Article: Twins sign Ynoa for $800k

[Mike Sixel]

Why do people keep saying cheating? They are playing by the rules as written.

 

I'm confused by your last statement.....if rankings are so unpredicatable, how will this change the competitive balance?

 

And, the draft is awful for players. Awful. It suppresses their income. It might or might not be good for teams.....

[diehardtwinsfan]

Why do people keep saying cheating? They are playing by the rules as written.

 

I'm confused by your last statement.....if rankings are so unpredicatable, how will this change the competitive balance?

 

And, the draft is awful for players. Awful. It suppresses their income. It might or might not be good for teams.....

 

Yeah, it isn't cheating, it's terrible rules... and I don't buy for one minute that people didn't realize this would happen. This is nothing more than a calculated attempt to force an international draft. If they wanted it to be successful without an international draft, it could have been implemented differently.

[tobi0040]

Precisely. Their approach is balanced. It cannot fairly be described as unaggressive. It can fairly be described as strategic, especially when one keeps in mind that the outcomes, based on these BA and MLB rankings, is pretty dismal. I'm glad the Twins are playing within the system instead of cheating. It's unfortunate that the Yankees, in particular, may alter the competitive landscape in baseball for a ni=umber of years by virtue of unethical and dishonest practices.

 

I feel like this is MLB's issue though. Instead of an actual salary cap, they have a tax, you lose a draft pick if you sign too many guys, you can't sign anyone for two years if you go way over your allotment. The issue is certain teams are either not going to care (about the tax), or going to make calculated decisions like the Yankees seem to be doing. Calling it cheating seems a bit tough to me, because they are calculated decisions where the negative outcome is gauged and a team makes a decision to move ahead anyway.

 

It kind of reminds of a guy that lived on the St. Croix river. His view was blocked by a bunch of trees. The city had a law that you can't cut them down. He found out the fine for cutting down the trees was about half the amount an appraiser said his house would go up if he cut them down. So he cut them down and paid the fine. Clearly, in this situation the city, like MLB did not have a big enough penalty in place if their goal was to have pretty trees on their scenic river.

 

The reality is you have some teams that are worth $2 billion and others worth $500 million. You have some teams that can pay taxes and to a certain extent, lose draft picks because it doesn't really matter to them (they can just sign more guys). The only thing that fixes this is a cap.

[Monkeypaws]

Steve Nebraska!!!

 

More like Jorge Hermano Ruthia

[bird]

Why do people keep saying cheating? They are playing by the rules as written.

 

I'm confused by your last statement.....if rankings are so unpredicatable, how will this change the competitive balance?

 

And, the draft is awful for players. Awful. It suppresses their income. It might or might not be good for teams.....

 

Because it's cheating, mike. Pure and simple. And there's massively better odds of success when you cheat to procure HALF of the "top 10" versus one two, because the rankings have at least a modicum of validity.

 

Some years back, I was responsible for drafting ethics and code of conduct policies and have consulted with some of our most highly-regarded experts. I'm 100% confident that, were you to survey every professor of ethics within our universities, almost every one of them would opine that what the Yankees are doing is unethical and results in the other teams being cheated. Rules are NOT meant to be broken, mike.

[twinsfan34]

I am guessing the Yankees thought this class was much better than the next two will be and this was their strategy going in. It kind of reminds me of the loophole they exploited in the off-season when they signed CC, Teixera, and Burnett. All would have separately yielded a first round pick but because they signed all three in the same off-season they only had to give up a first, second, and third rounder instead.

 

If you are the Yankees and your bonus pool is not very large, the "penalty" for going 10-15% over and the penalty for going $30M over are the same. So that is why you see them in on all the top guys and my guess is they land the #1 guy as well. Just another loophole they have found.

 

I agree here. Have to believe the Yankees feel this group of Int FA's is worth being locked out except for max bonuses of $300K of their pool, and as many $50K fliers (they're except from counting against pool) as they can sign in 2015 and 2016.

 

It's a diminishing cost to 'blow it up' one year, whether in FA or Intentional FA. Kinda surprised they [MLB] didn't do some consulting before instilling this rule. I'm a Developer, so we unit test the crap out of things with given scenarios. [i actually believe they weren't ignorant.] And the rules were clearly put in place knowing that someone 'may exceed' the % thresholds.

