Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, September 08, 2018

Players union criticizes Blue Jays for not calling up Guerrero - Sportsnet.ca

Yesterday on MLB Now, Eno Sarris suggested an idea which could be workable related to service time. He suggested teams get a fixed amount of time for minor and major league service time. I believe he mentioned somewhere around 8 years, dependent on draft age. A more workable timeframe would probably be 10-11 years but I believe with more work, there could be something to the idea. The question is, though, what other compromises on both sides would be needed to get it done. In CBAs there is always give and take. What would each side be willing to concede? Would the players be willing to get rid of super two status and reduce arbitration to two years? Would the owners be willing to increase minimum pays for players operating under their first contacts (not free agents, you wouldn’t want to price them out) and, maybe, bump up AA and AAA pay?

Those are just a few thoughts. Any other ideas?

Jim Furtado Posted: September 08, 2018 at 10:25 AM | 41 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: blue jays, cba, mlbpa, service time, vladimir guerrero jr.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Man o' Schwar Posted: September 08, 2018 at 11:22 AM (#5740876)
I think 8 years for college picks, 10-11 years for high school/international picks would work. If you make it 10-11 years for everyone, you're going to have guys coming out of college who don't hit free agency until they're 32-33 years old. Everyone should be able to get to free agency (if they choose to do so) by the time they're 30. I wouldn't want to discourage athletes from going to college, given the small percentage who will ever sniff a professional baseball career.

Bumping up AA/AAA pay should happen regardless.
   2. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 08, 2018 at 02:39 PM (#5740932)
A dual age/max control would work. You get 8 years (minors and majors), or age 28, whichever is later.

So, college guys are FA at 30, 8 years of control, but they should be in the bigs within 2 years, so teams still get 6 years.
HS guys are FA at 28, so if the team can get them to the bigs by age 22, they still 6 years.
Int'l FAs who sign at 16, are FA at 28. Same as HS guys basically.

That seems fair to all involved, and gives teams every incentive to get players to the majors as soon as they're ready. For super stars, that are ready at 19 or 20, the teams actually get more control. But those guys are doing fine already, so it doesn't bother me.

In compensation, players could give up super-2, so first three years of control are at minimum, but raise minimum so that year 1 is $500K, year 2 is $750K, and year 3 $1M.
   3. SoSH U at work Posted: September 08, 2018 at 03:01 PM (#5740935)
That seems fair to all involved.


Bryce Harper might disagree, seeing as how you just pushed back his FA eligibility two years.
   4. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 08, 2018 at 03:37 PM (#5740938)

Bryce Harper might disagree, seeing as how you just pushed back his FA eligibility two years.


Any change will hurt somebody. The guys who are going to make tens of millions in signing bonuses and arb salaries seem the best ones to hurt.

But, would Harper really be much worse off with a $20-25M arb award this year, and a chance to go to FA off a non-crappy season?
   5. Greg Pope Posted: September 08, 2018 at 03:41 PM (#5740940)
Bryce Harper might disagree, seeing as how you just pushed back his FA eligibility two years.

Right, so Harper's unhappy, but Vlad Jr got called up in May. If you change the system, you'll get some winners and losers. Harper probably gets massive salaries in arbitration under those next 2 years, so while he can't choose his team, he still gets a lot of money.

Every proposal will have "what about player X, he's worse off".
   6. Not a tall order Posted: September 08, 2018 at 04:02 PM (#5740943)
Players shouldn't be satisfied with a system that is equally good for them on average. They should push the envelope.
   7. SoSH U at work Posted: September 08, 2018 at 04:04 PM (#5740944)
Every proposal will have "what about player X, he's worse off".


Exactly my point. The idea that you can design some system that is somehow fair for everyone (including the teams) is absurd. Why snapper and others continue to insist otherwise is a mystery.
   8. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: September 08, 2018 at 04:15 PM (#5740946)
Harper probably gets massive salaries in arbitration under those next 2 years, so while he can't choose his team, he still gets a lot of money.


But if he gets hurt he loses out on a huge multi year deal.
   9. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 08, 2018 at 04:20 PM (#5740948)
Exactly my point. The idea that you can design some system that is somehow fair for everyone (including the teams) is absurd. Why snapper and others continue to insist otherwise is a mystery.

"Fair" does not mean no one is worse off. That should be self-evident. If there was a system where everyone was better off, they'd have adopted it already.

But if he gets hurt he loses out on a huge multi year deal.

