Paxton withdraws from University of Kentucky

Except for one thing: the rules are what they are and it is not allowed

.

THE KIDS TODAY DO NOT PROTECT THEIR INTEREST ENOUGH !!!!!

.

quote:

you should be allowed to use all resources available to protect your interest.

I think many high profile high school and college players do use those resources but it seems to go unnoticed by the NCAA. I appears that on occasion the NCAA decides to hammer a player just to "re-establish" their position.
Fungo

First, Keith Law is pro proball guy so I am not surprised he spoke up against the NCAA.

IMO, it's not the NCAA who screwed Paxton, it was his advisor agent (who knew better) and the Jays (who also knew better but they couldn't care less if the guy screwed up his eligibility or not).
The rule is the rule, and it's the same for everyone, sandwich round or 45th rounder and for every NCAA player.
Don't football players have to declare they want to go into the draft and then give up their eligibility?
The bottom line is that your future agent may not talk to any team on your behalf, or negotiate for you, and if they do, you better be willing to give up your eligibility and sign because if someone finds out, you are not going to win the war.

I guess I really don't know much about this case, so that may make it dangerous for me to comment, but...

I recently filled out the (new) NCAA Clearinghouse stuff online for my younger son...I felt like I was having a probe stuck up my backside.

I wonder if Bryce Harper has an advisor?

Harper is JUCO and therefore not governed by NCAA rules

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
Except for one thing: the rules are what they are and it is not allowed

Not saying its not a rule, just can't see where this rule is fair to all parties involved. Just because there is a rule doesn't necessarily make it right... did you know in my state it's against the law to pump your own gas?

So who's right, New Jersey or the rest of the country that doesn't regard pumping ones own gas as a crime?

The rules are what they are like it or not---that is the way it is

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:
I recently filled out the (new) NCAA Clearinghouse stuff online for my younger son...I felt like I was having a probe stuck up my backside.

Oh what an image

quote:

Originally posted by Homerun04:

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:
I recently filled out the (new) NCAA Clearinghouse stuff online for my younger son...I felt like I was having a probe stuck up my backside.

Oh what an image

We have a friend who lost 1/2 of a season due to answering the NCAA questionnaire incorrectly, he was never drafted but NCAA penalized him 1/2 season of his first year of college ball and he never recovered, he is now out of the game after his second year.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
IMO, it's not the NCAA who screwed Paxton, it was his advisor agent (who knew better) and the Jays (who also knew better but they couldn't care less if the guy screwed up his eligibility or not).

Let's not be too quick to lay blame. What you don't read is the message a player is sending to his "advisor" or the teams looking at him trying to get a feel of what it would take to sign a him. IMO, the player is usually hiding close by with his fingers in the cookie jar when these infractions occur. These are not little kids, they are men, they are college students, and they are humans that see big dollar signs in their future.

In the mean time the advisor/agent is doing whatever it takes to make his boy happy, content, and not officially involved. He knows he is not officially representing this player and could be gone the next if the kid feels he is not doing his job. The agents payday is down the road in more ways than a % of a signing bonus. It's easy to throw the blame at the "Man", but, I'll bet there were more than an agent and a team throwing in their two cents all along.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
The rules are what they are like it or not---that is the way it is

Good thing those involved in the Civil Rights movement didn't buy into this logic

quote:

Originally posted by jerseydad:

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
Except for one thing: the rules are what they are and it is not allowed

Not saying its not a rule, just can't see where this rule is fair to all parties involved. Just because there is a rule doesn't necessarily make it right... did you know in my state it's against the law to pump your own gas?

So who's right, New Jersey or the rest of the country that doesn't regard pumping ones own gas as a crime?

I don't get that, why can't you all pump your own gas?
The NCAA has the right to protect their interests, their interest is the schools and their athletic programs, not a player that has never set foot on campus (in the case of HS players), they also have to protect the other players on the team.

What does everyone think should be allowed?

I actually wonder if the coaches have come down on the NCAA about this, don't you?

the NCAA is a private institution. The member colleges that joined it agreed to play by their rules. The student athletes who want to play for these member schools have to agree and abide by their rules. Fair has nothing to do with it. You can agree or go else where to play.

