New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Topic: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes (Read 6209 times) previous topic - next topic

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #15 – 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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #16 – December 11, 2019, 08:00:53 AM

Quote from: Scurvy Dogs – on December 11, 2019, 06:52:33 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.

Quote from: Scurvy Dogs – on December 11, 2019, 06:52:33 AM

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.

Quote from: Scurvy Dogs – on December 11, 2019, 06:52:33 AM

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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #17 – December 11, 2019, 08:28:10 AM

Quote from: profjason – on December 11, 2019, 08:00:53 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...

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #18 – 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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #19 – December 11, 2019, 09:08:17 AM

I guess three question marks gets auto-converted to an emoji. Didn’t know that one...

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #20 – 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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #21 – 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

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #22 – 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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #23 – 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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #24 – 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...

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #25 – 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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #26 – 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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #27 – December 11, 2019, 12:13:26 PM

Quote from: 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...

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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #28 – 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.

Re: New Rule Proposal - Minor League Draft Changes

Reply #29 – December 11, 2019, 12:23:40 PM

Quote from: Scurvy Dogs – on December 11, 2019, 09:07:14 AM

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.