No he doesn't. Hitters basically never suffer career ending injuries. Even if he did, he'd still be over $80M in career earnings. No one would cry for him.
   10. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: September 08, 2018 at 04:22 PM (#5740949)
If the goal is fairness for all players, allow them to sign contracts of whatever length they and the clubs agree to, after which they're free to walk.
   11. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: September 08, 2018 at 04:25 PM (#5740950)
No he doesn't. Hitters basically never suffer career ending injuries. Even if he did, he'd still be over $80M in career earnings. No one would cry for him.


Baseball players tear up knees, achilles, break ankles, get hit by pitches on wrists, any number of things COULD happen to them. Whether you would cry for him or not isn't relevant to him.
   12. SoSH U at work Posted: September 08, 2018 at 04:26 PM (#5740951)
"Fair" does not mean no one is worse off. That should be self-evident. If there was a system where everyone was better off, they'd have adopted it already.


A system that is tied to age, rather than performance, will be unfair to players who mature quicker. You will also have players born June 30 who will get to FA a year earlier than a guy born July 1. There will also be unintended consequences as teams reduce the size of the minors or cut bait earlier on slow-developing players or other effects we haven't considered.

A system that is tied to performance, rather than age, will invite the call-up shenanigans we see now.

The system can be improved. I'm sure of that. But as long as players develop at different rates, and are ready at different points in the season, while FA itself only happens between seasons, there is no one sized fits all system that is going to be fair to everyone. Stop pretending otherwise.

   13. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 08, 2018 at 04:59 PM (#5740958)
The system can be improved. I'm sure of that. But as long as players develop at different rates, and are ready at different points in the season, while FA itself only happens between seasons, there is no one sized fits all system that is going to be fair to everyone. Stop pretending otherwise.

Again, you're abusing what "fair" means. The arbitrary cut-offs in any proposed new system are no less fair than the arbitrary cutoffs (6 years of service time, super-two etc.) in today's system. The point is that they would be cutoffs that are not able to be manipulated by the teams.

If the goal is fairness for all players, allow them to sign contracts of whatever length they and the clubs agree to, after which they're free to walk.

Exactly. Abolish the draft. Give each team a budget to sign amateur players (which could vary by previous year record, market size, etc.) and let teams compete to sign players. One way they could compete is to offer shorter terms for team control.
   14. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: September 08, 2018 at 05:10 PM (#5740962)
Abolish the draft.


Hippie.
   15. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 08, 2018 at 05:32 PM (#5740964)
Who doesn't enjoy a good slave auction?
   16. SoSH U at work Posted: September 08, 2018 at 08:47 PM (#5741041)
Again, you're abusing what "fair" means.


You were the person who brought fairness into the conversation.

The arbitrary cut-offs in any proposed new system are no less fair than the arbitrary cutoffs (6 years of service time, super-two etc.) in today's system. The point is that they would be cutoffs that are not able to be manipulated by the teams.


Not even close. The current system of service time-based FA is much less arbitrary than your age-based system, which would pick a date with absolutely no meaning (nothing about June 30-July 1 is any more reasonable or logical than Sept. 30-Oct. 1). There is a sound basis behind a six years of service time clock (it applies equally to everyone and it makes sense for the teams as it provides payback for the developmental costs and allows lower-revenue teams a better avenue to be competitive). OTOH, it also allows teams to play service time games*. The various fixes proposed here can address the latter problem, but not without creating a new set of issues or a new group of people that would be disadvantaged.

The only way you can get a truly fair system for everyone that does what you want it to (encourages teams to call up a prospect the moment he's ready) is to grant FA the moment a player hits his service time clock, regardless when it happens. But as long as the FA period only exists in the offseason, then a "fair to all involved" system is impossible.

* It's worth noting that these manipulations of service time clocks really only exist for a very small number of players -- mostly the same guys you already expressed indifference to earlier in the thread.
   17. Ziggy's screen name Posted: September 08, 2018 at 08:50 PM (#5741043)
We can avoid arbitrary cutoffs. You get to be a FA on your Xth birthday. If you happen to turn X years old during the season, then you're a FA during the season. It would be chaos, and great fun! Imagine the bidding war between contenders when Trout turns X years old, come some August 7th.
   18. cardsfanboy Posted: September 08, 2018 at 08:59 PM (#5741048)
The only "fair" system I'm looking to support is more about the older late developing players, not the uber studs who are going to get paid no matter what... People like Pham and Ruiz are the guys who are truly screwed by this system, the difference for Guerrero or others is basically one year later before he makes millions.... Ruiz and Pham don't reach an age where they can truly negotiate their own money until they are already past any reasonable prime.

