League Office => Announcements => Topic started by: David Johnson on December 09, 2019, 08:54:26 AM
Title: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: David Johnson on December 09, 2019, 08:54:26 AM
We are considering differentiating between players taken in the minor league draft who are first year players (i.e. just taken in the most recent minor league draft or international signees under the age of 18) and everyone else. The draft itself would not change nor would the promotion rules change for first year players - i.e. they would still receive a 4 year guaranteed contract at $500K per year with the option to offer arbitration before year 4 and allowing that player to be extended to a 5th and 6th year.
For the non-first year players however, we propose to reduce the guaranteed contract to 3 years instead of 4 with the option to offer arbitration before year 3 and allowing that player to be extended to a 4th and 5th year. This would not impact any players who are currently on your minor league team.
Thoughts?
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: bcbarnes on December 09, 2019, 09:14:13 AM
My question for this is why? What is gained by adding an extra layer of complexity? Without understanding more than a difference because the player pools are slightly different I strongly support keeping the current system. It allows for variation in draft strategy from the larger pool of 1st year and not-before-identified both in there.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: profjason on December 09, 2019, 09:28:17 AM
I'd agree with Brian. I'm not sure why we are putting an extra layer of complexity in the promotion process, and I don't see any benefit from it, besides pushing players to free agency more quickly. While players that are drafted in real life in the first few rounds of the real Major League draft would be selected that first year, most players aren't, especially international players. However, those are still the hidden gems that teams can find in the draft, and this seems to penalize teams in finding those hidden gems. I don't recall the round that I drafted players like Mookie Betts, but I know it wasn't early in the draft, but it was because of something I read in a Peter Gammons' column. Again, I don't see this rule helping the league and just adding complexity for complexity's sake.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Rum Runners on December 09, 2019, 10:30:03 AM
Beat me to the punch. I like the current system.
I see the thought process going on, but don't see the benefits of the change.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: David Johnson on December 09, 2019, 10:40:00 AM
We give a huge advantage to teams through the minor league draft and Inaugural Contracts versus free agency, so what we are trying to do is incentivize the drafting of newly drafted players in real life. Thus, teams would have to weigh whether one less year is worth it for some player who started looking good 1+ years into their minor league careers over someone who may be more unproven. It does add some complexity, but I think it adds good complexity for most owners.
However, those are still the hidden gems that teams can find in the draft, and this seems to penalize teams in finding those hidden gems. I don't recall the round that I drafted players like Mookie Betts, but I know it wasn't early in the draft, but it was because of something I read in a Peter Gammons' column. Again, I don't see this rule helping the league and just adding complexity for complexity's sake.
Jason,
If you drafted Betts in 2011 (when he was drafted in real life), this wouldn't have impacted you at all regardless of what round you drafted Mookie in our draft. But if you had drafted Mookie in 2013 after a great minor league year, this would have removed one year from that original contract. The point is - it's harder to find that gem before they have significant minor league experience and therefore, we want to reward that difficulty.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Brendtmc on December 09, 2019, 10:52:51 AM
I'm with Brian, Jason, and Brent. I don't see a real advantage/benefit to this. I believe the system is fine the way it is.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: profjason on December 09, 2019, 12:36:20 PM
We give a huge advantage to teams through the minor league draft and Inaugural Contracts versus free agency, so what we are trying to do is incentivize the drafting of newly drafted players in real life. Thus, teams would have to weigh whether one less year is worth it for some player who started looking good 1+ years into their minor league careers over someone who may be more unproven. It does add some complexity, but I think it adds good complexity for most owners.
I do agree that there is an advantage to drafting players and promoting them through your system. My team currently is a poster child for that point, given how much of my talent has been drafted and promoted (8 of my 9 everyday regular hitters came from the minors). However, I don't think this is the right approach.
First, I think arbitration is doing a good job of taking away some of those advantages. I know that this year I have tough decisions on 6 players that are eligible for arbitration, and if I decide to extend them all, I'll be left with only about $9 million to spend on free agency. Mookie Betts is going to cost me $9 million next season (and I am definitely offering him arbitration) and in my last year with him, I'm guessing he'll cost the ACLs $13 million, which is close to what he'll get in free agency. Those extra years come at a cost, which means that teams that are developing and keeping that talent aren't able to spend that money in free agency. Last year, arbitration cost my team $11 million, and this year, arbitration could eat up $27 million. So while arbitration might not push players to free agency quicker, it does eat up resources, so teams are making choices about are they more active in free agency, or do they spend that money on their own players that they've developed.
Second, while I understand wanting to encourage teams to take a risk on newly drafted players, I don't see that working out really well with those J2 signings. We are starting to get better information on them, but besides the big few names, it seems like so many players from Latin America are years away from even seeing some baseball action stateside. It seems to be that you are still taking more of a gamble on an 18-year-old starting in the Pioneer League from Latin America, then you are with a 2nd round pick out of college.
