The language of the rule may be clear, but it appears to be contrary to its intent. I believe everyone would agree that the intent of the rule was to ensure that the ten worst teams in baseball would have their first round pick protected. The fact that the team with the 13th worst record last year gets an extra pick among the top ten should not result in one of the ten worst losing that status. If anything, there should be 11 protected picks in situations like these. (That is, assuming the compensatory pick that was being carried over from last year, was a protected pick in last year's draft.) Although the language of the rule was ratified when the CBA was signed, it is altogether possible that the parties failed to realize that it contained a loophole that flew in the face of their intent.
Originally Posted by Dugmet
MLB may choose to not rectify this injustice, just as they refused to overturn the travesty of Gallaraga's perfect game. However, if a majority of the owners see this as contradictory to their intent when the rule was drafted, and the MLBPA certainly sees it that way, they could jointly grant the Mets appeal, and later (next winter, as you suggest, perhaps) amend the wording to conform to the intent of the rule in the first place.
Last edited by dunbummin; 01-28-2013 at 12:17 AM.
Former B'klyn Dodger fan. Mets Maniac since 1962.