I think in part that is Keith Laws point. This may drive some players away from NCAA governed colleges.

quote:

Originally posted by jerseydad:

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
The rules are what they are like it or not---that is the way it is

Good thing those involved in the Civil Rights movement didn't buy into this logic

Or Curt Flood, Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally.

rz,
The sad part about all of this, nothing happens to the agent, or the drafting team, the player has to pay the price. He got stuck holding the bag, he also put KY in jeopardy. He made that choice when he hired his agent.
Did he really KNOW the implications? How many of Boras' future top prospects set foot on campus if they are drafted and do not sign. None that I know of, do you know of any?

BTW, I do not disagree with you.

How many juniors give up a sandwich pick, did he think he was going to get more as a senior? I just don't get that, do you.


http://kykernel.com/2010/02/27...es-uk-baseball-team/

Here is what happened....

Paxton told Boras, I won't sign for less than XX$$.

The Jays drafted him thinking they could get him to sign for less and then lost that bet when Paxton didn't sign and returned to school.

Jays GM goes public calling Boras names and saying how he didn't negotiate fairly...GM has egg on his face from not signing his #1 pick and throws Paxton under the bus.

The GM is the bad guy here.

Paxton violated a rule that is violated regularly. There is no reason some kid shouldn't be allowed counsel when negotiating with a multi billion dollar entity. Having an advisor has nothing to do with being an amateur.

It's just another example of a bunch of ego maniacal blowhard academics enforcing rules that have no basis in helping anyone, but do it because the are so emasculated by life, it makes them feel powerful.

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
rz,
The sad part about all of this, nothing happens to the agent.
I'm sure many will disagree but reputation is what brings in future clients

...the player has to pay the price.
If these guys have an advisor to begin with they know the risk/reward circumstances. My sons advisor talked to him constantly during the process and I refuse to think that there was no questionable conversations brought up.

He got stuck holding the bag....
A bag of money is a bag of money IMO, the only difference is how it gets to the bank. He'll play independent ball, throw less innings, private instruction, mlb workouts, and have the ability to negotiate prior to the draft. My guess is he won't lose a penny.

he also put KY in jeopardy.
If this kid was a "blue chip" when he came in who knows what the KY coach did to sway him, or any other player that way. There are shades of grey across the board in the recruiting and draft business.

Did he really KNOW the implications?
I think kids have more of an idea of whats in the wind than is shared with the media. Playing dumb is part of a males "right to passage" and when it comes to fulfilling a dream there may be many nods of agreement between player and advisor.

Its absolutly shocking to read that a player who hopes to become a professional and used a professional in the process is admonished on this site by some who protect the status quo by saying "the rules are the rules". To those who say that I ask, what is your opinoin of the reserve clause? How about segregation in baseball? Those too were the rules. For whose benefit were those rules written? This is big big business we are dealing with and some people are very very naiive.

Another viewpoint: This one is from the Lexington Sport Examiner.

"In a battle against individuals that just so happen to define its existence, chalk yet another ‘W’ up for the NCAA. The governing body pursued Paxton after rumors- yes, rumors- swirled that Paxton's agent had negotiated with the Toronto Blue Jays after they selected him in the first supplemental round of last year's draft. I guess bloggers can make a difference.

"The problem here isn't that Paxton won't get a chance to pitch this season (look for him to be in the independent leagues in May). It's not that the southpaw won't get his chance to cash in come June, either. True, his draft stock will likely decline, but unless you can tell me MLB teams won't be interested in a battle-tested lefthander throwing in the mid-90s (and you can't tell me that), Paxton's bank account will be just fine.

"The problem here is that the NCAA is so ignorantly blinded by its self-regulated rules that it can't seem to tell right from wrong, black from white, or day from night. Think about it: they demanded that Paxton meet with them, and told him not to tell his parents or consult with an attorney beforehand. At least they did it directly, right? Not even: the NCAA chose to include UK in this debacle, requesting via e-mail that the university contact Paxton and inform him of their demands."

TR, you're better than that. Those were three of your weakest posts. If you're going to take the side of the NCAA, at least articulate an arguement rather than repeat some lame one-line cliche`s.

quote:

Originally posted by CPLZ:
Here is what happened....

Paxton told Boras, I won't sign for less than XX$$.