I just don't see how this is a big advantage for the league for the extra complexity. My final word is that this should just encourage teams to draft better. And honestly, I think teams are really doing that. I will say that the last two minor league drafts have been tough with teams making great pick after great pick. Look at what Brendt is doing with his minor league team (both with drafting and trading). The current system really encourages teams to put a lot of effort into the minor league draft and I don't see why we need to change it. That's just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Brendtmc on December 09, 2019, 01:28:23 PM
First, I think arbitration is doing a good job of taking away some of those advantages. I know that this year I have tough decisions on 6 players that are eligible for arbitration, and if I decide to extend them all, I'll be left with only about $9 million to spend on free agency. Mookie Betts is going to cost me $9 million next season (and I am definitely offering him arbitration) and in my last year with him, I'm guessing he'll cost the ACLs $13 million, which is close to what he'll get in free agency. Those extra years come at a cost, which means that teams that are developing and keeping that talent aren't able to spend that money in free agency. Last year, arbitration cost my team $11 million, and this year, arbitration could eat up $27 million. So while arbitration might not push players to free agency quicker, it does eat up resources, so teams are making choices about are they more active in free agency, or do they spend that money on their own players that they've developed.
I agree with this. And I think we need to give the new arbitration system in the league a few years to work itself through. Right now, and probably for another year or two, the FA pool will be slightly affected by a reduction of some players teams decide to keep through arbitration who would have been free agents sooner, but that should work itself through once the new system has some years to level itself out within the market and the makeup of each team.
Plus, we give every GM the same advantage of years of control; it's up to the GM to take advantage of that and draft or trade well for prospects. To begin to penalize the GM's who really take the time to study the amateur ranks doesn't seem in the spirit of the league to me. If we want added depth/complexity to the league, then this change seems to penalize rather than help in that regard.
Drafting prospects is a guessing game no matter the system. Evaluation tools have certainly advanced leaps and bounds over the past 5-10 years, but there are still major misses all the time. Just take a look at the MLB amateur draft selections the past few years.
2016: (gives three years for a player to show what they have) Mickey Moniak was the #1 overall; Riley Pint was the #4; Corey Ray was #5. Not looking good for three of the top five.
You could pick any year and find the same types of hits and misses. I don't think giving a newly drafted (in MLB) player an extra year of control is really going to sway GM's all that much. And even if it were to, we have no more idea of that player being any type of contributing member for our major league clubs than a weather man does of the weather tomorrow.
And lastly, to echo what Jason said about his decisions this winter in arbitration, I am already looking at what my team might look like come two or three more seasons with the depth of prospects I've built. I'm likely to have the same issue once my current minor league roster begins to matriculate to the Bums.
I say let the arbitration process play out for a few more years before we begin making additional changes to the free agent/arbitration salary structure of things.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Brendtmc on December 09, 2019, 02:21:44 PM
I'll add one more thing: Many of these minor leaguers who begin to show well and warrant draft selections after playing for a year or two in the minor leagues are these 16 and 17 year old Latin American kids who are signed on nothing more than athleticism and promise. We hear about the Adrian Beltre type successes in this regard, signing as young teens and then going on to huge successes in MLB, but how many countless more of these teens flame out before they even hit the upper minors.
Five years ago the Yankees spent big (total: $7.5M) on the Latin American trio of Dermis Garcia, Nelson Gomez, and Juan De Leon. Those three have never cracked NY top 30 prospect list. NY handed out a total of almost $16M to their top ten signings that season; none of them have developed past the low minors or amounted to anything. Yet their #1 prospect, Deivi Garcia, was signed the very next season for just $200K.
Sometimes these kids, and they literally are kids, take a year or two to develop baseball skills. I don't see the reasoning behind penalizing a team for drafting them after their initial year of eligibility for the MSB minor league draft.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Scurvy Dogs on December 10, 2019, 01:50:32 PM
Sorry all. Making some tweaks to the minor league draft has been a pet project of mine for a couple years now. This was supposed to be mine to address as its been something like I mentioned I've been wanting for awhile. But due to some personal issues (one of my employees was died via brain aneurysm blocks from the office last week, I probably was the last person to speak with her) I had to step away from the league for, well, awhile. So David was left to defend something the CO has been debating on for at least the last couple offseasons.
Anyway, this was the proposal that we felt made the most sense and with the least amount of impact to the league. Which was important to us as well as we believe we have something pretty darn good here. So we're trying to tweak rules on the edges if it makes sense to do so. Changes that would make a bigger change to the league structure (for example injuries that was proposed last year) was only made in an effort to add an element of realism. I can't stress that enough - we're not changing things for the sake of changing things.
So why this change?
Some of you have made some comments that this only hurts the owners who draft well. I 100% disagree with that. I believe there is benefit to the owners who draft well, but most importantly are willing to be patient with the players who are drafted from the FYPD and international signing period. The fact is that these players typically take longer to reach MLB than a player drafted from AA or AAA. So we wanted to reward those owners who drafted or traded for these players.
So all we're looking to do is reward, by virtue of an extended year on their rookie deal, if someone drafts a FYPD or international signing period player. We also felt there was a little bit of a market inefficiency of drafting a AAA relief pitcher for example and getting to lock in their salary for up to 4 years on a rookie deal (if not offered arbitration), especially with the 50 inning minimum requirement before they had to be promoted. So this corrects some of that as well by reducing (by only one year) that rookie deal for players drafted after being able to evaluate them after a couple years in the minor leagues.
