New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Topic: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes (Read 6208 times) previous topic - next topic

New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

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?

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #1 – 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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #2 – 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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #3 – 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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #4 – 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.

Quote from: profjason – on December 09, 2019, 09:28:17 AM

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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #5 – 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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #6 – December 09, 2019, 12:36:20 PM

Quote from: dsj421 – 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.

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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #7 – December 09, 2019, 01:28:23 PM

Quote from: profjason – on December 09, 2019, 12:36:20 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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #8 – 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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #9 – 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

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #10 – 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.

Quote from: Scurvy Dogs – on December 10, 2019, 01:50:32 PM

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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #11 – 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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #12 – 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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #13 – December 11, 2019, 06:52:33 AM

Quote from: thebuland – on December 11, 2019, 01:07:22 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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #14 – 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.