believe I read that the player wasn't injured per say, but that something showed up on the X rays that concerned the Diamondbacks. Plus they invited him to Arizona without any indication that things had changed after their verbal agreement. He was met by lower level officials and then basically ignored the whole time he was there by the people that counted. The being declared a free agent was considered an unusual step in which the ML commissioner was in a way admitting this case was not handled properly. Otherwise, the young man would have just had to wait for the next year's draft. While I understand it is an utterly ruthless business, a verbal agreement where you then lead a young man to believe that he is flying out to sign the contract you agreed on and then backout because there is a later high possibility of injury to me is wrong. They should have called the young man and his agent and at least discussed why they might want to get out of the contract. The supplemental picks are supposed to be there so that if a team CANNOT sign their first round pick that year due to the young man not agreeing on a contract, the team gets compensated in a lesser way. Except for the college option card all the cards are held by the teams though I believe. Of course TPM, you've been through some of this so you may know more about it.

Not denying that you could be right they did it on purpose (not say anything) because if word got out that their first pick had issues, the next ones in line would have wanted more $$. And yes it should be based upon the fact that the team couldn't agree to an amount (for the compensation pick) but I am pretty sure it means if you don't sign your first pick you get a pick, period.

The next years draft would not have yielded better results because he had a tear and elbow issues.

You agree on an amount and if they want a physical beforehand, they have the right to do so and back out if they feel that it is not in their best interest. Remember, it is in their best interest, not the players. That's the point, it isn't about being "fair". People need to understand that, this is big business. Beware.

Kudos to the team who signed him, same for kudos to the college coach who honors an injured players NLI, many do not.

Well again I could be off base but they agreed to pre draft amount so pre draft physical would make sense to me. The point is a pre draft physical would have allowed arizona to change their minds and still give the player more options too. The way it played out they don't lose maybe they win but he loses big time. I don't buy that somehow he's equally responsible because in this case they hold most if the cards and therefore should bear most of the responsibility.

The draft was the day after the players championship season ended. Best to my knowledge there are certain restrictions by the NCAA as to what a player can or can't do while still playing. I know my son was drafted during championship season and could not negotiate anything until the season ended, if you can't do that you can't have a physical, can you? If he is touting pre draft deal while still playing college ball, that puts his eligibilty even before the draft at risk? Not that it's never done, but in this case things didn't turn out and that is when things go bad.

Perhaps the night before they called and said will you take 2mil and the player said yes? Would that be the predraft deal?

We don't know the circumstances, but if what you say is true, I would bet his request was granted so that this wouldn't turn into another zoo with MLB and the NCAA as there seems to be a lot of things that went wrong and it could have affected a lot more than just the drafted player.



JMO.

I was following this story this past summer and as I recall there were several layers to this onion....the Diamondbacks front office was giving him the cold shoulder BEFORE his medical examination which to me implies they were having second thoughts. Apparently there was some disagreement in the front office of the Diamondbacks as to who they should draft and when/if they should take Loux (the GM that drafted him was later fired) and Barret Loux got caught in the middle....read this article from this summer for more information.


http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/ne...uxdiamondbacks080310

Here is a quote from another article (aggiesports.com) dated July 11th about the differing views in the Diamondbacks front office:

"Loux was expected to be a late first-round or second-round pick going into the draft. According to FoxSports.com's Tracy Ringolsby, then-Diamondbacks general manager Josh Byrnes and then-professional scouting director DiPoto overruled scouting director Tom Allison and his staff's desired choice and selected Loux with the team's first pick. Byrnes was fired July 1. DiPoto is now the team's interim general manager."

Thanks for the article and there does seem to be many layers to the story, the most interesting is that a 6th round pick was willing to take 300K+ less. That's a LOT of money to not consider, JMO.
Just too much strange stuff to beleive either side didn't share blame.

No he wasn't treated well by the team that drafted him, something happened between draft and the visit, we don't know, the other side never spoke up. If it was a predraft agreement and the draft was the beginning of June, why did it take so long for them to get together? Did they have an agent to advise them? How much did he play in the role of the consideration to draft this player?

Can understand why the GM was fired, what a mess.

TPM,

I believe he was the 6th pick of the FIRST round. I think this also illustrates the hazards for the team and the player of making predraft agreements which are not really supposed to take place but are kind of done while the commissioner and his staff looks the other way.

What I really don't get is the attempt to implicate the player in this mess. What evidence do you have that the kid did anything out of the ordinary and didn't followed the accepted procedures?

Why did the D backs do it? Because they could. It's that sad and that simple.

TPM - According to the article below, Loux's visit to the Diamondbacks game was just days after the draft....just after the Texas A&M season finished. (He was drafted on June 7th and his collegiate season ended on June 8th)

The Diamondbacks will have the overall 3rd pick (since they had the 3rd worst record) and 7th pick (since they passed on Loux) in this year's draft.

Here is a more recent article:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/ne...uxsignsrangers111910

Quote from the article:
"The blatant unfairness of Loux’s position prompted MLB to grant him free agency. Otherwise he would have had to play in an independent minor league or try to return to Texas A&M for his senior year."

Cheapseats link kind of indicates that Arizona had already decided to remove their offer before Loux took his physical the second day of his visit. He had had bone chips removed the summer before and at that time teams had a chance to study the Xrays but Arizona drafted him anyway and made the predraft offer which was a bargain for a sixth pick of the first round. I just feel its bad when a team drafts a kid and then a month later just says well we won't negotiate any settlement, your just out of luck. It would be one thing if teams never threw away millions on assinine contracts but the Diamondbacks have been right up there with the best of them.

Ok, I give up.....the player got the shaft.

Everyone happy now?

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
Ok, I give up.....the player got the shaft.

Everyone happy now?

We watch out for our own here in Texas.

Cheapseats,
check for pm.

quote:

Originally posted by Three Bagger:
TPM,

I believe he was the 6th pick of the FIRST round. I think this also illustrates the hazards for the team and the player of making predraft agreements which are not really supposed to take place but are kind of done while the commissioner and his staff looks the other way.

Right, meant 6th pick of round 1. I agree with the rest you said as well.