I think that the system should be set up, so that no matter what the player does, that outside of a multi-year contract, that if you are older than 29, you are eligible for free agency with no restrictions.
   19. SoSH U at work Posted: September 08, 2018 at 08:59 PM (#5741049)

We can avoid arbitrary cutoffs. You get to be a FA on your Xth birthday. If you happen to turn X years old during the season, then you're a FA during the season. It would be chaos, and great fun! Imagine the bidding war between contenders when Trout turns X years old, come some August 7th.


That's just the other half of what I said in 16. The only way to truly avoid some kind of arbitrariness or manipulative behavior is to grant FA the moment a threshold of some kind is hit, regardless what time of the year it happens. As long as that never happens (and I can't see it ever happening), then you're going to have issues of some kind.

   20. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 08, 2018 at 09:58 PM (#5741122)
In reality, the fair system is to scrap it all. Scrap the draft, scrap slotting, scrap international bonus limits.

Everyone not under contract to an MLB team is a FA, able to sign as long or short a deal as he wants, for as much money he can get.

If the owners want to address small market disparities, do it through revenue sharing, not on the backs of the players.

Although quite frankly, Miami, Tampa, KC, and Pittsburgh already get $60M+ in free revenue every year that they do precious little to generate. MLB central revenue would be 95-98% of the current level if they contracted to the 24 best markets.
   21. cardsfanboy Posted: September 08, 2018 at 10:12 PM (#5741125)
In reality, the fair system is to scrap it all. Scrap the draft, scrap slotting, scrap international bonus limits.

Everyone not under contract to an MLB team is a FA, able to sign as long or short a deal as he wants, for as much money he can get.


How in the heck is a system like that fair to the fans?
   22. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 08, 2018 at 10:16 PM (#5741127)
How in the heck is a system like that fair to the fans?

The same way every other industry in the country is fair to its customers, without restricting what the employees can earn. The fans are the only ones in the system that are entirely free. They can spend or not spend their money as they see fit.

I'm not ignoring the need for revenue sharing to balance the large market/small market imbalance, but that should be done by the owners. The optimal system for maximizing total MLB revenue definitely involves a subsidy from the large markets to the small. But, that doesn't logically extend to making the market for player talent anything less than a total free market.
   23. flournoy Posted: September 08, 2018 at 10:57 PM (#5741139)
Why would the teams/owners have any incentive to change the status quo? In all of these proposals, it seems to me that from their perspective, nothing changes except the players become more expensive.

Also, "fairness to the fans" is a weird concept. Sound economic policy (whatever any individual decides that to be, in his estimation) has no correlation to the fans' enjoyment.
   24. cardsfanboy Posted: September 08, 2018 at 11:30 PM (#5741152)

I'm not ignoring the need for revenue sharing to balance the large market/small market imbalance, but that should be done by the owners. The optimal system for maximizing total MLB revenue definitely involves a subsidy from the large markets to the small. But, that doesn't logically extend to making the market for player talent anything less than a total free market.


Yes it does... as a fan, we want consistency of players on the team, a truly open market creates a routine flux in rosters, meaning that $70 Yadier Jersey I bought last year, is a completely useless this year..

The Oakland A's concept of running a team is complete and utter hogwash for the fans, nobody is going to follow a team that turns over the roster like that, where the only person of importance in the organization is a has been, nobody ball player that is now the gm. I'm a fan of the team, meaning I'm a fan of the players, rotating a bunch of names in and out, is not really appealing for long term growth.
   25. cardsfanboy Posted: September 08, 2018 at 11:34 PM (#5741154)
Why would the teams/owners have any incentive to change the status quo? In all of these proposals, it seems to me that from their perspective, nothing changes except the players become more expensive.


Agree... this was bargained for by the players and their union, they knew what concessions they were willing to give up...and in the past at least one owner did propose every player become a free agent, and the union quickly rejected this idea, because it's stupid beyond belief and would more or less reduce salaries all across the board. Not just the high end, but at the mid-high, mid, mid-low... in fact the only people who would make money on this concept would be the owners and about a dozen stud young players.... who will end up giving up a ton of money in their 30's to sign good money in their early 20's.
   26. cardsfanboy Posted: September 08, 2018 at 11:41 PM (#5741157)
The same way every other industry in the country is fair to its customers, without restricting what the employees can earn. The fans are the only ones in the system that are entirely free. They can spend or not spend their money as they see fit.


that answer doesn't remotely answer the question I proposed.

