Here is Jack's petition to the league:
As a follow up to this from July - I would like to petition the league for a circumstance cut for Daniel Hudson.
To refresh everyone's memory;
- Hudson blew out his elbow in late June 2012.
- He had Tommy John surgery in early July 2012.
- Recovery time for this is a minimum of 12 months - and usually 13-15 months.
- I signed him to a 3 year contract starting in 2012.
- Initially I applied for this circumstance cut mid season 2012 but withdrew it after thinking about it and having some discussions as it really didn't apply at that time as he would not miss the 7 months in the rules for such a thing by end of season. I took my medicine and carried the dead weight all season.
If there ever was an injury that would apply for a circumstance cut this has to be it. Missing 12-15 months and most of 2 seasons (perhaps all of 1 as there is no guarantee hat he pitches come August 2013).
I respectfully request the circumstance cut for Daniel Hudson and hope that my fellow owners agree. In the discussions we had back in summer we discussed it not applying then but rather it be an end of season application on facts and circumstances.
I would be happy to discuss with you or any owner who has questions or concerns.
Respectfully submitted. - Jack
Majority rules and votes will be public. Email, text or post in comments your vote.
The keeper list obviously will not be released until this is resolved.
Posts
Do we have a stipulation where a draft pick is the penalty for this? If we don't then I don't think it's fair for this year but I'd like to have a vote on it for the future. I sympathize with Jack's situation but there should still be a cost to cutting a keeper before their contract runs out.
ReplyDeleteMy Proposal:
3 Years Remaining - Lose 2nd round pick
2 Years Remaining - Lose 5th round pick
1 Year Remaining - Lose 8th round pick
Final Year (not sure if this is the same as 1 year or not...if so refer to 1 year) - Lose 10th round pick
-Shea
This is novel in the sense that no one has attempted to use the mitigating circumstances during the offseason. First, in response to Shea's comment, we do have penalties already in place for cutting a keeper, those penalties can be found in the chart where it states which pick is forfeited when a keeper is cut. Moving on...
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is that Jack should not be permitted to cut Hudson without losing the corresponding draft pick posted in the chart. My reasoning is as follows:
We have distinguished between cutting a guy in and off-season. In-season is a 100% NO unless the mitigating circumstances are met. In the off-season, a manager can do as he sees fit. Additionally, from our prior rulings it has become clear that we have distinguished between a 1 year contract and a multiple year contract. The differentiation has guided the league's thinking when addressing petitions to cut a player. The same thinking, I believe, should follow here.
In signing a keeper to multiple years, there is an inherent risk that something may happen, whether it be injury, PED suspension, failed contract negotiations, team discipline etc. We are all aware that these things could happen, and clearly when deciding to sign a guy for multiple years, a manager must assume that the risk is outweighed by the reward. Also factoring into this decision is the assumption that the player signed will continue to perform well. We have all signed players to multiple years who have not performed to caliber and during the off-season a decision can be made to cut the dead wood and lose the pick or hope for a better next year. I do not differentiate between an injury (like Tommy John here) and a bad year from a player. These are both assumed risks and a keeper should not be treated differently when a. (an injury occurs) as opposed to b. (the player underperforms).
- Chris
Chris, I think what Shea means is since there is an extenuating circumstance (major injury, guy out for over year), if Jack wants to cut him, there should be a penalty but less than the penalty for cutting a guy lose because he stinks or because you want someone better, etc. In that sense, I agree with him. It's too late in the game now to add that stipulation, but going forward I think in this type of situation we should lay out different penalties for cutting a guy with a major injury, just my thought. With the current rules in place though and the fact that Hudson has multiple years left on his deal, Jack should get the full penalty for cutting Hudson lose if she chooses to do so. As Chris said, you take on the inherent risk when you sign a guy to multiple years
ReplyDeleteGuys, I am not surprised by the first three reactions, but I have to say this is VERY DIFFERENT than cutting "dead wood" for performance. In that instance it clearly would be a risk of the multi year signing and a penalty should apply.
ReplyDeleteI guess, if the vote goes against this, then I would move that as opposed to what Shea and Bob advocate (changing the rules going forward) that we should simply remove all uncertainty from the rules and state that you can't cut someone period, end of story, without penalty.
Honestly, at least that way you have it concrete, without a need for interpretation, novelty, politicking for votes... I respect the positions people are taking here, but honestly am totally dumbfounded by it from a perspective of fairness. Again, this is not DEAD WOOD - this is someone not there for over 1 calander year.
If we don't provide for a penalty free cut of someone who missed 3/4 of last season and will miss AT LEAST 2/3 of this season consecutively from the same injury and surgery (not a reinjury when someone came back and went bad again) then I submit we should simply eliminate any ability to cut without penalty, and thus you can only cut with penalty or not.
I would be totally opposed to softening this up forward if you guys are not going to apply it here and I would ask each of you to consider it from a fairness perspective. If this devestating and potentially career ending injury doesn't qualify for penalty free, we should never allow a penalty free cut.
