[NY Times] Cardinals under FBI investigation for hacking Astros

If the Cubs hacked the Rangers and suddenly the Rangers got extra picks despite no one knowing if or how much they actually were disadvantaged or hurt, would that be fair to the Astros?

 

It would be different because one is an established rule that all the teams know about and agreed to. The other would just be a random arbitrary decision made up by the commish that affects other teams.

 

That is changing the subject....

The competitive balance picks go to a team that is determined to be at a competitive disadvantage against the league. Supplemental picks go to teams losing players. All those picks given were collectively agreed on by the league. This would be to settle a grievance between Astros and Cards using a mechanism the entire league is involved. I doubt Rangers would agree to Astros being awarded picks.

 

The competitive disadvantage picks are a joke. Cardinals seem to get one every year.

 

Seen this as well from other sources. I would think it would be easy to get other teams and MLBPA to agree to taking picks from Cardinals provided additional competitive balance picks are added to keep number of picks in first ten rounds the same.The level commissioner can fine is limited, and I expect he'll get approval to exceed that number (think it is $2M). MLB as a whole wants team vs. team disputes to stay within MLB so I think the Cards, Astros, and MLB agree on a suitable punishment. Cards may even suggest sending over prospects in lieu of some cash.

 

The Astros have publicly stated that they suffered a multimillion dollar loss.

The Cards have to cover that loss.

The open question is whether the MLB will punish the Cards for their bad behavior. My hope is that the Cards will lose 3+ years of their comp pick.

 

Would it be fair to the Rangers if they don't? Assuming that they lost out on two of their top ten guys in the draft because they were hacked.
Wouldnt it be considered just balancing out a previous wrong to put the rangers back at the presumed square one?

 

Being the whipping boys of MLB (see forced move to AL West) vs the golden boys, I just don't see MLB giving the Astros anything anywhere near fair compensation. Maybe it's the Houston fan in me that automatically assumes the worst but I just don't think it's going to be anything of significance.

 

Astros general counsel spoke to my law school class this past semester. In summary, he said the Astros are not seeking pick compensation, rather money damages. I believe they are trying to prove up damages around 6MM. Pick compensation hurts every team--not just the Cardinals, so that is not a feasible remedy, even though the Astros would obviously take it in a heartbeat.

I'd expect a money damage amount to come out soon. And that'll be the end of it.

 

They should have dibs on 1 player from each of the minor league affiliates along with financial compensation. I am
sure Astros GM is familiar with their players already chosen

 

This is not going to happen. The Astros are not going to get any type of player compensation. People need to come to terms with this. Not only is it unprecedented, but it will not happen because such a move doesn't just hurt STL. The Astros gaining any players also hurts TEX, LAA, SEA, and OAK without any wrongdoing by them. Tangentially, it hurts AL teams and theoretically helps NL teams.

That doesn't mean the Astros won't get fully compensated. But it does mean that the compensation will (likely) be wholly monetary.

 

It is not changing the subject in the context in which I was replying. I was only rebutting the more general statement that it would not be fair. I could see the argument that it was not collectively bargained, but to say that it just wouldn't be fair in a general sense is not logical.

The whole point of pick compensation in any sport is to level the playing field after a perceived imbalance somewhere along the way.

As a perceived small market team, you have less chance to get free agents on the open market, so to correct that imbalance you get an extra pick.

As a hacked team, we had less of a chance to get the guys we wanted, so we would get a pick to correct the imbalance.

Of course texas, Oakland and LA would hate it. They loved the fact that we were essentially penalized a few of our picks that year in theory because all of our information was stolen. They would probably vote for us to lose the chance to draft our guys in the 3rd and 5th round every year if they could, much like what possibly occurred that year due to the hack.

 

I suspect it is not out of the realm of possibility that if (for example) MLB decrees that the Cardinals pay the Astros 6 million dollars, that the Cardinals and Astros could agree on player compensation in lieu of the cash. In essence the Astro would trade 6 million dollars to the Cardinals for a player or players.

 

It is changing the subject.The subject was does awarding the Astros extra picks hurt other teams. Awarding the Astros more picks gives the Astros an advantage over the Rangers when Rangers did nothing to deserve it. It is not fair for the Astros to have more picks than the Rangers. You are trying to to legitimize it by saying MLB does it in other situations. In those other situations, picks being awarding to some teams is meant to hurt other teams that have a competitive advantage in other aspects of the game. In those other situations where MLB created inequality in the draft (i.e. unfairness), it was collectively bargained to settle other baseball at large inequalities that affected all teams.

This is a dispute between Astros and Cards. Rangers, as evil as they may be, deserve to be treated fairly so that when they are defeated, they can't whine about being treated unfairly. The Rangers didn't create the imbalance so giving Astros picks may fix imbalance between Astros and Cards, it creates imbalances that weren't deserved for the Astros division opponents.

 

I don't think you are looking at the entirety of the situation.

Let's say that the Astros finish 88-74 and one game behind the Rangers for the second wild card. Then we find out on the last day of the season that the Astros played the Mariners when the Mariners had an ineligible player that should not have been allowed to play for that three game series, and he only played in that three game series in which they swept the Astros.

Should the Mariners not have to forfeit to the Astros because what did the Rangers do to deserve not going to the playoffs? That would be unfair to the Rangers, so let's just let the Mariners keep those wins. Of course not. It has nothing to do with the Rangers. It has to do with creating the most balanced, fair playing field that you possibly can for all teams.

I am not saying that I believe that we will get picks, but it is absolutely unfair at the moment that the Astros' proprietary draft information was compromised and they were competing in that draft at a disadvantage. The Rangers, A's, Angels, and everyone else in major league baseball were given an advantage over the Astros who saw their draft positions lose at least some small amount of value because of the hack.

If the Astros are given money, it also is unfair for everyone else. I'm not sure why everyone is fine with giving us more money but not picks. It's essentially the same thing, when you factor in the international market. That is probably why we went so overboard in getting guys this year, because we know we have some Cardinals money coming.

 

Money doesn't involve a mechanism that involves every team. The Rangers aren't a party to the dispute, therefore, while it hurts them it isn't unfair. The Rangers are a party to the draft. Cards possibly could settle with the Astros and agree to send a comp pick to the Astros instead of money. However, that would be governed by trade rules.

 

The Astros were victims of corporate espionage. Monetary compensation is an entirely reasonable form of compensation. As a matter of fact (and law), the Astros could choose to sue the Cardinals for damages and be awarded money through the courts. If I am not mistaken, the Astros said they would not go that route.

 

It is, but so technically are draft picks. Either would be somewhat unfair to other teams. Of course there is a difference in that Draft picks are more limited than money, and money is already so far inequitable in baseball that it probably doesn't matter as much.

 

Can MLB teams sue other? That seems like something that would be bargained out in owner by-laws.