The fans want some level of consistency, they want players they recognize... outside of the ###### up situation in Oakland, where there are no fans because a decade of an ego-centric front office insisting the fans only care about the bottom line, instead of players that they know... (and ignoring the only situation even worse from a fan perspective, the Marlins) the fans don't show up, don't spend, don't care about the team, regardless of record, unless they can actually have some attachment to them... The A's, a potential playoff team, cannot get even 25,000 fans to show up for a Sunday game that they are playing a division rival. ..... nobody cares about the A's, because none of the fans can identify with the players.... I bet more people on here could name more players for the A's than the average citizen of Oakland right now....
   27. zachtoma Posted: September 09, 2018 at 05:31 AM (#5741187)
I don't think 19 year-olds who've had a good month in AAA not getting called up immediately is that big of a deal, and that nothing should be changed to address that case in particular. The instances in which this is an issue are very marginal, and in a lot of cases, very young players benefit from additional time in the minors even after they've been crushing at AA/AAA - everyone should know by now that this is not a real indicator of sustainable MLB success. You can never know for sure if a guy is "ready" until he's been up for awhile, and you don't want to be wrong. I've seen too many players who were rushed fail to develop at the ML level for me to ever, ever say that a 19 year-old kid "has" to be up.

From a labor perspective I think the top priority should be raising minor league and MLB minimum salaries dramatically - too bad the union loves to sell out minor leaguers and 0-3 players (the overwhelming majority of players in affiliated ball) for fat veteran salaries. The service time issues are really secondary, fussing around the edges. I don't favor an expansion of free agency or any reduction of team control years. I don't care if Mike Trout gets to make $300 million or $400 million and I don't know why anyone would.
   28. zachtoma Posted: September 09, 2018 at 05:47 AM (#5741188)
Also, "fairness to the fans" is a weird concept. Sound economic policy (whatever any individual decides that to be, in his estimation) has no correlation to the fans' enjoyment.


The "fans' enjoyment" is the only reason professional baseball exists. Where did we get this idea that a few dozen uber-talented jocks ought to be deferred to as world-shaping God-kings?
   29. , Posted: September 09, 2018 at 08:33 AM (#5741191)
The "best" economic system is not always the "best" overall system. If you optimize perfectly the finances for players and owners while dramatically screwing it up for fans, it's not the best system.

I suspect they're already pretty close to the best system. They make a ton of money and pretty much every average to above average player makes enough to support themselves without another day's work. The elite can support generations of offspring.

A few people fall through the cracks. Personally, I'd prefer to take from the owners to plug those holes rather than the richer players. But that's a hard sell that probably requires labor stoppage. As a fan, that's very much not preferred.
   30. BDC Posted: September 09, 2018 at 09:31 AM (#5741198)
I've seen too many players who were rushed fail to develop at the ML level


What are some of these stories? I am not doubting that it's happened, but one hears this claim so often that it's worth checking out in some detail. Particularly with position players, because they're not as subject to sheer physical stress as young pitchers.

I searched for players who'd had ≥100 PAs in their first ML season at age 21 or younger. For the five seasons 2010-14, there are 21 such players. Sixteen aren't relevant: Stanton, Heyward, Castro, Altuve, Trout, Hosmer, Lawrie, S.Perez, Rizzo, Machado, Harper, Yelich, Flores, Odor, Baez, Betts. At least I don't think you can say that an early debut interfered with their development. Jason Heyward may have failed to develop, but his early debut season was hardly the issue. And all these guys developed into legitimate ML players.

The other five are Dayan Viciedo, Jose Tabata, Ruben Tejada, Anthony Gose, and Luis Sardinas. Maybe there are some arguments there for guys who would have been much better with more seasoning. But some, like Tejada, continued to develop well at the ML level for a couple of years and then fell apart. And others might not have been as good as they looked to start with.

I guess the other scenario is a guy who came up at a very tender age and was immediately overmatched in a short stint and lost confidence. I searched for position players who got 50-99 PAs at ages 21 or younger, 2010-14, and had OPS of less than .700. There are only three: Avisail Garcia, Xander Bogaerts, and Maikel Franco. Two All-Stars and a guy (Franco) who has hit 85 big-league home runs and just turned 26. To say they didn't develop is to assume they would have been really big stars if they'd gotten more minor-league experience, but I don't know if that's warranted in any of their cases.