Is this perfect? No probably not. I personally would have preferred to make larger adjustments to the rookie draft process but the CO as a group came up with this as a compromise. So maybe we try this and then make some tweaks in a couple years? Or maybe this will be perfect and we'll all love it once we try it :)
The thing I want to suggest is I really don't think this will have a huge impact in game play. At worst a team will need to decide a year earlier on offering arbitration (or not) to the players drafted from the minor leagues. But for me, I think that's a good thing. As much as I love keeping the guys I drafted on my team do you know what I really love? Being able to bid on your guys too. I'm not opposed to arbitration, I think that's been a good thing. But under the current rule set we'll allowing teams to relatively take a low risk draftee from AA/AAA and then control his contract, through a league minimum contract or escalating arbitration, for a long time. with reduced risk should come reduced reward. I think I learned that in my business classes. For the players drafted in the FYPD or international signing period there is no change to the existing rules.
I also want to stress that I wanted to make sure David was fine with a little extra bookkeeping on his end since he runs the roster spreadsheet. He said he'd be fine. I had no doubt, but I wanted to ask, especially since he's keeping track of everyone's rosters.
Anyway - sorry for the long-winded response. It actually took me a couple days to write this all out so my apologies if I rambled or was kind of all over the place. Its the best I can do right now. But hopefully I presented my case, this is something that the CO wants and feels we need. Hopefully you all see can appreciate why we're presenting this.
Rod
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Brendtmc on December 10, 2019, 03:36:24 PM
First, my condolences and empathy for your tough times lately. We had a couple teachers die somewhat unexpectedly mid year a few years back. It's not easy.
I'll address just one part of the opinion you wrote as I think my feelings on the rest of it I've already addressed earlier.
We also felt there was a little bit of a market inefficiency of drafting a AAA relief pitcher for example and getting to lock in their salary for up to 4 years on a rookie deal (if not offered arbitration), especially with the 50 inning minimum requirement before they had to be promoted. So this corrects some of that as well by reducing (by only one year) that rookie deal for players drafted after being able to evaluate them after a couple years in the minor leagues.
I don't think this is necessarily an issue of "evaluating" a player for a year or two in the minors before drafting them, I think it is more an issue of drafting a player who has finally "found it", who has finally broken out. I doubt there are many (if any) players that GM's look at in a given year and think 'I'll wait and see what he looks like in a year or two'. If anything, we'll go ahead and draft that player and "evaluate" them while they are on our minor league roster and then kick them if they don't develop. To me this still becomes an issue of penalizing a team for drafting a player who developed AFTER being drafted.
Let me give you an example. During the first MiL draft I was a part of when I returned to the league in 2018, I had my eye on Brusdar Graterol. He had been signed by the Twins way back in 2014 as a young, 170 lb. 16-year old throwing just mid to high-80's. He lasted just four starts in 2015 before blowing out his UCL and requiring Tommy John surgery. During his time off and rehab in 2015 and 2016, he packed on 60 pounds of muscle and returned to the mound in 2017 as an 18-year old at almost 230 lbs. and throwing in the high-90's and even hitting triple digits. The extra muscle also gave his slider added velocity and the pitch sharpened up to a plus-plus offering. When signed in 2014, this was a player no one would have had on their radar. The Twins barely did, signing him for a mere pittance of $150K. But upon his return (and development) in 2018 (the first year he had shown anything on the mound to be worthy of selection in MSB), he was clearly on most people's radar. The Argos selected him #10 overall that year.
So again, I question why we want to penalize a GM for drafting a player like Graterol.
As for the relief pitcher aspect of this; I hadn't thought of that honestly. But still, I don't see the issue with a GM drafting that way if he is so inclined. Relief pitching is such a fungible role due to the volatility of the vast majority of relief pitchers, I can't see that this change would make much difference. I understand the premise of the argument and the desire to urge GM's to look more toward "prospects" in the MiL draft, but I just don't see how that's much of an issue.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: profjason on December 10, 2019, 09:53:41 PM
Rod,
First, thank you for giving a more detailed explanation of what the thinking behind this rule change is. Second, I'm really sorry to hear about the passing of employee. I can only imagine how tough it is not only on you, but your other employees.
As for the rule change though, I'll echo a lot of Brendt's sentiments and say that I still don't see why we need this rule change. On Brendt's point about not waiting to draft a player, hoping that next year said player will develop is exactly right. This league is too smart. With 20 teams and 25 man minor league rosters, if you think a player is going to burst on the scene, you're most likely going to take them towards to end of your draft, instead of waiting for them to be in the draft pool the next year. Because if you are right about your hunch on a player, you might never get a chance to take that player (like what Brendt was saying about Graterol). In a case like Graterol, this feels more like a penalty for not taking a chance on a guy in 2014. Or for example with my team in Juan Soto, who was originally signed in 2015, but wasn't drafted until 2017, when he had just burst on the scene as a potential star, but still miles away from the minor (he was still in low A ball at the time).
