Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Recent Blogs

Photo

Potential changes to the MLB

  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#61 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 4,443 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 08:45 AM

 

Sounds like you're making an argument to decrease the amount of control an organization has over a young player instead of scrapping the draft. I concur with decreasing 6+ years of control on a young player.

 

...or to allow for freedom for a player to choose where he plays his career.

 

If I'm Sean Hjelle two years ago, for instance, I'd want badly to be part of the Tampa Bay Rays. They've been renowned in the industry for their work with tall pitchers. However, he's forced into a system where he's selected by a team and then forced to negotiate his bonus only with that one team.

 

A top-30 player like Maurice Hampton would likely not be headed to college if he had the ability to negotiate with all teams from the get-go rather than being forced into draft slots and bonus pools of the team that drafted him, meaning as soon as he got past the first 45 picks or so, he was beyond where his signing bonus demands made sense.

 

Having not seen Mike's piece yet (but I will!), one thought I'd throw out would be to have a bonus pool based on record, and a team like the White Sox could have chosen to spend $7.2M of their $11.565M (assuming bonus pools were the same) on Andrew Vaughn, or they could have chosen instead to spend the same $7.2M to outspend the teams that signed Kody Hoese, Logan Wyatt, Jacob Sanford, and Tommy Henry with money left over to meet the reported bonus demands of top-50 prospect Spencer Jones. They may have chosen to go with Vaughn still, but it would be certainly worthwhile to have the choice for teams and players both.

Purveyor of videobaseballscout.com to cover all kinds of baseball!!

 


#62 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 31,139 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 08:53 AM

...or to allow for freedom for a player to choose where he plays his career.

If I'm Sean Hjelle two years ago, for instance, I'd want badly to be part of the Tampa Bay Rays. They've been renowned in the industry for their work with tall pitchers. However, he's forced into a system where he's selected by a team and then forced to negotiate his bonus only with that one team.

A top-30 player like Maurice Hampton would likely not be headed to college if he had the ability to negotiate with all teams from the get-go rather than being forced into draft slots and bonus pools of the team that drafted him, meaning as soon as he got past the first 45 picks or so, he was beyond where his signing bonus demands made sense.

Having not seen Mike's piece yet (but I will!), one thought I'd throw out would be to have a bonus pool based on record, and a team like the White Sox could have chosen to spend $7.2M of their $11.565M (assuming bonus pools were the same) on Andrew Vaughn, or they could have chosen instead to spend the same $7.2M to outspend the teams that signed Kody Hoese, Logan Wyatt, Jacob Sanford, and Tommy Henry with money left over to meet the reported bonus demands of top-50 prospect Spencer Jones. They may have chosen to go with Vaughn still, but it would be certainly worthwhile to have the choice for teams and players both.


Very much part of my idea!

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#63 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    What's His Velocity?

  • Member
  • 13,103 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 10 July 2019 - 08:54 AM

...or to allow for freedom for a player to choose where he plays his career.

If I'm Sean Hjelle two years ago, for instance, I'd want badly to be part of the Tampa Bay Rays. They've been renowned in the industry for their work with tall pitchers. However, he's forced into a system where he's selected by a team and then forced to negotiate his bonus only with that one team.

A top-30 player like Maurice Hampton would likely not be headed to college if he had the ability to negotiate with all teams from the get-go rather than being forced into draft slots and bonus pools of the team that drafted him, meaning as soon as he got past the first 45 picks or so, he was beyond where his signing bonus demands made sense.

Having not seen Mike's piece yet (but I will!), one thought I'd throw out would be to have a bonus pool based on record, and a team like the White Sox could have chosen to spend $7.2M of their $11.565M (assuming bonus pools were the same) on Andrew Vaughn, or they could have chosen instead to spend the same $7.2M to outspend the teams that signed Kody Hoese, Logan Wyatt, Jacob Sanford, and Tommy Henry with money left over to meet the reported bonus demands of top-50 prospect Spencer Jones. They may have chosen to go with Vaughn still, but it would be certainly worthwhile to have the choice for teams and players both.


It all sounds great in a vacuum. What do you anticipate will happen when top amateur talent has the following offers?

Kansas City: $7 million
Cincinnati: $6.85 million
Chicago Cubs: $6.8 million
New York Yankees: $7 million
Miami: $7.1 million

When the difference in offers is less than $200k at the end of the day, why would top amateur players elect to play in small markets? Why wouldn't they choose New York all day long?
  • SwainZag and Ben Noble like this

#64 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 31,139 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 10:30 AM

It all sounds great in a vacuum. What do you anticipate will happen when top amateur talent has the following offers?