Bogaerts is particularly interesting because he was overmatched in his first couple of years as a hitter. He did OK for a shortstop, but he must have had a lot of frustration; he hit .241/.299/.363 in his first 162 games. After that, of course, he's been terrific, which suggests that a year and change at the ML level at ages 20-21 helped him develop: an upside that also has to be taken into consideration. (For instance, with Guerrero Jr., the idea that he will be better served facing AFL pitchers later on instead of AL pitchers in September is extremely dubious.)

Again, truly not doubting your observations, but interested in hearing more, since the evidence for these failures to develop seems mixed at best. I guess a lot depends on one's expectations of given players and one's idea of developmental possibilities in general.

EDIT: I guess one scenario my searches don't pick up is the kid who is doing fine in the minors, gets an early callup, and collects dust on the bench for a couple of months because there's no role for him on the ML club. But that's not really being "rushed"; that's just being misused. If the Jays were in a tight pennant race and Josh Donaldson were still around playing a great everyday 3B, you wouldn't want Guerrero on the ML bench, just to take up space. Sometimes "we want him down in the minors playing every day" is a legitimate explanation. (Though even at that, in September, most minor-leaguers are collecting dust no matter where they are.)
   31. Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature Posted: September 09, 2018 at 10:39 AM (#5741201)
BDC - to give some context to Bogaerts in 2014 I’ll share this;

thru June 3 - .300/.391/.443
After June 4 - .202/.233/.304

So what happened? On June 3 and 4 in Cleveland he got hit on the hand with pitches in back to back games. He almost immediately went in the tank. So to your point he wasn’t really struggling with development, he just got hurt,
   32. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 09, 2018 at 10:45 AM (#5741203)
Yes it does... as a fan, we want consistency of players on the team, a truly open market creates a routine flux in rosters, meaning that $70 Yadier Jersey I bought last year, is a completely useless this year..

How? Teams are still going to sign prospects to long term deals. 6, 8, 10 years, whatever. And players won't be FAs until those deals expire.

So, it's exactly like today's system in that players are team controlled for a certain number of years before hitting FA. The only difference is that the period of time is freely negotiated between team and prospect, rather than defined by the collective bargaining agreement.
   33. Booey Posted: September 09, 2018 at 11:19 AM (#5741212)
It's no coincidence that fans of the largest markets are the ones who generally say we should abolish the draft (ditto with the NBA). I get the argument about fairness to the players...but it's easy to say when it won't affect YOUR team. Hell, it would very likely HELP your team to give them a chance at signing even more of the big names than they already do. Might that be the real reason fans of the marquee teams want this to happen? Hmmm....

Many teams have no chance at the top free agents just because of the city they play in. The draft is the only shot they have at landing a star, and doing away with it will kill competitive balance as we know it. Again, that doesn't seem to bother fans of teams who don't have to worry about it, but it would completely ruin the interest in many other markets whose teams would now exist only to fill out the schedule. You may as well contract half the league if you're going to do that.
   34. BDC Posted: September 09, 2018 at 11:33 AM (#5741216)
Thanks, Jose, yes, injuries can play a considerable part, and they can obviously happen at any level. I did not know the details on Bogaerts.

To try to come up with some examples I've observed: since I moved to Texas in 1988, the Rangers have had fourteen position players age 21 or younger. Sammy Sosa, Juan Gonzalez, Ivan Rodriguez, Dean Palmer, Hank Blalock, Elvis Andrus, Odor, Joey Gallo, and Nomar Mazara – nine of the 14 – are not relevant; they did fine.

That leaves five. Ruben Mateo and Jurickson Profar suffered serious injuries very young, which set them back a great deal. Luis Sardinas, mentioned in #30, just has never been very good. He was as good at age 21 as he's ever been. Joaquin Arias had two plate appearances before his 22nd birthday, and actually hit .545 in that September call-up, and anyway was never very good either. I can't see how that call-up hurt him.

The one guy that locals point to as rushed is Benji Gil. In 1993, he was 20 years old and coming off a pretty good year in A ball; he was one of the top prospects in baseball. The Rangers made him their opening-day shortstop. Gil was way out of his depth. He batted .123 and was back in AA by June. Obviously he never became more than a major-league journeyman (though he played a long time in Mexico and has been a popular announcer in DFW).

