The excitement over Japanese phenom Roki Sasaki coming to Major League Baseball should be tempered by the likelihood that his signing will produce unintended consequences — teenage Latin American prospects who will be abandoned by the team that signs him.

Sasaki, 23, might be a top-of-the-rotation starter as soon as next season. The current international signing period ends Dec. 15. If, as expected, he delays his choice until the next period, which opens Jan. 15, the team he picks almost certainly will expend its entire bonus pool on him, breaking pre-existing verbal commitments with Latin American players who are further away from the majors.

Depriving those players of life-changing money isn’t right. And baseball should not allow it to happen.

The system for signing international players is broken, has been for a long time. Since teams are restricted in what they can spend on those players, many budget out agreements well in advance of the opening of the international signing period, trying to maximize their bonus pool allotment. Players cannot officially sign until they are 16, but teams often strike verbal deals with players from the Dominican Republic and other countries who are as young as 12. Such deals technically are forbidden, and not binding.

As detailed by Baseball America’s Ben Badler, the players who likely would be spurned by Sasaki’s team would be left in a lurch, their futures uncertain. In effect, they would be collateral damage in a system that no longer would exist if MLB and the Players Association had agreed on an international draft in 2022. Sasaki almost certainly would have been the top pick this year. The players whose agreements his signing might jeopardize would have been eligible for selection.

It is not unusual for teams to back out of verbal deals with Latin American prospects. An issue with a player’s physical might be one reason. A reduction in a team’s international budget might be another. An overzealous commitment to too many players might be a third. But as Badler points out, if a team has an agreement with a player at this late stage, less than two months before the 2025 signing period opens, it expects to sign him. If those deals are broken, the players will likely need to accept reduced bonuses from other teams, if they can find openings at all. This could create a ripple effect if players sign with new clubs who then have to break agreements they had previously made in order to fit the new deals into their bonus pool. Players who are caught in this shuffle also could wait to sign until 2026, though teams already have made commitments to players in that class, too, and those players would be a year older.

A solution to all this is possible, if MLB wants to take responsibility rather than allow a team to drop the hammer on a group of eager kids, many of whom come from impoverished backgrounds: Allow Sasaki to sign separately from his new team’s international pool. Uphold the preexisting agreements with the Latin American prospects. Do the honorable thing, rather than simply blame a dishonorable system that should have been fixed long ago.

This is not to suggest Sasaki should become an unrestricted free agent, not when he has yet to fulfill the requirement of being 25 and playing six seasons in a foreign professional league the way Japanese right-hander Yoshinobu Yamamoto had last offseason. The same basic framework for Sasaki’s contract would apply. His bonus from whichever team wins the bidding could be capped at $7.56 million, a sum that would match the largest pool available in the 2025 signing period. The team that signed him happily would take on the additional cost.

Wait, you might say, no such exception was necessary for Shohei Ohtani, who fell under the same restrictions as Sasaki when he signed with the Los Angeles Angels in December 2017. The difference then was the calendar: In 2017, the international signing period opened on July 2 and closed the following June 15. No preexisting agreements needed to be broken. Deals for the bigger names in that class, which included Julio Rodríguez and Wander Franco, had been official for months.

It is ridiculous that young, established Japanese professionals are placed in the same category as amateurs from Latin America and other regions, but that’s another story. In 2021, the league shifted the dates of the international signing period so that it would run from Jan. 15 to Dec. 15. If Sasaki is posted soon enough, he could sign during the current period. But it would behoove him and his Japanese club, the Chiba Lotte Marines, to wait.

The team with the most money left in its bonus pool for the current period, the Los Angeles Dodgers, has slightly more than $2.5 million available, according to Baseball America. A team can trade for up to an additional 60 percent of its original allotment, but the 2025 bonus pools, ranging from $5.1 million to $7.56 million, still would be greater. More money for Sasaki and more money for the Marines, who would receive a release fee equal to 20 percent of Sasaki’s bonus under the current rules.

Separating Sasaki from the system, if only as a one-time exception, would raise uncomfortable questions. What would happen the next time a ballyhooed international professional under the age of 25 announces his intention to play in the majors? How would the league determine whether a player was good enough to warrant the same treatment as Sasaki? And would the team that lands Sasaki gain an unfair competitive advantage if it also was permitted to sign the rest of its international class, a group that generally consists of 10 to 30 players?