Kansas City: $7 million
Cincinnati: $6.85 million
Chicago Cubs: $6.8 million
New York Yankees: $7 million
Miami: $7.1 million

When the difference in offers is less than $200k at the end of the day, why would top amateur players elect to play in small markets? Why wouldn't they choose New York all day long?


Opportunity. Where do great development teams exist, and where is the quickest path to the majors?

That said, many will choose big markets. So something needs to be put in place to reduce that.

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#65 jtkoupal

jtkoupal

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 385 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 10:35 AM

 

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet or not but the MLB is contemplating some changes to the game.

 

http://www.espn.com/...atlantic-league

 

 

• Using a TrackMan radar system to help umpires call balls and strikes
• Extending the distance between the pitching rubber from 60 feet, 6 inches to 62 feet, 6 inches in the second half of the season
• Mandating that two infielders are on each side of the second-base bag when a pitch is released, with the penalty being a ball
• A three-batter minimum for pitchers -- a rule MLB and the MLB Players Association are considering for the 2020 season as they near an agreement on a smaller set of changes
• No mound visits, other than for pitching changes or injuries
• Increasing the size of first, second and third base from 15 inches to 18 inches
• Reducing the time between innings and pitching changes from 2 minutes, 5 seconds to 1 minute, 45 seconds

 

 

What does everyone think?

1. Totally Down

2/3. Not sure that is really necessary

4. Happening anyway

5. Don't eliminate them, but cutting the limit down to four is probably fine

6. Who Cares?

7. Fine with me


#66 jtkoupal

jtkoupal

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 385 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 10:40 AM

What baseball really needs to do:

 

-Uniform rules (universal DH more likely, but either way works as long as the rules are the same)

-Realign geographically (could be done without expansion, just need uniform rules)

-Shorten the season (less games inside the division, 19 times vs the same team is excessive)

 

 


#67 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    What's His Velocity?

  • Member
  • 13,103 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 10 July 2019 - 10:48 AM

Opportunity. Where do great development teams exist, and where is the quickest path to the majors?

That said, many will choose big markets. So something needs to be put in place to reduce that.


The great development teams, at least at this moment, are still the large market teams too. Tampa is there, and Minnesota is getting there. Quickest path to the majors may matter so they can leave for a big market team earlier...

#68 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 31,139 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 11:09 AM

 

The great development teams, at least at this moment, are still the large market teams too. Tampa is there, and Minnesota is getting there. Quickest path to the majors may matter so they can leave for a big market team earlier...

 

I guess I am more interested in the players getting more, and having freedom, as a priority over competitiveness. If I have to choose.

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#69 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    What's His Velocity?

  • Member
  • 13,103 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 10 July 2019 - 11:17 AM

I guess I am more interested in the players getting more, and having freedom, as a priority over competitiveness. If I have to choose.


I'd like a little bit of both... I think they need to decrease the amount of control they have over a rookie. Perhaps going from 6 to 4 years. Competitiveness should be their top priority IMO to gain a bigger audience. I don't want this league to turn into the NBA where only 6 or 7 teams matter.

#70 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 31,139 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 11:22 AM

 

I'd like a little bit of both... I think they need to decrease the amount of control they have over a rookie. Perhaps going from 6 to 4 years. Competitiveness should be their top priority IMO to gain a bigger audience. I don't want this league to turn into the NBA where only 6 or 7 teams matter.

 

I share the NBA concern for sure......but 4 years of control is still, what, 8-10 years if they spend 4-6 in the minors and bouncing up and down? Give the players some freedom at the beginning of the process too. 

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#71 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    What's His Velocity?

  • Member
  • 13,103 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 10 July 2019 - 11:29 AM

I share the NBA concern for sure......but 4 years of control is still, what, 8-10 years if they spend 4-6 in the minors and bouncing up and down? Give the players some freedom at the beginning of the process too.


They could decrease the amount of control on both sides... Instead of becoming a minor league FA after 6 years, they decrease that to 3 if they were a college draftee, 5 if they were a HS draftee.
  • Mike Sixel likes this

#72 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 4,443 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 12:10 PM

 

It all sounds great in a vacuum. What do you anticipate will happen when top amateur talent has the following offers?