- JACK
If the league thinks a rule needs to be added this offseason for this, I am OK with adding it now. As much as I am in favor of it being confined to winter meetings and saying "too bad you should have brought this up 2 weeks ago" it'd simply be stubborn not to allow it.
ReplyDeleteThat said, here's my take on this: I do not think that Jack should be able to cut Hudson without penalty. He chose to keep Daniel Hudson for three years. Now he wants to cut him due to ineffectiveness. Yes, that ineffectiveness is injury, and I understand it's a crippling injury that keeps him out for months. However, that is an accepted part of the big risk of signing a 3-year keeper, and it always has been.
Does Ricky get to cut Tim Lincecum penalty free because he had the league-worst ERA for a SP last year? Some might argue they'd rather have Daniel Hudson on the DL spot than another year of Lincecum.
I made a crucial mistake by keeping Matt Cain for 1 year instead of 2 or 3. He turned into an absolute ace in the year after I decided to keep him for 1 year. I did not get to petition to the league for a free allowance of adding two more years to his contract because I didn't expect him to turn into an ace from one year to the next. I had to let him go or pay the penalty to keep him on my team - that's how this league is designed. And, yes, I get that it's not the same as an injury. Still, there are penalties for misjudging your keepers, and yes, injuries are unfortunately included in that.
That said, I am willing to compromise and back down from my stance if the league feels this calls for a lesser penalty and not a first-round draft pick loss. I would be fine with Shea's scale of a 5th round pick loss.
I don't think this keeper system is complex, but clearly it is as we go through something like this year in and year out. A keeper league is not unique, and I can't imagine other keeper leagues generate these arguments. So count on this system being completely revamped in the 2014 offseason and maybe Jack is right in that we simply should not allow any more penalty-free cuts after this. Frankly, I'm tired of moderating the same general discussions all the time, and all of us writing 500-word novels offseason after offseason. I'm tired of getting blitzed from 10 different directions from managers. In fact, I'm feeling like Paul Tagliabue. Keep an eye on LinkedIn and monster.com for "MTL Keeper League Job Opening - Commish" as we could see this in the near future. Or gimme a damn raise!
I promise that I did not speak with Andy about this beforehand and know some of our points overlap. In response..
ReplyDeleteAndy touches on one of the points I was going to make in response to Jack's post. The fairness door swings both ways. Short-term keepers are declared all the time. Why? Because people do not want the long-term commitment or are unsure how the player will perform. Would it even be remotely logical to petition the league for a renewed contract penalty free? No, that would be ridiculous. The comparison is not exactly apples to apples, I get that, but it points out the other side to this argument, overlooked in the prior posts, but just as much a factor when each manager decides who to keep year in and out.
As far as injured guys not even being close to being "dead wood," well I disagree. Andy bringing up Lincecum is not that far off. Think about it. If you sign a guy like him for 3 years who just absolutely destroys your pitching statistics every week, are you really better off than having to slot Hudson on the DL and be able to pick up a serviceable player in his stead? With Lincecum, you are stuck. It is a dead roster spot. While Hudson does not help your team, he also does not hurt your team.
As to the severity of Hudson's injury, agree 100% Tommy John is a bad injury. However, is it really all that rare these days? In the last 5 years off the top of my head guys who had this done: Carpenter, Josh Johnson, Strasburg, Hudson, Wainwright ... all guys who are big names, had the procedure done and are pitching again. And that is I am sure just a small sample. Injuries are extremely prevalent in sports, that is the nature of the beast. Permitting this injury to require 0 penalty for cutting would basically give a manager debating how many years to sign a pitcher for more reason to opt for a longer contract because let's face it, if he goes down at any point with Tommy John, no worries you get to cut him at year's end. The strategy for signing pitchers would be severely reduced.
With all that said, I agree that this "mitigating circumstances" language needs to go and I wish that I never brought the idea up to Andy to begin with. It is causing too much unnecessary drama. I also am fine with a less stringent penalty being imposed, if that is the will of the other managers.
As a final aside, if the decision regarding Hudson results in Jack being permitted to cut without penalty or for a reduced penalty, then, as a manager who just signed a pitcher to a max 3 year contract, I will absolutely advocate for the same treatment being imposed for my pitcher if god forbid the same injury or one tantamount thereto occurs. In all seriousness I thought long and hard before making that decision and the injury factor absolutely played a role. That is all, for now.
I couldn't disagree more that Lincecum and Hudson are the same example and should be used as examples of why they should be cut or not be cut.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Lincecum, he is performing and able to perform. He is performing poorly, but he is on the roster, throws the ball, and plays. The fact that he is not helping his team (and is hurting it) is due to PERFORMANCE, not LACK OF PERFORMANCE.
In the case of Hudson, he got injured. He is not being cut because he sucks, he is being cut because he is physically unable to play for in excess of 12 consecutive months - most of 2 seasons...straight.
Yes injuries are part of the game and we provided for relief without penalty and with petition in the event of catastrophic injuries in the rules. The inference there is that the petition would be founded in fact and in good faith and that the league owners would look at it fairly with facts and circumstances in play.
There is no way that those two pitchers are on the same plane as to why they may be cut at this point. I honestly don't see how you can draw the conclusion that they are similar.