I also understand the idea about the relief pitchers, but I would concur with Brendt that those types of relief pitchers are such a fungible asset, that it seems like teams aren't going to be hitting gold on a great relief pitcher for 4 years or more. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but with the rule change to limit how many innings a pitcher can pitch before being ineligible for the minor league draft, this seems like less and less of an issue.
On the comment that this doesn't hurt teams that draft well, that is a hard one to buy. Now, part of this might be the endowment effect, where this is taking away something that we have gotten use to and put value on, but I don't see how this gives new or improved value to teams that draft well. In this case, you aren't giving a new bonus to teams that take those players, but you imposing a new penalty of teams that don't take those players. Sorry, I just don't buy that.
Looking at last year's draft, it seems like almost every first round pick in the free agent draft got selected, along with numerous 2nd and late draft picks. Maybe it makes teams look at a 6th round pick, but I'm not sure how this shuffles the minor league draft by much. Teams will still draft these AA/AAA players you talk about (since they are closer to the majors), but the difference will be that teams are going to be a bit less likely to take a gamble on an international player making his debut in short-season A ball, and more likely to take it on that 6th round pick. And honestly, that international player starting at Princeton, WV, is just as much of a gamble as that 6th round pick, but that 6th round pick has slightly more value due to the rules.
Sorry, I guess my opinion is that we have a great group of owners, who are very smart and talented. The minor league draft is a huge challenge for teams to get talent, as so much talent is taken every year. We are going to find the talent no matter what. This rule change just seems to penalize teams that look at players that have some experience in the minors. I think it is fairer and better for the league to treat all minor leaguers the same with their initial contracts.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: thebuland on December 11, 2019, 01:07:22 AM
So sorry to hear about your friend and co-worker Rod.
--
I'm a no on this.
I know this is a particular crusade of yours but I really think you are in the minority on this being much of an issue if a issue at all. We've tightened some maximum major league time loopholes and I think that has satisfied most of us. I shouldn't speak for the others, but from debates over the last few years including this one, I just don't see the momentum for these solutions for a problem I suspect most of us doesn't believe even exists.
Personally, I think we should be discussing whether we all think there is a problem in the first place over specific rules.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Scurvy Dogs on December 11, 2019, 06:52:33 AM
Personally, I think we should be discussing whether we all think there is a problem in the first place over specific rules.
Great point. And I'll even throw you guys a bone before I state my case. Not all draft picks are equal, that's a given. Even from the 2019 FYPD there is a huge difference between say Nick Lodolo and Keoni Cavaco. There's a pretty good chance we see Lodolo in MLB fairly quickly, Cavaco is going to need some time even though he was drafted only 6 spots lower. That's always going to be the case and no solution is going to solve for that without getting incredibly granular and no one wants that.
For every Graterol I can counter with Kevin Maitan who was supposed to be the next huge star. He was a top 50 prospect before he ever swung a bat professionally as a 16 year old. 3 years later his combined minor league slash line is .229/.288/.347.
What I don't want to do is get into an argument by cherry picking a player who proves or disproves either side of the argument. Cuz we'll be here all day if we go down that road. Some draft picks simply don't pan out and I think we all understand that.
What I'm saying is that "on average" the players who are signed from the FYPD or International Signing Period carry both increased risk with a longer ETA to MLB. Can we all agree on that? Are there exceptions? Sure. Do all AA/AAA players signed in our minor league draft instantly become stars? No, of course not. But getting back to your point Matt, the primary issue I'm trying to solve is that under our current system there doesn't seem to be a reason to justify drafting a FYPD guy unless you are very confident he's going to pan out. The math, especially when factoring in Arbitration, says we all should pretty much only draft guys who have proven they know how to lay off a curveball in the dirt vs some teenager who looks fantastic in shorts from the Dominican.
Ultimately what this comes down to is that we want to give some balance, or reward teams who take a risk on a player with "on average" a longer ETA. This wasn't meant to penalize teams who do the research and find the breakout stars in A ball like Graterol (and for the record, my minor league roster is filled with guys like Graterol too).
If there's a better way of solving for the disparity between the aforementioned Cavaco and for example Grayson Rodriguez I'm all ears (and yes, here I go cherry picking draftees again. Sorry). Rodriguez was drafted by the Orioles with the #11 overall pick in the 2018 FYPD and went UNDRAFTED by all of us. Why? Well, not sure but I can probably say its because he was a high school pitcher and as I'm sure Brendt will tell everyone - TNSTAAPP. A year later after a huge breakout season in A ball he's drafted #9 overall in our 2019 draft. But what changed in a year for Rodriguez? This wasn't some unknown 10th round pick that came out of nowhere. He was drafted #11 overall in the 2018 FYPD. But none of us took a chance on him because the math doesn't make sense for us to do it. A year later with sub 1.000 WHIP and a K/9 over 12 in the minors? Sign me up.