 

MLBPA likely had some weigh in on the regular FA. As they don't want their players getting less money in the event a team would lose 1st RD picks for each player.

 

I think it should be 40-man roster spots. For free agency and perhaps for Int Free Agency, say any signings over $1M, you lose a 40-man roster spot. So if you're the Yankees this past year, you sign McCann, Ellsbury, and Beltran. I will say they did lose their middle round compensatory picks (e.g. losing Cano...) They also signed Tanaka, but no penalty there.

But if no 1st RD or compensatory/sandwich 1st RD picks are available to lose...for both FA and INT FA (every player signed over $1M or for each $1M over their pool allotment) they lose a 40-man roster spot. So if the Yankees only have one 1st, McCann signing loses that pick. Ellsubry and Beltran would cost roster spots (also count their spot, so 'double counting') and they'd have 38 roster spots. Then the Yankees blow past their pool, say, by $15M, they'd lose those spots. It would then free up the back end of their MLB/AAA/AA team for the 'lesser' teams to pick from. It would seem they would then way acquiring a potential 'greater talent' to make available a slightly lesser talent that other teams can then pick up...vs a 'hoarding' type of approach.

[tobi0040]

Because it's cheating, mike. Pure and simple. And there's massively better odds of success when you cheat to procure HALF of the "top 10" versus one two, because the rankings have at least a modicum of validity.

 

Some years back, I was responsible for drafting ethics and code of conduct policies and have consulted with some of our most highly-regarded experts. I'm 100% confident that, were you to survey every professor of ethics within our universities, almost every one of them would opine that what the Yankees are doing is unethical and results in the other teams being cheated. Rules are NOT meant to be broken, mike.

 

IMO, this is a gray area. A rule cannot be broken. You literally cannot have a salary over x in the NFL. If you go over, you need to cut someone or get someone to take a pay cut. To me, that is a firm rule. Baseball is more, IF you do X, then you pay Y. They are following those rules. They are paying Y.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Because it's cheating, mike. Pure and simple. And there's massively better odds of success when you cheat to procure HALF of the "top 10" versus one two, because the rankings have at least a modicum of validity.

 

Some years back, I was responsible for drafting ethics and code of conduct policies and have consulted with some of our most highly-regarded experts. I'm 100% confident that, were you to survey every professor of ethics within our universities, almost every one of them would opine that what the Yankees are doing is unethical and results in the other teams being cheated. Rules are NOT meant to be broken, mike.

 

Unethical, yes. Cheating, no. The Yankees are following the rules. They pay the penalty willingly b/c they think it's worth it. And as I said earlier, I have zero doubts about this being unintended. They want a draft. Best way to do that is to ruin the current system.

[twinsfan34]

What the Red Sox, Rangers, and Cubs have done...and what they Yankees, Red Sox, and Rays are doing - I wouldn't call it cheating. But definitely compromising the integrity of the rule.

 

A rule that has 'penalties' is supposed to prohibit teams from straying far beyond that line. For instance...after the 25% exceeding the cap rule, NO signings (or my 40-man roster spot idea) would just be a concrete wall in the sand vs a line in the sand.

 

When a rule gets blown by with regularity, it just becomes part of the cost of doing business. Not really a rule. So no, not cheating, as they're paying the 'penalties' enforced by the rule - but the rule isn't doing what it was supposedly set out to stop.

[bird]

I feel like this is MLB's issue though. Instead of an actual salary cap, they have a tax, you lose a draft pick if you sign too many guys, you can't sign anyone for two years if you go way over your allotment. The issue is certain teams are either not going to care (about the tax), or going to make calculated decisions like the Yankees seem to be doing. Calling it cheating seems a bit tough to me, because they are calculated decisions where the negative outcome is gauged and a team makes a decision to move ahead anyway.

 

It kind of reminds of a guy that lived on the St. Croix river. His view was blocked by a bunch of trees. The city had a law that you can't cut them down. He found out the fine for cutting down the trees was about half the amount an appraiser said his house would go up if he cut them down. So he cut them down and paid the fine. Clearly, in this situation the city, like MLB did not have a big enough penalty in place if their goal was to have pretty trees on their scenic river.