The thing is that if you look at Gil's record without knowing the sequence of events in '93, it looks like a normal development curve. Gil actually had a perfectly good season after going back down AA in 1993, in fact a really promising one for a 20-year-old, improving a lot over his 19-year-old A-ball season. You would assume that his major-league line in '93 was a September cup of coffee instead of an April debacle. You'd project him for success in AAA in '94 at age 21 … but that didn't happen; he took a step backward. Nevertheless, the Rangers rushed him again, making him a ML regular in '95 – and by 1996 he was back in AAA, struggling at age 23 and suddenly no prospect at all.

Gil eventually did well in a few years as a role-player for the Angels. Maybe that was his ceiling anyway? It's hard to know, but it's plausible that being rushed twice really messed with his confidence. That was the report at the time.
   35. BDC Posted: September 09, 2018 at 11:37 AM (#5741218)
Anyway, I guess my point is that you still hear some fans in Texas opine that rushing a player is bad, remember Benji Gil. It's not that they've forgotten Gonzalez, Rodriguez, and Andrus, exactly, but that there can be some confirmation bias at work. Everything seems to depend on how good the rushed player is, but you can't always know for certain in advance.
   36. eric Posted: September 09, 2018 at 11:38 AM (#5741219)
The only "fair" system I'm looking to support is more about the older late developing players, not the uber studs who are going to get paid no matter what... People like Pham and Ruiz are the guys who are truly screwed by this system, the difference for Guerrero or others is basically one year later before he makes millions.... Ruiz and Pham don't reach an age where they can truly negotiate their own money until they are already past any reasonable prime.

I think that the system should be set up, so that no matter what the player does, that outside of a multi-year contract, that if you are older than 29, you are eligible for free agency with no restrictions.


My issue with age-based criteria is that I'm not convinced it would help the later-developing players. The existence of player control is why teams are willing to take risks and develop players. If an age-X system were in place, and a late bloomer like Pham is 28, butting against the limit, and still bouncing around between AAA and MLB, what is a team going to do with that player if he is going to be a FA next year? Keep waiting to see if he develops? Or cut him and give his (MiLB or MLB) spot to a 20-year-old player for which the team still has plenty of years of control left?

I suspect if MLB had a strict age limit that would hurt the late bloomers more than help them--ie Pham wouldn't even be playing right now since he would have been considerably less valuable than many dozens of younger players who would still have years of control left.
   37. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 09, 2018 at 11:41 AM (#5741220)
It's no coincidence that fans of the largest markets are the ones who generally say we should abolish the draft (ditto with the NBA). I get the argument about fairness to the players...but it's easy to say when it won't affect YOUR team. Hell, it would very likely HELP your team to give them a chance at signing even more of the big names than they already do. Might that be the real reason fans of the marquee teams want this to happen? Hmmm....

I already said there needs to be a cap on what teams can spend on amateurs. Say it's $10M in bonuses per year. And they you could add an extra $5M for the smallest market teams.

Then it's open competition among the 30 teams to allocate their budgets to acquire the most talent. You want to give all $10M or $15M to a Bryce Harper type, then you don't get anyone else. The system would really reward scouting and development.

Right now, the worst team gets gifted the best player, even if they're in a big market (I'm looking at you Nationals). This year, teams in Chicago, Toronto, Los Angeles, Dallas, San Francisco, and New York are going to pick ahead of teams from Tampa, Milwaukee, and Pittsburgh.

How does that help the small markets?
   38. Booey Posted: September 09, 2018 at 11:56 AM (#5741225)
I already said there needs to be a cap on what teams can spend on amateurs. Say it's $10M in bonuses per year. And they you could add an extra $5M for the smallest market teams.

Then it's open competition among the 30 teams to allocate their budgets to acquire the most talent. You want to give all $10M or $15M to a Bryce Harper type, then you don't get anyone else. The system would really reward scouting and development.

Right now, the worst team gets gifted the best player, even if they're in a big market (I'm looking at you Nationals). This year, teams in Chicago, Toronto, Los Angeles, Dallas, San Francisco, and New York are going to pick ahead of teams from Tampa, Milwaukee, and Pittsburgh.

How does that help the small markets?