That's what I'm trying to solve. So that guys like Rodriguez get drafted when there is still some unknown and risk involved, not when he looks like a sure thing. If someone falls through the cracks, you can still draft him. No one is saying you can't. But in my book there should be a reward for taking him a year earlier. That's all.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: scubadan on December 11, 2019, 06:58:56 AM
I've waited a long time to respond on this. At first, I didn't care much one way or the other. You make the rules and I'll find a way to make it work. But after reading both sides on the position I think I'm leaning towards not being in favor of the change. Right now, there's a certain balance in the selections that we all have to weigh in our draft. Do we take the top draft picks from the MLB FYPD with all of the promise that goes with them, international signees who might become the next Miguel Cabrera but are many, many years from the MLB or some MiLB player who is a late breakout that may or may not sustain that performance; more of a high floor, low ceiling player. For me, part of the joy in our minor draft is balancing those options.
In last years minor draft, by my count we had 12 FYP drafted in the first round, two international signees and six minor league players. By drafting all of these players in the same draft, teams have more options on how they want to invest in minor league players. By the time we got past the middle of the 1st round, teams could choose between Josh Jung, the 8th pick in the MLB draft who grades at 45+ but is just a prospect and is a few years away from the MLB, Jake Fraley who grades at a 40 but was close to the show and actually played a bit with Seattle last year or Robert Puasson, a 16 year old kid who scouts were drooling over but doesn't even have a performance record we can rely on. These guys were all taken in the last part of our first round. By splitting this into two drafts, the players in each draft will be compressed. The teams drafting at the top of the list will have first shot at the top FYP's and the first shot at the MiLB players. The pickings will quickly get much thinner as we go deeper into the new drafts. Maybe that's the goal but I haven't heard it expressed.
I'm also not sure how the timing would be on the drafts. If I fill my 25 minor slots at the FYPD, then do I turn around and cut guys I just drafted (and probably have little to no professional playing time) in order to draft a MiLB player? Do I have to drop the guy from my roster so I have an empty spot hoping I'll find a guy I'd rather take from the MiLB pool or can I drop them as I draft. It just seems like a lot of extra work for all of us (but mostly the commissioners) and doesn't accomplish much. I won't grumble if the rule is adopted but I think I prefer things as they are now.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Scurvy Dogs on December 11, 2019, 07:25:47 AM
Wait a second. We debated having 2 drafts (I’m in favor of that incidentally for some other reasons) but ultimately we decided very late in the process to not go down that road. As proposed, the draft process will not change. Only the initial rookie contract term will change depending on from which pool the player was drafted from.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: profjason on December 11, 2019, 08:00:53 AM
What I'm saying is that "on average" the players who are signed from the FYPD or International Signing Period carry both increased risk with a longer ETA to MLB. Can we all agree on that? Are there exceptions? Sure. Do all AA/AAA players signed in our minor league draft instantly become stars? No, of course not. But getting back to your point Matt, the primary issue I'm trying to solve is that under our current system there doesn't seem to be a reason to justify drafting a FYPD guy unless you are very confident he's going to pan out. The math, especially when factoring in Arbitration, says we all should pretty much only draft guys who have proven they know how to lay off a curveball in the dirt vs some teenager who looks fantastic in shorts from the Dominican.
I understand what you are getting at here, but I disagree with that main premise. With 20 teams having 25 man minor league rosters (500 players altogether), every team will have a mix of both FYPD, J2 and slightly more experienced minor leaguers in their annual minor league draft. This rule change might make it that I'm more willing to draft a FYPD player first over a player that has some experience earlier in the draft, but in the end, that player with some experience is going to be picked (just later on). At the margins, it might change some decisions at the end of the draft (I might not have taken Franklin Labour with my last pick, but taken some college arm that was just drafted), but I don't see how this changes the main part of the draft. I don't see this being earth shattering in terms of how teams will draft, but it only penalizes teams that take those players that have some experience.
Ultimately what this comes down to is that we want to give some balance, or reward teams who take a risk on a player with "on average" a longer ETA. This wasn't meant to penalize teams who do the research and find the breakout stars in A ball like Graterol (and for the record, my minor league roster is filled with guys like Graterol too).
You say that this wasn't meant to penalize teams that draft a player like Graterol, but I'm not sure how this proposed rule change isn't a penalty on exactly that. Part of it is that you can't refine it more without making it hugely complex, but this is clearly a penalty, given the current rules of the league. Now, if instead this was that players taken from the FYPD or J2 signings have their initial contract at $250K, instead of $500K, I would see that differently, as not a penalty, but as a reward of striking gold with that pick.
If there's a better way of solving for the disparity between the aforementioned Cavaco and for example Grayson Rodriguez I'm all ears (and yes, here I go cherry picking draftees again. Sorry). Rodriguez was drafted by the Orioles with the #11 overall pick in the 2018 FYPD and went UNDRAFTED by all of us. Why?
Why?!?!? Because he's a Baltimore Oriole and needless to say, the Orioles track record back then with developing pitchers is not exactly stellar. I agree that it was strange to see him go completely undrafted, but as a partial season ticket plan holder to the O's, I've seen how they've screwed up Bundy and Gausman and pretty much every pitcher they've touched recently. His great start in 2019 and the change in management in the O's have given people better hope that Rodriguez might turn into something good. So, while we all overlooked Rodriguez back when he was drafted, it isn't like him getting selected this year gave the drafting team a player that was on the doorstep to the majors. He still has all of the caveats that minor league pitcher in low A ball would have.