Sorry, this isn’t that complicated. The current collective bargaining agreement expires on Dec. 1, 2026. No international free agent with Sasaki’s profile and talent is on the horizon for the next two years. So, to avoid the issue resurfacing, MLB and the union would simply need to agree on an international draft in the next CBA. For reasons that go well beyond Sasaki, their motivation to create a better feeder system for international talent should only be increasing.

Almost three years ago, The Athletic reported on corruption in the current system, with teams pledging contracts to players in Latin America before they were even teenagers. Earlier this month, both ESPN and Baseball America reported on MLB investigations that led to the quashing of deals for teenage prospects who were found to have falsified their ages and identities.

The international draft is an imperfect solution with its share of detractors. For years, it has been a sticking point between MLB and the Players Association. But the union, in the last round of bargaining, dropped its philosophical opposition to the concept. The league offered to eliminate the qualifying offer system in exchange for the draft. The union countered the league’s proposal with one of its own, and the two sides wound up $69 million apart. While the parties also had other differences, their argument mostly boiled down to money.

As for the imbalance of one team getting Sasaki plus an entire international class, what are we really talking about? International amateurs typically sign at 16. The ones who become major leaguers generally require four or five years of development, and most never even reach that level. The biggest advantage for a team that winds up with Sasaki in addition to a full international class would be Sasaki. True, that team also might land a Juan Soto or Vladimir Guerrero Jr. But signing top international talents doesn’t always guarantee those players will have any impact in the big leagues. And far greater inequities exist in the sport.

If the league isn’t keen on making an exception with Sasaki, it could explore other options. Adding to the other 29 teams’ bonus pools to allow them to sign players who lose their agreements with Sasaki’s club. Finding a way to give those players some form of financial security while allowing them to become free agents. Allowing a team to pay Sasaki in 2025 but count him against its pool in ’26, giving players to whom the team verbally committed for ’26 more time to find new deals.

Clearly, there is no perfect answer. But baseball people, when forced to accept a difficult circumstance, often acknowledge the need to “wear it.” A general manager makes a bad trade, wear it. A fielder makes a critical error, wear it. A starting pitcher struggles but needs to cover innings, wear it.

The likelihood of Sasaki signing in the next period raises a different kind of difficult circumstance. A select group of Latin American teenagers stands to lose deals in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Let’s hear someone explain why those players might need to wear it. There’s no way it should happen, if this sport has any conscience.

(Top photo of Roki Sasaki in the 2023 WBC: Eric Espada / Getty Images)

The NBA has come under criticism again over its international partnerships after a report from Human Rights Watch accused the league of potentially taking part in “sportswashing” because of its budding relationship with the United Arab Emirates (UAE).  

The report published Tuesday focused on the league’s two preseason games held in Abu Dhabi in October and this year’s in-season tournament, renamed the Emirates NBA Cup following the league’s multiyear global marketing partnership with the airline announced in February. 

The report accused the UAE of using its new platform as a “part of the Emirati government’s efforts to distract from the many human rights violations it is committing at home and abroad,” adding that the league risks contributing to those efforts over its failure to speak out on those violations.

“The  NBA should be aware that the UAE hosts high profile sporting, entertainment, and cultural events to promote a public image of openness and tolerance at odds with the government’s rampant systemic human rights violations,” the report read.

“The NBA has a responsibility under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to respect human rights throughout all its operations. This includes adopting specific policies and conducting due diligence to identify risks of contributing to human rights harms, including burnishing the image of human rights-abusing states.” 

The Emirates NBA Cup game between the Toronto Raptors and Detroit Pistons at Scotiabank Arena on Nov. 15, 2024, in Toronto, Canada. (Andrew Lahodynskyj/Getty Images)

TRUMP CAMPAIGN BLASTS WARRIORS’ STEVE KERR FOR NEED TO ‘SPEAK UP’ AT DNC DESPITE PREVIOUS SILENCE ON CHINA

The NBA didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

For the third straight season, the NBA held two preseason games featuring the reigning champion Boston Celtics and the 2023 champion Denver Nuggets in Abu Dhabi in early October. This was a part of the 2021 multiyear partnership signed with the Department of Culture and Tourism – Abu Dhabi (DCT Abu Dhabi).

In February, the league also announced Emirates as the Official Global Airline Partner of the NBA and the first-ever referee jersey patch partner of the NBA.

Tobias Harris of the Detroit Pistons talks with referee Scott Foster during the Emirates NBA Cup game against the Toronto Raptors at Scotiabank Arena on Nov. 15, 2024. (Andrew Lahodynskyj/Getty Images)

This new relationship followed the fallout of 2019 when Chinese state television decided not to air two NBA exhibition games in response to the league’s reaction to comments made by former Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey in support of pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong.