 

The reality is you have some teams that are worth $2 billion and others worth $500 million. You have some teams that can pay taxes and to a certain extent, lose draft picks because it doesn't really matter to them (they can just sign more guys). The only thing that fixes this is a cap.

 

I'd suggest a couple of distinctions here. First, the "tax" is a penalty. Its intent is to deter cheaters. There is no law-breaking going on, unlike the jerk on the St. Croix. But this distinction is meaningless from an ethical standpoint. They're both cheaters.

 

We can't live in a world where people make choices to cheat or not based upon the consequences to THEM rather than the consequences the law or rule was meant to avoid. It's not more complicated than that. In my last business, the consequences for using company time and resources, in any amount, for personal use was immediate discharge, no warning. Guess what? It worked. Stiffen the penalties or change the rules, or both, but just because the rule and penalties are impotent doesn't excuse the dishonesty.

[bird]

I respectfully disagree, diehard. The Yankees are breaking the rules because they're willing to incur the puny penalty. If the action cheats others, it's cheating.

 

And the argument that we should cheat too? No! I pay about 15% more at retail stores to cover employee pilfering and shoplifting. So, should I just occasionally walk out of the grocery store with a frozen turkey under my jacket?

[diehardtwinsfan]

I respectfully disagree, diehard. The Yankees are breaking the rules because they're willing to incur the puny penalty. If the action cheats others, it's cheating.

 

And the argument that we should cheat too? No! I pay about 15% more at retail stores to cover employee pilfering and shoplifting. So, should I just occasionally walk out of the grocery store with a frozen turkey under my jacket?

 

I'm not sure the analogy applies. The reason you don't walk out with the Turkey is b/c the penalty is severe enough to deter you. The rules state in this case that you can overspend your cap money... but they place a penalty to supposedly restrict you... problem is that the penalty does not deter.

 

This is more like speeding than shoplifting.

[tobi0040]

And as I said earlier, I have zero doubts about this being unintended. They want a draft. Best way to do that is to ruin the current system.

 

Throughout this discussion, I have developed a thought. I don't know if it is valid but I can logically see how it could be. I also don't think it is a good thing, just might be reality.

 

Maybe MLB does not want an international draft? Today you have academies all over south and central america. This brings primarily poor 10-16 year old kids access to trainers, facilities, and 15 hour a day instruction. The chance at the next Miguel Sano, or Ynoa's older brother that signed for $4.5M is what makes these academies a reality.

 

So if baseball put in place an international draft where the Astros get the #1 pick every year and they put in place hard bonus limits, it would suppress the value of these bonuses a great deal. The bonus would likely be much lower than are currently doled out because MLB is concerned about the escalating prices and you would remove the big players bidding (Yankees, Red Sox, etc.). It would seem that lower bonuses would create a situation where the academies are not rewarded as much and in turn, they could take in fewer kids, some could close, etc. Maybe in a twisted way they do make the MLB product better.

 

Thoughts?

[ashbury]

This is more like speeding than shoplifting.

 

Or paying for an upgrade to first class when flying.

[Pitz]

Kiley McDaniel has some interesting write-ups regarding the Yankees strategy:

Yankees unprecedented international plans - KMcD originally broke the story in December (http://sbb.scout.com/2/1361172.html) I actually wasn't able to read this for some reason so I'm not sure if the link will work

 

Scout.com’s Kiley McDaniel KMcD provides update on strategy including plans to have a second signing binge later (http://sbb.scout.com/2/1362376.html)

 

game theory implications KMcD discusses why they did it this year. It doesn't seem that it really had much to do with them viewing this as a particularly talented class, but a matter of budget timing and the view that the system is likely to change soon anyway

(http://sbb.scout.com/2/1362376.html)

[jorgenswest]

Kiley McDaniel has some interesting write-ups regarding the Yankees strategy:

Yankees unprecedented international plans - KMcD originally broke the story in December (http://sbb.scout.com/2/1361172.html) I actually wasn't able to read this for some reason so I'm not sure if the link will work

 

Scout.com’s Kiley McDaniel KMcD provides update on strategy including plans to have a second signing binge later (http://sbb.scout.com/2/1362376.html)

 

game theory implications KMcD discusses why they did it this year. It doesn't seem that it really had much to do with them viewing this as a particularly talented class, but a matter of budget timing and the view that the system is likely to change soon anyway

(http://sbb.scout.com/2/1362376.html)

 

If interested in more kMcD, you can listen to Kiley McDaniel on today's Effectively Wild podcast from Baseball Prospectus.