That's just my 2 cents (actually, I think I've written at least 27 cents worth here) on it.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Scurvy Dogs on December 11, 2019, 08:28:10 AM
Why?!?!? Because he's a Baltimore Oriole and needless to say, the Orioles track record back then with developing pitchers is not exactly stellar.
LOL - well said. As a Mets fan I can appreciate that analysis better than most...
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Scurvy Dogs on December 11, 2019, 09:07:14 AM
Jason - I think what you (and others) are ultimately getting at is you feel that this proposal is just penalizing the non FYPD draftees and/or doesn’t do enough to solve any issues with the system. Regarding point #1 - I don’t feel that way, especially with the addition of arbitration that we didn’t have a couple years ago. You still can retain the players rights longer than you would have previously.
But let’s get down to the nuts and bolts.
Problem: Disparity between risk, reward, and ETA between draft pools
Solution: ???
I’m open. I stated earlier I don’t 100% believe this proposal solves all of the issues. But it’s a step in the right direction so let’s give it a chance. Unless someone has a better idea vs just saying no.
The point I’m trying to make is, Orioles bias aside, there’s no reasonable explanation why Grayson Rodriguez went completely undrafted and the next year he went #9 overall. Had Rodriguez been a diamond in the rough - then good for the Sweets for finding him. But we’re talking about a guy who was the #11 overall draft pick in the just completed FYPD. And none of us, I repeat none of us, felt that guy deserved even a late round flyer. We all passed on him to take a guy like Graterol who had minor league experience (again cherry picking examples) vs the high school kid. That tells me there’s flaws in our system. So we’re proposing something to try to change that.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Scurvy Dogs on December 11, 2019, 09:08:17 AM
I guess three question marks gets auto-converted to an emoji. Didn’t know that one...
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Kyle on December 11, 2019, 09:49:16 AM
I've been following all your takes closely over the last few days. I just have one question:
If we're keeping with a 25-man minor league roster, and (I believe this is correct) EVERY team maxes that out by the end of the ONE annual draft we have, why would I suddenly have a change of heart and remove one of those players for a supplemental draft that follows closely after? I mean, in our current system, I can draft both types. It's my prerogative, my strategy to do so. So why would I need/want another draft?
What I'm saying is, right now, ALL types of players are chosen in the draft, and we have a 25-man cap. I'm assuming everyone is happy with their picks right after the draft is over. Unless we're talking about raising the limit to 35 or 40, I don't see how this changes anything. Perhaps I'm missing something.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Scurvy Dogs on December 11, 2019, 10:13:29 AM
There’s only 1 draft. We debated having two drafts. But we agreed for multiple reasons to not change that aspect.
There’s still only 1 draft. Process is exactly the same as before. The only difference is upon promotion if they get a 4 year deal or a 3. Otherwise literally everything else stays the same.
Sorry if we weren’t clear on that aspect
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Kyle on December 11, 2019, 10:26:48 AM
Ah! OK, sorry - I was under the impression we were talking about two drafts. I get it now.
Nothing to see here.... Except that I don't have much of a strong opinion either way.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Brendtmc on December 11, 2019, 11:55:10 AM
I've read all the reasoning, but I too still can't get past the "penalty" aspect of the change and I am still not swayed in any way off my initial opinion. This change is clearly penalizing teams if they select a player not newly signed, there's just no way around that opinion. I select a first year minor leaguer and I have six years of control; I select an already established minor league player and I lose a year of control.
Let me make a comparison to the MLB Qualifying Offer system (which I despise just slightly less than I do Jim Bowden). Every year major league teams have to consider signing certain FREE AGENTS based on whether they have draft pick compensation attached to them, and every year there are many FREE AGENTS who are adversely affected by that attached compensation. MLB has in effect taken the FREE part out of the equation for many of the FREE AGENTS. The pick compensation effectively limits a FREE AGENTS options, making them PARTIAL FREE AGENTS. To me, this rule change effectively does the same thing to minor league selections in our draft. It restricts a GM's choices by making him choose a possible six years on a FYDP or five years on a Grayson Rodriguez/Brusdar Graterol type player. I don't like that I might have to now factor that into my equation when drafting. I want to select the best player available by my scouting/grading process. I want the best talent. They are all minor leaguers, whether first year or not. They are all developing talent, whether first year or not. They carry the same risk either way.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Scurvy Dogs on December 11, 2019, 12:02:58 PM
We fundamentally disagree if you think there is the same amount of risk in drafting Rodriguez in 2018 or 2019. Granted, we’re talking about a pitcher still in A ball so let’s not get too carried away regarding comparative risk. But the same amount of risk? I whole-heartedly disagree. If the risk was exactly the same or even close to the same he no doubt gets drafted at some point in 2018. But he didn’t...
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Scurvy Dogs on December 11, 2019, 12:05:12 PM
And I don’t mean to make Rodriguez my shiny star for change. Sorry. He’s just a blatant example of what I feel I’m trying to solve for. But there’s others.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Rum Runners on December 11, 2019, 12:11:22 PM
We can make this about Luis Castillo or in last year's case for Tyler Alexander.