Yikes! There are many here that should keep their lips zipped then.

Paxton is wrong. He can't have it both ways. The college is paying for his education and then he goes and hires an agent. He should've decided between going pro and going to school for the free education. He wants to change the rules, fine. But he shouldn't get one red cent for going to college to play baseball if he tested the pro waters. If he wants to play pro ball, then going independent and taking that route to the majors should be the way to go. Then he won't have to worry about breaking NCAA rules.

Actually every high school senior and college player over 21 is allowed to "test the pro waters", just according to the NCAA they can't have any help doing it.

The argument isn't whether or not Paxton was wrong to have someone acting as an agent, the question to me is why should this be against the rules in the first place?

I'm sure there is a document or handwritten notes at least with the Jay's last and best offer to Paxton. Some say he wont' be hurt, some say his stock will slip a bit.

If he does not get at least what his last best offer was from the Jays, I hope he sues the NCAA for the difference, the year he lost, punitive damages, and anything else he can think of. Seems like there is some antitrust stuff going on here. What the NCAA asked of him is unfair, period.

quote:

Originally posted by jerseydad:
the question to me is why should this be against the rules in the first place?

I'll take a guess. It probably gauls them that someone would have the nerve to use the NCAA for leverage Boras being the king of leverage, probably increased the odds of them making Paxton an example in this case.

What is the principle involved? Good question. I don't think there is any principle. It isn't about professionalism versus amateurism that is for sure. We've seen tons of athletes pursue one pro sport, fail at that, and come back and complete their eligibility in another "college" sport.

Here is another good one. Anyone remember Phil Michelson winning a pro golf tournament when he was at Arizona State? All he had to do to remain eligible was renounce the prize winnings. Imagine if Paxton went out and helped the Blue Jays to the playoffs, and then said he wanted to complete his time at Kentucky simply by renouncing his paycheck?

IMHO there are no principles involved here. This is about power. Right now, the NCAA has more than Paxton.

Do I feel sorry for Paxton? No, he could have signed with the Blue Jays or stayed at Kentucky or chose to do what he did with its inherent risks under present rules. One key aspect about negotiations is the willingness to walk away. He walked away and now he has to face the consequences for that.

quote:

Originally posted by igball:
Its absolutly shocking to read that a player who hopes to become a professional and used a professional in the process is admonished on this site by some who protect the status quo by saying "the rules are the rules".

I am not admonishing him or others, I just not sure I understand because actually it's not hard to understand. Maybe it's because we've been down that road and it was all fully explained. You can't go into this with, I didn't know the rules. You know the rules, your agent/advisor knows the rules as well.

A player loses his amatuer status the day an agent speaks on his behalf for any reason. Is the NCAA going to change that, no, are they going to contiune to seek those out when someone opens their mouth that rules were broken, yes.

quote:

Originally posted by D1:

quote:

Originally posted by CPLZ:
Here is what happened....

Paxton told Boras, I won't sign for less than XX$$.

Yikes! There are many here that should keep their lips zipped then.

Every player considered being drafted by a club, has to come up with a number. Scouts ask the player/advisor, What's it going to take to sign this kid? There are two numbers that they come up with, what they are asking and what they will sign for.

In Paxtons case he was either adamant about sticking to his number, or Boras convinced him that they could do as well or better the following year.

While junior year is considered your draft year, when you have the most leverage, that's not necessarily when you have the highest value.

Take Paxton as an example. He was drafted 37th. If he moves to top 10, even as a senior, he'll increase in value. Plus, look at who drafted him, the Blue Jays. If he gets drafted be a big market team, one with more money available, his $$ goes up even in the same draft slot. Blue chippers have indy ball to go to also. Look at Luke Hochever, taken in the top 10, goes to indy ball instead of signing for less than he thought he was worth, and then gets taken #1.

BTW, the guy that comes out with egg on his face in this one is the Blue Jays GM. People with eligibility left are going to tell him flat out, Don't draft my player, we won't negotiate with you after what you did to Paxton. It does hurt Boras too, because prospects are likely to understand that he's a lightning rod for criticism and retaliation.