[ScottyB]

When a team can go over their allotment by over 500% and get a minor slap on the wrist, it's time to re-write the rule. The rules only account for overages over 25% and the infraction only punishes a team to no spending over $300K for two years.

 

The allocation should be $0 spending for three years for each time you go over 100%, so 500% would be a 15 year penalty with no spending plus a major fine.

[Mike Sixel]

BTW, I do agree the rules are poorly implemented.

 

More importanty to a Twins fan, I like that they knew who they wanted, and appear to have gotten at least some of them.

[Dman]

Unethical, yes. Cheating, no. The Yankees are following the rules. They pay the penalty willingly b/c they think it's worth it. And as I said earlier, I have zero doubts about this being unintended. They want a draft. Best way to do that is to ruin the current system.

 

I think it depends on what your definition of cheating is. Most would say cheating is gaining an unfair advantage. You can't create a rule to cover every scenario but typically as Human beings we try to follow the intent of the rules.

 

An example would be steroids in baseball. The players didn't technically break any rules by taking them because there was no rule about taking them until recently. Why then are they considered cheaters and not likely to ever get elected to the Hall? They were within the rules at the time. Is it because everyone seems to feel they had an unfair advantage because they took them (i.e. Cheated)? Just because it isn't a written rule doesn't mean it isn't cheating.

[Mike Sixel]

Not everyone feels that way, btw. some of us do not care if people took steroids at all, and feel they did not cheat, since, you know, there were no rules against it, just like guys that took speed or chew or whatever in the 50s-70s.....

[jorgenswest]

Nothing stopped the 29 other clubs from doing the same thing. In fact if a few other clubs joined the Yankees it wouldn't work. If it works, it works because of the volume. Three of four teams going way over and they can't achieve the volume. The Yankees were allowed to do this because the other 29 teams let them.

 

It isn't cheating. The Yankees did not hide their strategy. It was well reported in the offseason.

 

Time will tell if their strategy works in spending 27 million or so and giving up the next two years. The Twins spent about that much on Phil Hughes and more on Ricky Nolasco over three years. Is it a better strategy to spend the money on a bunch of 16 year olds?

[Dman]

All 29 teams don't have the same ability to go over that is why the rule is there in the first place. If your premise were correct then there is no reason for the rule at all.

[Pitz]

The Yankees were allowed to do this because the other 29 teams let them.

The Yankees did not hide their strategy. It was well reported in the offseason.

 

According to the McDaniel article I linked earlier, the Yankees did seem to hide their strategy. The signings they made were actually agreements made back in December. It was after these agreements were made that their "intentions" or strategy was well reported - by the time it was reported it seems it had already been executed.

 

From the article:

Sources indicate the first wave of six verbal deals all happened on one day, in late November/early December. The Yankees struck all six deals at once, after rumors had already spread in the industry that New York had a much heavier scouting presence in Latin America in the fall. For competitive reasons, this plan makes sense: other clubs and agents couldn't adjust their actions based on word of one or two big, early deals the Yankees had struck.

http://sbb.scout.com/2/1375072.html

[diehardtwinsfan]

I think it depends on what your definition of cheating is. Most would say cheating is gaining an unfair advantage. You can't create a rule to cover every scenario but typically as Human beings we try to follow the intent of the rules.

 

An example would be steroids in baseball. The players didn't technically break any rules by taking them because there was no rule about taking them until recently. Why then are they considered cheaters and not likely to ever get elected to the Hall? They were within the rules at the time. Is it because everyone seems to feel they had an unfair advantage because they took them (i.e. Cheated)? Just because it isn't a written rule doesn't mean it isn't cheating.