In both cases, I was looking for a cheap starter to help my team. One was a hit and looks like gold, the other I need to consider if I want to promote him and hope he has a better 2020 or he'll likely be DFA'd in two seasons or released back into the 2020 Free agent pool.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Brendtmc on December 11, 2019, 12:13:26 PM
We fundamentally disagree if you think there is the same amount of risk in drafting Rodriguez in 2018 or 2019. Granted, we’re talking about a pitcher still in A ball so let’s not get too carried away regarding comparative risk. But the same amount of risk? I whole-heartedly disagree. If the risk was exactly the same or even close to the same he no doubt gets drafted at some point in 2018. But he didn’t...
That's not what I mean at all. My point is that when Rodriguez or Graterol had broken out and were "on the radar" of MSB GM's, NOW they are the same risk as any first year player I may draft THAT year. I am in no way comparing a player across years.
Grayson Rodriguez carried the same risk in the 2019 draft as did Nick Lodolo, who was a first year player and drafted two spots ahead of Rodriguez.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Scurvy Dogs on December 11, 2019, 12:18:02 PM
Let me rephrase the whole argument.
Let’s say because of arbitration or to bring players to FA sooner or CO whim, reason doesn’t really matter, we proposed a rule that going forward all rookie contracts were now 3 years instead of 4. I expect there would be some disagreement, but would anyone massively object? It impacts everyone the same right? I mean 4 years isn’t written in stone anywhere. It’s just something we came up with a long time ago. And it works, but is there a better number? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s not like 4 years is gospel or anything. It doesn’t match MLB, it’s just something we came up with on our own.
So now you have 3 year contracts for rookies. Cool. But now as a reward for taking more risk (again, if you don’t agree with me on the level of risk/ETA, well, that’s a different discussion) we offer a 4th year to these FYPD players. Now it’s no longer a penalty at all, it’s 100% a reward. Which is absolutely how I view this.
I am more than willing to debate if this does enough or if there is a better way. But I think we need to do something and this is what the CO came up with.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: profjason on December 11, 2019, 12:23:40 PM
Problem: Disparity between risk, reward, and ETA between draft pools
Solution: ???
Actually, I'll go to Matt's point, I'm not sure if I see the problem that you see here. I sincerely don't think there is even a minor problem with the minor league draft and the risks and rewards with selecting players in the draft. I understand that you think that the risk/reward decision is somehow unbalanced, but I guess I don't see it that way. Look at this year's draft, the first round was mainly FYPD players, a few international signings and then some slightly more experienced minor leaguers. Teams are taking risks on those FYPD and J2 players. And do you think that Rodriguez is less risky than Adley Rutschman, since Rodriguez has one year in the minors? I don't think so. Sure, he is less risky in 2019 than in 2018, but it wasn't only Rodriguez that changed (Orioles changed, and I do think that team bias is a real thing, as I'm more leary about drafting from some organizations than others). Rodriguez was a great big oversight on every GMs part, but I don't see why he should be the poster child of this proposed change (maybe the poster child for different goals in the Orioles organization though).
On the point of the penalization, sure, if we go back to the system before arbitration, and did this change with arbitration, maybe there isn't a penalty. However, from the status quo of today (4 year contracts, arbitration after 3 seasons potentially), there is no way that this proposal isn't somehow lessening the value of some players in the minor league draft. But at this point, we have been doing 4 year contracts for minor leaguers for a while, so even an across the board cut to 3 years would be something that I think most GMs would disagree with. Once something has been set, it is hard to scale it back (endowment effect).
Overall, I'm a no about this, because I just don't see the issue that this is trying to solve actually solving the problem. Moreover, I understand that you and maybe the rest of the COs think this is a problem, but I don't see it and I think a lot of GMs don't see it either as a problem to begin with. I don't see the case you've made for how this is negatively affecting the league and affecting the competitive balance of the league. Again with 500 players on a minor league roster, teams have a mix of all types of players and I don't see how this changes that mix much (again, yes, it will on the margins, but on the whole, it won't make great changes), while just penalizing teams that take any player with any amount of minor league experience.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: thebuland on December 11, 2019, 12:58:17 PM
I get the points being made by Rod but I don't find it compelling. We do agree that there are differences in risk based on how close a player is to the bigs. But, while you see a vast difference, I just don't. I think others are similarly minded. They're all risky and most important our market balances that out for us. With few exceptions, the most talented players get drafted as early as possible. If you wait on a player till he gets to AAA the likelihood of that player having star potential isn't there. If you choose to take a low ceiling player with less risk because they are closer to the bigs go ahead. Major league teams actually draft with this in mind already in college vs highschool. That is your perogitive. Let's be realistic, 9 times out of 10 that's the trade off the market gives us. So let the market take care of it. These solutions are addressing an issue that isn't really there.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Scurvy Dogs on December 11, 2019, 01:16:57 PM
I might be the lone wolf on this, I understand that.