- JACK
PS - Commish - we will give you a raise of 20%, Shea can calculate and we will start it with your next check. We will take your current salary and multiply it by 1.20.
"In the case of Hudson, he got injured. He is not being cut because he sucks, he is being cut because he is physically unable to play for in excess of 12 consecutive months - most of 2 seasons...straight."
ReplyDeleteRight, but he was signed for 3 seasons and by all reports he is going to be back in August with 1+ years of eligibility remaining on his contract. And the excess of 12 consecutive months is not the duration of his contract. In theory, it's the same reason that Chris was denied an in-season cut of Sizemore, and the same reason you were allowed an in-season cut of Peavy - the length of their contracts.
With regards to Sizemore, as I recall the circumstances were totally different and not nearly as severe.
ReplyDelete1) I believe he was hurt much later in the first season - and thus missed less of the first season.
2) I believe as he approached the second season (Same point in time as Hudson now) he was not scheduled to miss AT LEAST until August, and was in fact rehabbing and came back early in the season. He then played a month or two and got REINJURED.
Again, I don't think facts and circumstances are on the same level specifically regarding timing (as in 12-15 CONSECUTIVE months out with the same injury and surgery), severity of injury, and uncertain comeback.
Please be mindful, that August is an optomistic timetable for a return but in no way, shape, or form a certainty.....and again I could easily see them being overly cautious, maybe wait until roster expansion in September to dust off some rust unless the rehab goes perfectly.
- JACK
I will not be responding anymore on this topic. Can everyone else please post, or at least give the commish your vote, so that we can have a ruling and move forward?
ReplyDeleteThe circumstances were not as severe, but the premise of my argument remains in tact: Sizemore was expected to be healthy when he still had 1 year remaining on his contract, just as Hudson is slated to be.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I've yet to hear from Joe, Hal, Adam, Rick and Dave. Let's go fellas.
I don't see it the same way, I think you are missing the fact that Sizemore was not out for anywhere near this long consecutively and as such at this point in time his manager would not be able to even request a circumstance cut as he was healthy and coming back at the start of the season - or shortly thereafter as opposed to a speculative maybe by August.
ReplyDeleteThe remaining time on the contract is relevant more towards the end of the contract (as it was in Peavy's case when he was out for the year and his contract was up for the end of the year).
In this instance, a 3 year contract was signed, and more than half of it - at a minimum will be lost due to one injury and surgery.
Again, if that is not considered a major injury and meet the criteria of a minimum 7 calandar month period then I honestly don't know what would and I submit if this doesn't meet it we should just remove any right to do it for mitigating circumstances and just go with - keep or cut with penalty - no questions asked.
- JACK
So I'm slightly confused. Are we still voting to allow Jack to cut Hudson or are we going to discuss a rule change?
ReplyDeleteFor now, to cut him without penalty.
ReplyDeleteSorry I am late to the discussion. Extremely busy. I do not think Jack should be allowed to cut Hudson without penalty. We all take risks when we sign players to longer deals. Also, I think that the penalty should be based on the original contract. Not based on how many years are left in the contract. If you signed someone for 15 million in guaranteed money, you would be forced to pay that money. If you sign a guy for 3 years, you should be forced to pay for signing the guy for 3 years. So for a 3 year keeper, its a 2nd rounder. For a 2 Year keeper a 4th Rounder. Something like that. As far as the immediate vote goes: He cannot cut Hudson without penalty.
ReplyDeleteThere are two distinct points to discuss regarding mitigating circumstances:
ReplyDelete1. Mitigating circumstances for IN-season vs. OFF-season keeper cuts: The rule for the "circumstance cut," as currently written, is specifically related to a petition to cut a keeper IN-season, which would normally not be allowed until the OFF-season. There is no language in the rule that indicates that this is either automatically applied or can be petitioned to be applied for an OFF-season cut. Therefore, if this were IN-season, I would be in favor of allowing the keeper to be cut as the injury does fit one of the "mitigating circumstances" as currently written in the rules. This stance is consistent with my vote on both 2010 cases. However, as stated before, I would also be in favor of a penalty for this IN-season cut (see next point). Since this is the OFF-season, we are in a gray area as mitigating circumstances are simply not addressed in the current rules.
2. Penalties for mitigating circumstance keeper cuts: We have a clearly defined table in the rules that applies to typical OFF-season keeper cutting. The rules DO NOT address penalties for IN-season cutting with mitigating circumstances, which is a gap we acknowledged in 2010 but have yet to address. And what about OFF-season cutting with mitigating circumstances such as this case? The rules DO NOT address this either. Therefore, I believe that we need to come up with a table of contract lengths and corresponding penalties for league-approved circumstance cuts that we can use right now on this case. This can be the same table for both IN- and OFF-season cases. I think Shea is on the right track here.
In summary, my stance on this case is that Jack should be allowed to cut Hudson just as he would be allowed with any other player; AND on the basis of mitigating circumstances, he should incur a draft pick-related penalty that is to some degree less harsh than that which is currently outlined in the rules table for typical keeper cuts.
-Rick