Kansas City: $7 million
Cincinnati: $6.85 million
Chicago Cubs: $6.8 million
New York Yankees: $7 million
Miami: $7.1 million

When the difference in offers is less than $200k at the end of the day, why would top amateur players elect to play in small markets? Why wouldn't they choose New York all day long?

 

If you're a hitter with a mature skillset, the Yankees are likely not the best system to give you the chance to succeed. Their coaches are tremendous at working with raw guys and building approach, but when given a guy who already has a solid approach, they've actually had guys regress. Good agents would be able to help steer their clients in that direction.

 

There's also the guy who says, "I grew up in Minnesota as a Twins fan, hating the Yankees. I want to avoid running into the Twins long-term, so the Marlins are my choice" from your example. This already happens in the Latin market often.

Purveyor of videobaseballscout.com to cover all kinds of baseball!!

 


#73 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 4,443 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 12:12 PM

 

The great development teams, at least at this moment, are still the large market teams too. Tampa is there, and Minnesota is getting there. Quickest path to the majors may matter so they can leave for a big market team earlier...

 

Yes and no. Each system has a niche that they really develop well. Good agents know how to find those matches.

Purveyor of videobaseballscout.com to cover all kinds of baseball!!

 


#74 MMMordabito

MMMordabito

    Fort Walton Beach Jets

  • Member
  • 1,106 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 12:25 PM

I'm against anything that helps New York, LA or Chicago.

  • Nine of twelve likes this

#75 jkcarew

jkcarew

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,550 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 12:59 PM

 

other than players making more money and having a say where they live and work, it does done nothing... Sure.

Some players. And I'm not looking forward to New York and LA each having 6 major league teams, either.

 

But, I'll be interested in your analysis, for sure. I don't represent the current system as anything too close to perfect. But I don't see the draft itself as being one of the outstanding problems. And having the top end guys having to wait longer than they should to get to that 'more than I can ever spend' threshold...isn't at the top of my priority list.


#76 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 31,139 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 12:59 PM

 

I'm against anything that helps New York, LA or Chicago.

 

even at the cost to the players that play the game? 

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#77 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 17,113 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 01:01 PM

 

It all sounds great in a vacuum. What do you anticipate will happen when top amateur talent has the following offers?

Kansas City: $7 million
Cincinnati: $6.85 million
Chicago Cubs: $6.8 million
New York Yankees: $7 million
Miami: $7.1 million

When the difference in offers is less than $200k at the end of the day, why would top amateur players elect to play in small markets? Why wouldn't they choose New York all day long?

Did you miss the part about "bonus pool based on record"?

 

The Cubs bonus pool was only $5.8 mil for 2019; the Yankees, $7.5 mil. If those clubs want to sink it all into one guy, some other clubs could really clean up.


#78 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 31,139 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 01:04 PM

 

Did you miss the part about "bonus pool based on record"?

 

The Cubs bonus pool was only $5.8 mil for 2019; the Yankees, $7.5 mil. If those clubs want to sink it all into one guy, some other clubs could really clean up.

 

Correct, that's a big part of what would need to happen. Though my plan has 4 separate "rounds" with pool limits and limits on who can bid.....first draft is in Ben's hands.....it needs work!

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#79 jkcarew

jkcarew

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,550 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 01:06 PM

 

If you're a hitter with a mature skillset, the Yankees are likely not the best system to give you the chance to succeed. Their coaches are tremendous at working with raw guys and building approach, but when given a guy who already has a solid approach, they've actually had guys regress. Good agents would be able to help steer their clients in that direction.

 

There's also the guy who says, "I grew up in Minnesota as a Twins fan, hating the Yankees. I want to avoid running into the Twins long-term, so the Marlins are my choice" from your example. This already happens in the Latin market often.

Huh? Are the Yankees going to have these coaches for eternity? Agents will be motivated...like they always have been...to maximize their income, which means maximizing their client's total income. Some micro, short-terms, contradictions occur, but over the long-term this is guaranteed to be the outcome. Guaranteed.

Edited by jkcarew, 10 July 2019 - 01:11 PM.


#80 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    What's His Velocity?

  • Member
  • 13,103 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 10 July 2019 - 01:27 PM

Did you miss the part about "bonus pool based on record"?

The Cubs bonus pool was only $5.8 mil for 2019; the Yankees, $7.5 mil. If those clubs want to sink it all into one guy, some other clubs could really clean up.


If there's a clear #1 pick, why wouldn't they sink it all into him? Also, how can they prevent situations like Kevin Durant where they intentionally take less money so the Yankees have cap space to sign others?