But a system that allows the #11 overall pick in 2018 to go completely undrafted by us, primarily because he’s a high school kid and years away from MLB is systemically flawed. The debate here, I think, is the actual level of flawness (I don’t think that is actually a word, but you get my point). I sincerely believe it’s much higher than obviously everyone else.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Brendtmc on December 11, 2019, 01:29:55 PM
Overall, I'm a no about this, because I just don't see the issue that this is trying to solve actually solving the problem. Moreover, I understand that you and maybe the rest of the COs think this is a problem, but I don't see it and I think a lot of GMs don't see it either as a problem to begin with.
I agree with this. And I'll go a step further and say I somewhat enjoy (not exactly the right word) the different drafting philosophies and focuses GM's have. Some draft lower ceiling/lower risk/closer to ready talent, some draft higher ceiling/higher risk/years away talent. If you look within MLB itself, you'd find different drafting/signing strategies within the organizations too. Some front offices draft higher risk types; some draft closer to ready college types; some have a mix.
Quote
I don't see the case you've made for how this is negatively affecting the league and affecting the competitive balance of the league. Again with 500 players on a minor league roster, teams have a mix of all types of players and I don't see how this changes that mix much (again, yes, it will on the margins, but on the whole, it won't make great changes), while just penalizing teams that take any player with any amount of minor league experience.
Again, agreed.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: thebuland on December 11, 2019, 01:32:29 PM
Rod, I think you're cherry picking. I argue your example is more exception over the rule.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Scurvy Dogs on December 11, 2019, 02:04:51 PM
Matt - I don't disagree with you that I'm cherry picking.
But I started having these discussions that I felt there was a problem before the 2018 draft ever existed. So, yes, I'm cherry picking. But I've felt the system was flawed before we ever decided not to draft him. I just didn't have a solution that I felt was viable to bring up for discussion. And I still don't know if this one is right or not. But I think we need to do something.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: profjason on December 11, 2019, 02:29:34 PM
But a system that allows the #11 overall pick in 2018 to go completely undrafted by us, primarily because he’s a high school kid and years away from MLB is systemically flawed. The debate here, I think, is the actual level of flawness (I don’t think that is actually a word, but you get my point). I sincerely believe it’s much higher than obviously everyone else.
While I agree with Matt that you are cherry picking here with Rodriguez, I also agree I think he is more the exception and not the rule in this case. I looked up both on Fangraphs and Baseball Prospectus with their information on the draft, and both had Rodriguez around the 36 ranked player in the draft (I think BP did fantasy picks, while FG was more future value). You could argue that the O's overdrafted Rodriguez, relative to industry consensus. I think we can all agree we all missed on Rodriguez in hindsight, but I think there was good reason for this and we all might learn a lesson from this to draft a guy like this, just in case. However, we aren't seeing loads of FYPD players not being selected in our draft when they are drafted high in real life. Rodriguez seems more like an outlier than a real problem.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: thebuland on December 11, 2019, 02:44:04 PM
I definitely understand this has been a concern for you for a while and that's totally valid.
At heart to this conversation, though, is the question, do you or don't you see a issue that needs resolution?
Talking about solutions is putting the cart before the horse. Right?
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: DataDriven05 on December 11, 2019, 06:44:20 PM
This is a hard no for me - for the possible reduction of rookie contract length, and/or the contract length based on when someone was drafted in MSB.
I think this is letting hindsight create an issue that doesn't exist. When we draft those first year players, Rule 4, J2, or otherwise, maybe you have a month of MiLB exp to work from? For the J2 guys, they might not swing a bat or throw a pitch until next season, some Rule 4 guys pitched so much during the year, they may not throw an inning until the following year. All you have is hype from publications, social media, and other baseball related media outlets. We are not scouts, unless we have one among us and I don't know it. We are guys who just love baseball, and play DMB because it's the closest most of us can get to the real thing. We do our research, learn some new stats every now and then, maybe watch a few scouting videos, watch a few minor league games, fall in love with a few players, etc. but what do we do in the end? We go out there and throw a dart and hope it hits. I don't think anyone should get credit for throwing a dart. That's not meant to insult anyone. Even the professional teams drafting these players for real don't truly know what they are getting, how are we to know? There are no guarantees, and thus no advantages.
Consider a guy like Rodriguez could pop-up, but just as quickly drop down again. He eventually makes the majors with tempered expectations, and I give him a MSB contract with the expectations he is now a 4th or 5th starter. Should I lose a year on him because I bought high (used high draft pick after he broke out) a year late? We don't know if that investment truly paid off until 1 to 2 years into their actual MSB contract, at least. Maybe he finds it again and becomes a #2, maybe he becomes a reliever, maybe I lose him for 1-2 years with TJ surgery. Hell, maybe all of that happens to the same player. Bottom line, unless you can guarantee me a positive end result when I draft a player that meets this criteria, which no one can, then there is no long term advantage for the owner that selects him.
Of course, there will be examples where the opposite will be true as well. Someone will get an absolute steal of a prospect drafted years after they were originally drafted/signed. I say great for the owner that got them. Especially, if the very situation Rod described happened for a rebuilding owner who really needed to hit on a prospect or two. To me, that is the system taking care of itself.
For me, this one definitely falls into the category of if it isn't broke, don't try to fix it.
Title: Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes
Post by: Scurvy Dogs on December 19, 2019, 12:13:58 PM
We have made the decision to table this proposed amendment until next offseason.