BP on: the AL Central race, Shealy, Hosmer/Boras, Moustakas,

Sheahan from "Prospectus Today: Sweeps and Walkoffs":

The difference in the importance of last night's game for the two teams is this: the White Sox still control their own destiny. If they win out, including a Monday makeup against the Tigers, they'll do no worse than a one-game playoff Tuesday against the Twins. Had the Twins lost, they would have needed a sweep of the Royals and at least two Sox losses along the way. Last night's result makes it very likely that the Sox will have to play Monday to determine the Central winner, and the result of that game could well give us an additional tie-breaking game on Tuesday.

Looking ahead to the games, you'd have to give the Twins a solid shot at at least two wins. They'll have a significant edge in pitching matchups on Friday and Sunday, and they're playing at home against the Royals. The Royals have actually had a good season by their own lights, and their recent success at the plate against southpaws gives them a fighting chance against Francisco Liriano and Glen Perkins. They'll also be up against a Twins' pen that, after the last two nights, is on the darker side of crispy. It doesn't seem likely that Joe Nathan will be available at all tonight.

Keep something else in mind: two years ago, the Royals went into Detroit on the season's last weekend and swept the Tigers, a sweep that allowed the Twins to sneak away with the AL Central crown

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Goldstein in his BP chat:

Jeff (DC): How good is Ryan Shealy, really, and what can we expect from him next season?

Kevin Goldstein: Ryan Shealy is 29 years old at this point, so it's not like he's some kind of prospect anymore. Bench bat at best.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

drewfuss (kc): Scott Boras love-fest at BP (in general)? Tell me I'm just stupid, jaded, and... something. So Mr. Boras is against half-hour deadline extension at $6m, but PRO one-month deadline extension at $6.3m one month later??? We royals fans really appreciate losing a month of Hosmer progress updates, by the way... we don't have a lot to pass the time otherwise. Thanks for all the chats, articles, etc.

Kevin Goldstein: I don't have love for Boras, but I certainly respect him and I don't understand the hatred of him at all. I think I lot of that hatred is misguided and here's a perfect example. Scott Boras did NOT drag Hosmer into all this, the Pirates did. Blame them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corey (L-Ville): Any reason Mike Moustakas wasn't sent to the instructional league? Is there a better third base prospect?

Kevin Goldstein: He played a long year, was healthy all year, had a great second half and there are only so many spots, even for instructs. Don't read too much into it.

about 1 year ago NYRoyal 9 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Other interesting note from the MLBPA press release

on the grievance(s), as posted by Goldsmith on Unfiltered:

I had never heard this reported until reading the press release, but there was not ONE grievance filed, but TWO. The second grievance was against the Commissioner’s office for instructing the Royals to bench Hosmer! (The Royals themselves aren’t mentioned, and thus were probably deemed by the union to be at worst an innocent bystander and at best an injured party themselves, albeit one the Union obviously has no interest in representing.)

That means that Hosmer’s deal with the Royals was never, ever, EVER in ANY jeopardy from any of this, as in order to file that grievance the Union had to be prepared to argue that Hosmer’s contract was in fact valid and binding.

Additionally, the press release makes reference to the settlement of the grievances including “Hosmer being made whole.” That clearly means he received some form of compensation (and not from the Royals, presumably).

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on Sep 26, 2008 6:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I saw that compensation part

I guess it would make sense that the MLBPA would make sure Hosmer didn’t get screwed out of his salary because of this. Even though it is a small amount, the player’s union can’t let that happen.

That means that Hosmer’s deal with the Royals was never, ever, EVER in ANY jeopardy from any of this

I don’t think this is true. While the MLBPA didn’t want Hosmer’s contract voided, the arguments they were making with regard to Alvarez could have given rise to a decision from the arbitrator which would have voided all contracts agreed to after the deadline. I think there was risk there. I don’t think the risk was very big though.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Sep 26, 2008 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nah.

As I said, in order to make the grievance against the Commissioner re: Hosmer, they would have HAD to argue that Hosmer’s contract was valid, thus excluding it from the Alvarez argument altogether.

The only way there’d be any risk would be if the Commissioner’s office turned around and tried to claim Hosmer’s contract was invalid, and that would be the most non-sensical possible outcome of the entire fiasco.

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on Sep 26, 2008 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Worst case scenario for MLB would've been:

- Hosmer doesn’t sit out
- Hosmer has career threatening injury
- Arbitrator rules that unilateral extensions are wrong – all contracts after deadline are void

- Boras/MLBPA sue MLB/Royals in $100+ million lawsuit for lost income due to playing him without having a valid deal

by Top Ramen on Sep 26, 2008 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs