Paxton Leaves Kentucky



Lefthander James Paxton has decided to leave Kentucky, according to BluGrass Baseball. That blog quotes Wildcats coach Gary Henderson saying: "James has decided not to play with us. What I can tell you is the University of Kentucky and Gary Henderson have done everything they can to try and convince James to be a part of this baseball team. We wanted him to be a part of our club; he could certainly make us a better team. I think it would have been the best decision for him baseball-wise, but he’s decided not to do that."

Paxton was never actually suspended by the Wildcats, but neither was he active—he was just withheld from competition until his eligibility could be cleared up. NCAA investigators wanted to meet with Paxton regarding a news report that agent Scott Boras negotiated with the Blue Jays on his behalf last summer. Paxton sued the school in an attempt to assert his due process rights and avoid meeting with the NCAA, but he lost his bid for a temporary injunction, and his appeal was denied last Friday.

It seems likely Paxton will wind up pitching for an independent league team before the draft, and if he does well his draft stock might not be negatively affected. In fact, he could improve his draft status if he shows better command in indy ball. But the NCAA's capriciously enforced "no agent" rule has cost him a chance to pitch for Kentucky as a senior, and has cost the Wildcats their ace.

We'll have more on Paxton's situation as information becomes available.

UPDATE: Kentucky, which has made few public comments about the Paxton situation, just issued the following statement about Paxton's departure:

"The University of Kentucky is very disappointed in James Paxton’s decision to not meet with the NCAA about a potential amateurism issue. No one wanted James on the mound in a Kentucky uniform more than UK head coach Gary Henderson, athletics director Mitch Barnhart and the UK Athletics staff. Due to the possibility of future penalties, including forfeiture of games, UK could not put the other 32 players of the team and the entire UK 22-sport intercollegiate athletics department at risk by having James compete. It’s about the team and giving student-athletes the opportunity to achieve their goals. Throughout the process, UK has remained confident that James would be able to pitch for Kentucky during the 2010 season and UK offered every bit of assistance to aid James in that NCAA process.

"UK does not know all the facts of last summer’s post-draft interaction among James, his advisors and the Toronto Blue Jays and has not prejudged his situation. James has an obligation under NCAA Bylaw 10.1 (j) to answer questions that relate to his amateur status. On advice of his counsel, James has elected not to be interviewed by the NCAA. UK has offered to pursue an immediate application for reinstatement for James with the NCAA if that became necessary. However, no request for reinstatement of his eligibility can be made based on mitigating circumstances until the student-athlete and his family cooperate and make all facts known to UK, with the NCAA having the opportunity to verify those facts. UK has never been provided all pertinent information from James and his family, who are following the legal advice of his attorneys not to be interviewed by the NCAA. Without knowing all the facts, UK cannot present mitigating circumstances to the NCAA on James’ behalf.

"UK is more optimistic than James and his family that any period of ineligibility could be shortened to allow James to pitch during the last and most important part of the season, the Southeastern Conference schedule. So it is disappointing that James is unwilling to go through the normal NCAA process, allowing UK to appeal for him, if necessary. The University of Kentucky is sad to see James leave its baseball team, especially after other players gave up portions of their scholarships in August so that he would have a substantial scholarship for his senior year.

"While UK is extremely disappointed in the decision made by James to not meet with the NCAA, he will always be a member of the Wildcat family. UK hopes that James will stay and earn his degree and wishes him the best in his professional baseball career. Should James change his mind and be willing to cooperate with the NCAA inquiry, the door is open for him to return to the UK baseball team and UK will seek any immediate appeal necessary for his reinstatement."



Comments

Comments will be monitored prior to being added to the site. Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be rejected. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed.

We have chosen to open up commenting to everyone, so comment away! We want to hear from each and every one of you! Leave a comment.

6 Comments

Whether it was for the best or not, Scott Boras' post draft interaction with the Blue Jays has prevented James Paxton from playing his senior year at Kentucky.

I agree, Boras Corp. botched this one (as did the Jays front office). But I believe that it was one of Boras agents handling this client, not Boras himself.

Boras does show a proclivity of hanging his clients out to dry. Paxton is a kid who got burned by the dollar signs Boras put in his eyes. Blue Jays front office isn't to blame if Boras had no intention of allowing his client to sign last year. He definetly could have reseeded higher in the draft this year thanks to a weaker college corp, and less depth in the LHP dept. He isn't to far behind Chris Sale skills wise.

"Whether it was for the best or not, Scott Boras' post draft interaction with the Blue Jays has prevented James Paxton from playing his senior year at Kentucky."
 
How is this Boras' fault?  His "post draft interaction with the Blue Jays"?  He is an agent, it is his job to have "post draft interactions" with clubs to get his players their bonuses.  How else is he, or any agent, supposed to negotiate and get guys signing bonuses without "interacting" with teams?

Aaron: Isn't this reaching certain levels of lunacy. On one hand, the NCAA readily acknowledges that these kids have representatives (as long as they do not negotiate for money). If they do, the kid gets hammered (Paxton). On the other hand, a scout can talk to a kid and tell him the team is interested in drafting him, the kid can asks him what type of money that they were considering, and the team says "4th round dollars" (for example). By current policy, that is okay? What's the difference between a "representative" or a kid asking what kind of dollars? What about a parent "representing" the kid? Can he ask? IMHO, the NCAA has done a pretty decent job of botching this. Oliver last year. Paxton this year. Look behind home plate at any game. You have scouts sitting next to player reps. In fairness to these kids, the NCAA should lighten up and accept the fact that this is now part of the college baseball business (and I stress – business) and work with the schools, major league baseball, and the private business sector to determine how best to proceed. Until then, we are going to have more kids get hammered through these arcane policies. Sorry for the rambling post, but the NCAA never ceases to amaze me.

I think you hit it on the head. It’s a pointless rule, and it’s completely ignored by everyone in the business. The NCAA just rarely can (or even tries, until just recently) to prove it.


What Are Your Thoughts?

• Line and paragraph breaks are automatic
• Your e-mail address will never be displayed











About This Blog

  • Aaron Fitt is the lead college writer for Baseball America. If you have questions or comments about college baseball you can e-mail him at collegeblog@baseballamerica.com.

Categories

Archives

Syndicate This Blog

Blogs

BaseballAmerica.com

Search This Blog