Sorry, I was speaking more in generalities than in response to your specific scenario. I've actually just been skimming this thread. ;-)
   39. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 09, 2018 at 12:12 PM (#5741227)

Sorry, I was speaking more in generalities than in response to your specific scenario. I've actually just been skimming this thread. ;-)


No worries. But the draft is a very bad system to try and help the smaller market teams.
   40. Walt Davis Posted: September 09, 2018 at 01:15 PM (#5741235)
I'm not sure about the legal technicalities of any of this. You're not in the MLBPA until you're on a 40-man roster so I'm not sure the MLBPA has the standing to negotiate FA time limits covering non-MLBPA members (but they might). "Simpler" then would be to tie FA to 40-man service time and negotiate an easier path to the 40-man (i.e. earlier eligibility for the rule 5 draft if not on the 40-man) and maybe fewer option years. But while the MLBPA clearly has a say in option years, I'm not sure they have standing to push for less time pre-40.

But what concession does the MLBPA have to offer?

By the way, saw/heard mention the other day (forget where) that the Kris Bryant case was never resolved (or arbitrated). If that's correct, I assume this means the MLBPA is holding it aside and will try to address it in the next negotiation, probably resulting in some compensation for guys like Bryant (it's happened before in FA collusion settlements and, if I recall right, after that weird year when every meh OF got a 3/$9 offer).

Note, I'd much rather hear all that from a source more legit than my memory and speculation.
   41. cardsfanboy Posted: September 09, 2018 at 02:46 PM (#5741263)
My issue with age-based criteria is that I'm not convinced it would help the later-developing players. The existence of player control is why teams are willing to take risks and develop players. If an age-X system were in place, and a late bloomer like Pham is 28, butting against the limit, and still bouncing around between AAA and MLB, what is a team going to do with that player if he is going to be a FA next year? Keep waiting to see if he develops? Or cut him and give his (MiLB or MLB) spot to a 20-year-old player for which the team still has plenty of years of control left?


Absolutely agree, but at the same time, I can see a point of putting an arbitration upgrade for those players then, instead of being quantified as first year arby, make them subject to 3rd year arbitration rules or something like that. As it stands Pham is going to be arby eligible for the first time this off season, and will be eligible for a very minimal salary increase because of that...and then you add in that by the time he actually becomes a free agent, he's going to be 33 years old.(Ruiz was the same thing)

I think for these type of guys the system needs to be modified to some extent to get them the pay equivalent to the value that they are producing for the team. Heck even allowing limited free agency, where the team has last option to meet a free agent offer might not be something horrible. (and again just thinking of ways that is fair to the team, player and fans)

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam M
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogDrafting High School Pitchers Is a Major Problem for MLB, Health of Young Prospects
(7 - 4:20pm, Nov 20)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogAmazon bids for Disney’s 22 regional sports networks, including YES Network, sources say
(32 - 4:20pm, Nov 20)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogAvid Barry Bonds Collector Has Amassed 5,000 Examples Of The Same Card
(31 - 4:15pm, Nov 20)
Last: jmurph

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2018 Ballot
(1 - 4:14pm, Nov 20)
Last: DL from MN

Gonfalon CubsNow what?
(239 - 4:06pm, Nov 20)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogThe Sky Is Falling, Baseball Is Dying, and the Roof May Leak
(20 - 4:05pm, Nov 20)
Last: Bote Man

NewsblogCalcaterra - Adrián Beltré Retires, is a Slam Dunk Hall of Famer
(13 - 3:57pm, Nov 20)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogMariners trade left-hander James Paxton to the Yankees for three prospects
(58 - 3:55pm, Nov 20)
Last: Biscuit_pants

NewsblogGriffin Conine, Jeff’s son, banned 50 games for drug test
(10 - 3:25pm, Nov 20)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

Newsblog2019 BBWAA HALL OF FAME BALLOT
(59 - 2:58pm, Nov 20)
Last: Kiko Sakata

NewsblogOT - 2018 NFL thread
(93 - 2:56pm, Nov 20)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-20-2018
(9 - 2:24pm, Nov 20)
Last: Der-K: at 10% emotional investment

NewsblogCubs in need of major overhaul? Don't be silly
(32 - 2:23pm, Nov 20)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

Newsblog2019 Steamer Projections Now Available! | FanGraphs Baseball
(22 - 2:18pm, Nov 20)
Last: Der-K: at 10% emotional investment

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(499 - 2:10pm, Nov 20)
Last: McCoy

Page rendered in 0.4610 seconds
46 querie(s) executed