CPLZ,
We weren't there so we don't know what was said or not said, do we?
If what you say is true, was it fair that the player return to school, put the eam in jeopardy, and not let someone else have a chance at the roster.
Will he get more money later on, probably, but he has already put himself behind by not signing, so it is not always in your best interest to wait it out. He could have signed for less, if he was that good, he could be in MLB this year. JMO.

i may be mistaken, but i thought every player drafted must be tendered an offer. then they have until aug. to sign or not. so if the blue jay's have any ongoing negotiation's, it's for the upcoming draft.

why would a player put himself in jeapordy having an agent vs advisor? unless, he had no intention of going to school for 3 yrs or until draft eligable again.


it feels wrong on the players part, but we don't know the rest of the story.

For all those who think the NCAA is the bad guy here, maybe this solution will work.

The NCAA backs out of the way.

Since the player is under year to year contract with the school, what if schools prohibited pro related negotiations between a player or a players representative until the season was completed? This is somewhat similar to the pro rules of players not having the right to negotiate or contact other teams during the season because of their existing contract.

Further more, if the player is suspected of collusion, he is suspended from the team, with scholarship intact, until the allegations are resolved. The athlete may think twice before letting their advisor/agent destroy their college team or their college options for the next year .

The NCAA rule may be one that protects the Universities investment in a sick way. The end result may hurt the school and players in a minimal number of cases, but, maybe the rule is one that keeps the advisors off college campuses. If there were no rules, it may be a free-frawl with agents running "a muck" and maybe hundreds of players a year would be affected, and many times given bad advise for the sake of agents agendas. The way it sits now, only the "top-of-the-top" are affected negatively and those will make it either way.

btw- just a thought, maybe not well thought out, but a thought

The NCAA has it's hands tied because the rule is that the player has until first day of class, that's late August for most, September for some.

I really think that the pressure is coming from coaches, that's JMO. I don't think the NCAA would have bothered, the mid august deadline with scholarship and roster limitations must be tough on them. Why suddenly do you have the NCAA going after those they think didn't play by the rules when so many years no one really paid attention.

I didn't know this but if an agent who is advising a player has ONE discusson about a player with a team, he's eligibility is lost, that means many drafted players signed or not signed made themselves ineligible but the NCAA has looked the other way. Negotiating, discussing money is most likely where they have drawn the line. I think the NCAA stretched itself as far as it could.

Is it a great rule, no, but you are allowed to be advised by an agent, what if tehy took that rule away?

BTW, I do not think that any offer has to be made, this is just an incentive called a bonus to get one to give up their other opportunity. No where in son's first contract did it say what his signing bonus would be, that's only an addendum to the contract.

quote:

How many juniors give up a sandwich pick, did he think he was going to get more as a senior? I just don't get that, do you.

Very bizarre career move. Does he think his name is Strasburg?

It surprises me how some peoples minds work---as stated above, the NCAA has rules that colleges have to abide by being a member---a player signs with a school , thus he has to abide by the rules--nobody on here said they liked the rules but the rules are there and agreed to by the player when he signes for a scholarship--

Does your son/daughter like all your family rules? I doubt it because mine didn't but they were they and they had to abide by them like it or not. Don't you as an adult do them same when you take a position with a company ? They require you to abide by their rules or you are gone, out the door, adios

If the player does not like the NCAA regulations he can go JUCO or NAIA or go pro out of HS--it is really that simple

Let's understand the rule and the NCAA's stated purpose.

The rule says that when eligible players are drafted, they may negotiate with teams, but not have an advisor or agent present during those face to face negotiations, or have the agent/advisor carry, accept, or negotiate on the players behalf. The purpose is to insure that the athlete remains an amateur.

How does having wise counsel, working in the best interest of the athlete, involved in the negotiation process between a 21 year old and a multi billion dollar entity, harm amateur status? It doesn't. So the whole pretext of the rule, is a lie. The NCAA knows it and still SELECTIVELY enforces it.

So, if the NCAA is enforcing it for other reasons than what it states, then it is lying about the pretext of the rule. Either way, the NCAA is lying...that makes them wrong. I don't see much gray area there.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
If the player does not like the NCAA regulations he can go JUCO or NAIA or go pro out of HS--it is really that simple

Well put TR. Take your ball and find a game where you like the rules they use. That is so simple and eliminates the iron fist of the NCAA. No one loses and everyone gets what they want.