 

I'm pretty sure steroids were always against the rules (and against the law I might add), MLB chose not to test for them... big difference. This is a situation where the rules don't provide any sort of disincentive to stop the behavior... I'd add also that it's not like this wasn't predictable or anything either. It was pretty obvious from day 1 that this was going to happen.

[Dman]

Not everyone feels that way, btw. some of us do not care if people took steroids at all, and feel they did not cheat, since, you know, there were no rules against it, just like guys that took speed or chew or whatever in the 50s-70s.....

 

 

My apologies I should have said most everyone. Over generalizations are always a bad idea.

[bird]

Or paying for an upgrade to first class when flying.

 

I'm hoping you're not serious about this analogy. Paying for an upgrade is a benefit, and earned privilege. The rule we're discussing, contrary to a couple of expressed opinions here, states that teams shall limit their spending, not that they may have the privilege of circumventing the rule if they simply pay for an eligible upgrade.

[bird]

I'm not sure the analogy applies. The reason you don't walk out with the Turkey is b/c the penalty is severe enough to deter you. The rules state in this case that you can overspend your cap money... but they place a penalty to supposedly restrict you... problem is that the penalty does not deter.

 

This is more like speeding than shoplifting.

 

I would hope the reason you don't walk out with a turkey is because it's wrong. And the rule does NOT say you can overspend in exchange for a fee. It says you shall limit your spending, period. Then it describes the penalties. Which we all agree was an insufficient financial deterrent. I contend it should be a deterrent strictly because it's wrong to cheat the fans, and the other teams too. Competitive balance is a worthy goal, and the Yankkess are shoving it in all of our faces.

[Steven Buhr]

Reading the McDaniel article pretty much confirms what I half-suspected; that one reason the Yankees were willing to shoot the moon this year is that they think an international draft will be implemented, negating the two years of penalties they would otherwise be subjected to.

 

IF baseball does adopt an international draft and they don't find some way to enforce the back end of penalties for what the Yankees are doing, it will simply confirm that MLB is being run under the philosophy that whatever is good for the Yankees is good for baseball. But then we've all pretty much known that's been the case under Selig all along.

[Dman]

I'm pretty sure steroids were always against the rules (and against the law I might add), MLB chose not to test for them... big difference. This is a situation where the rules don't provide any sort of disincentive to stop the behavior... I'd add also that it's not like this wasn't predictable or anything either. It was pretty obvious from day 1 that this was going to happen.

 

Good point that steroids are against the law and thus against the rules in baseball. However since baseball didn't test they still were allowed to play. The thing is there are tons of things not in the baseball rule-book that you could use to gain an advantage in a game. You could shoot the starting pitcher with a tranquilizer dart or put Benedryl in their their Gatorade or a thousand other things that I doubt are in the rule book. Nobody does those things though because most believe in fair play.

 

In Monopoly one guy doesn't get to start with 1 billion while the rest only start with one million. You want everyone to start the same and see where the game takes you otherwise it sure seems like cheating to me.

 

I am a trusting and fairly gullible person. I thought the rules were going to work or that the teams would follow the rules as written and not break them. I did not see it working out the way it has. You are smarter in that regard than me.

[Steven Buhr]

It makes less sense to me that the rules actually favor foreign players over US born players. Had Stephen Strasburg been from Europe, he could have signed with any team with no cap on his bonus.

 

I'm not sure you can say the system favors foreign players, just because they are on the free market and not a slotted draft. At least it doesn't always faver them.

 

Take Lewis Thorpe for instance. It's arguably too bad Thorpe hadn't grown up in the US because, if he had, he'd have just graduated HS, been drafted in June, and would have gotten top money for a bonus.

 

No system is perfect. Any system set up by a cartel like MLB owners, in negotiation with a players union with 100% loyalty to existing MLB players, not the young players (foreign or domestic), will be flawed.

 

If the other 29 owners are willing adopt systems that let the Yankees treat any penalties like a speeding ticket, then they get what they deserve - a very uneven playing field when it comes to competitive balance.

 

Those owners aren't really "hurt," though, because they each get a pretty hefty share of the financial pie, whether their teams ever win anything or not. The only people really screwed over are the new/minor league domestic and foreign players who have their compensation levels artificially restricted because they have no representation when the rules of the game are established.