According to a report from ESPN, that blackout went on for 18 months and more than 10 Chinese sponsors paused or withdrew from their deals. 

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Daniel Jones took off with nothing but open field in front of him during a 2020 game against the Philadelphia Eagles. The deceptive speed that has made the New York Giants quarterback an effective runner allowed him to increase the distance from pursuing defenders. Then, as Jones neared the goal line for an 88-yard touchdown, he inexplicably stumbled.

With a national audience watching on “Thursday Night Football”, Jones started to lose his footing at Philadelphia’s 30-yard line. He tumbled to the ground and was tackled by an Eagles defender at the 8-yard line, to the disbelief of everyone watching.

With Jones’ benching signaling the end of his six-year run as the Giants’ starting quarterback, that play perfectly encapsulated his tenure. A flicker of promise but, ultimately, a disappointing result.

DANIEL JONES. 80-YARD RUN.

📺: #NYGvsPHI on NFLN/FOX/PRIME VIDEO
📱: https://t.co/W5bCPYgMfo pic.twitter.com/zI1GumCyn0

— NFL (@NFL) October 23, 2020

Advertisement

The unofficial end of Jones’ reign came Monday when a source confirmed an NFL Network report that Jones is being benched. This move was inevitable after the Giants’ embarrassing 20-17 overtime loss to the Panthers in Germany in Week 10. Jones’ poor play was a major reason the Giants couldn’t score against the NFL’s worst defense.

With the 2-8 Giants on their bye week, this was the logical time for a quarterback change to give backup Tommy DeVito — who was chosen over No. 2 QB Drew Lock — time to prepare to take over. The Giants went 3-13 in games started by Jones over the past two seasons, and they rank last in the league in scoring this season. His career record is 24-44-1.

The official end of Jones’ time with the Giants will come sometime after the season when the team releases him two years into the four-year, $160 million extension he signed in 2023. Jones, 27, will look to revitalize his career in a new setting, while the Giants will earnestly pursue a replacement this offseason.

The boos rained down at the draft party hosted by the Giants at MetLife Stadium when Jones was announced as the sixth pick in the 2019 draft. Factors outside of Jones’ control led to the chilly greeting from the fan base.

GO DEEPER

After 49ers bash Daniel Jones, it begs the question: Why does Giants QB get so much hate?

Advertisement

There was little faith in then-general manager Dave Gettleman, with many believing it was a reach to take Jones with a top-10 pick after he compiled a 17-19 record at Duke. But Jones won over fans, teammates and the rest of the organization in Week 3 of his rookie season when he replaced franchise icon Eli Manning as the starting quarterback.

Jones engineered an 18-point second-half comeback in Tampa Bay, throwing for two touchdowns and rushing for two more, including the game-winner with 1:16 remaining. But the swagger Jones showed in his debut was fleeting.

Fielding a woeful supporting cast around Jones, the Giants lost nine straight games during his rookie season. Still, he demonstrated playmaking ability under coach Pat Shurmur while throwing 24 touchdown passes, which remains the highwater mark of his career by a wide margin.

Shurmur was fired after Jones’ rookie season and replaced by Joe Judge. He and offensive coordinator Jason Garrett focused on eliminating Jones’ ball security issues after he had an NFL-high 19 fumbles as a rookie. In the process, they eliminated the young quarterback’s aggressiveness.

Jones cut back on his turnovers at the expense of throwing the ball downfield. He combined for 21 touchdown passes in two seasons under Judge and Garrett. The second season was cut short due to a neck injury that sidelined Jones for the final six games in 2021.

The coaching changes, a perennially poor offensive line and a lack of playmakers led Giants co-owner John Mara to proclaim after the 2021 season that, “We’ve done everything possible to screw this kid up.”

Jones received a clean slate when Joe Schoen and Brian Daboll replaced Gettleman and Judge, respectively, after the 2021 season. One of the new regime’s first major decisions was declining Jones’ fifth-year option for the 2023 season. That set up the 2022 season as a prove-it year for Jones.

He rose to the occasion. Using his legs more than ever, Jones engineered an efficient offense that relied on running back Saquon Barkley and opportunistic passing.

Jones still only threw for 15 touchdowns, but he added another seven rushing to lead the Giants to a surprising 9-7-1 record and their first playoff appearance in six years. Once in the postseason, Jones raised his game to an inconceivable level in a 31-24 wild-card round win at Minnesota.

The performance was treated as vindication for Mara, who declared, “We’re back,” in the victorious locker room. The mood was far more somber a week later when the Giants were steamrolled 38-7 by the Eagles in the divisional round.

Despite the bitter end to the season, the optimism about Jones within the organization was unbridled. Schoen affirmed that Jones, who was set to be an unrestricted free agent, would be back with the Giants in his season-ending news conference days after the loss to the Eagles.

That wasn’t a simple process, as Schoen tried to simultaneously negotiate with Jones and Barkley during the 2023 offseason. When Barkley wasn’t receptive to the Giants’ initial extension offers, Schoen turned his focus to Jones.

Not forgetting the fifth-year option slight, which would have locked Jones in at $22.4 million for 2023, the quarterback drove a hard bargain at the negotiating table. With talks coming down to the franchise tag deadline, the Giants and Jones agreed to a four-year, $160 million extension. The Giants immediately pivoted to tagging Barkley minutes before the deadline.

If there’s one decision Schoen could do over in his three years, it has to be that one. Rather than giving in to Barkley with a contract worth roughly $25 million guaranteed, Schoen wound up guaranteeing $82 million to Jones. Schoen was mindful of maintaining an escape hatch, however, so the Giants can cut Jones after two seasons while eating a manageable $22.2 million in dead money on the salary cap.

The worst fears of committing to Jones were realized immediately during a disastrous 2023 season. Jones went 1-5 in six starts while suffering a second neck injury that sidelined him for three games before a torn ACL in his right knee ended his season in Week 9.

With buyer’s remorse established, Schoen and Daboll extensively scouted a potential replacement in the 2024 draft. The problem was that the Giants were picking sixth and the teams with the top three picks desperately needed quarterbacks.

Schoen tried in vain to trade with the Patriots for the third pick, but New England took North Carolina quarterback Drake Maye. With Maye, USC’s Caleb Williams and LSU’s Jayden Daniels off the board, the Giants chose not to take a quarterback.

It marked the fifth straight draft since Jones was selected that the Giants didn’t add a quarterback. Instead, they used the sixth pick on LSU wide receiver Malik Nabers in the hopes that the dynamic playmaker could help unlock Jones in another make-or-break year.

Nabers has flashed his talent, but it hasn’t made a difference. Jones has proven incapable of leading a high-octane offense.

The breaking point came in Munich. Jones threw two interceptions in the red zone to kill scoring drives. His most egregious play, however, was taking a sack on a flea flicker despite Nabers and wide receiver Wan’Dale Robinson running wide open on the trick play.

There’s financial incentive to sit Jones, who has made $108 million in his career, because he has a $23 million injury guarantee in his contract. If he suffers a major injury that will prevent him from passing a physical in mid-March, the Giants will be on the hook for $12 million. Another $11 million would become guaranteed at the start of next season. The savings from cutting Jones this offseason would be wiped out if the injury guarantee was triggered.

The injury guarantee is a valid reason to bench Jones, especially as he has repeatedly rammed himself into defenders on runs this season. But finances aside, the Giants simply couldn’t trot Jones out again in front of a hostile home crowd that has seen the team lose all five of its games at MetLife Stadium this season.

The Giants can no longer afford to take the financial risk of playing Jones. (Cooper Neill / Getty Images)

No one has ever questioned Jones’ intangibles. He’s tough, hard-working and an exemplary teammate.

Jones is cut from the same cloth as Manning, down to having the same personal quarterback trainer and college coach. But for all of the similarities between the quarterbacks, Jones lacks the traits that made Manning one of the best big-game quarterbacks of his era.

Jones seemed too determined to copy Manning’s ability to sidestep controversy in the New York media market. Perhaps being wound so tight can explain why Jones performed so much worse at home — 29 touchdowns and 30 interceptions in 35 career home games compared to 41 touchdowns and 17 interceptions in 35 career road games.

The Giants scored a touchdown three plays after Jones’ meme-worthy stumble four years ago, and they were in position for a rare win at Philadelphia late in the game when he floated a pass to tight end Evan Engram. A catch could have sealed the win; instead, the perfect pass slipped through Engram’s fingertips.

Jones’ stumble and Engram’s drop were representative of this forgettable six-year period. The failures weren’t all Jones’ fault, but he also wasn’t able to overcome the circumstances around him.

So Jones’ time is up in New York. The Giants are now on the clock to get it right on their next swing at a quarterback.

(Photo illustrations: Dan Goldfarb / The Athletic; top photo: Cooper Neill / Getty Images)