International signings 2014

[Mike Sixel]

Teams certainly want a draft, they want to artificially hold down salaries every way possible. I'd like to see a hybrid, something like this:

 

The 10 worst teams get first crack at signing up to 3 players eligible for the "entry draft". If they sign three, they can only sign 2 the next year if they are in the bottom 10. This is totally a FA period, and it lasts for a month. Then, the non-playoff teams that that were not in the bottome 10 get to draft. Then, they have a draft like they do now. That way, the best players get their money, but only the worst teams get their crack at them. Money is given to the best players, but those players generally go to the worst teams. Because you can sign three, you get to make up ground faster. Maybe you change that to 2 guys....

[bird]

As much as we may not like it, and as much as it may not be in the spirit of the rules, it is perfectly allowable as long as they take the sanctions as mandated. I would say it's akin to intentionally taking a penalty in football in certain situations (e.g. committing pass interference to prevent a TD, or taking a delay of game to burn clock or give a punter a few extra yards to pin the ball), or fouling at the end of a basketball game. They're intentionally breaking the rules, knowing and accepting the consequences, because in their opinion what they gain from breaking the rules is greater than the consequences suffered.

 

Agreed, but there are different degrees of ethical misconduct or rule-breaking. We may have varying opinions about how dishonest a behavior is. So, for me, taking an intentional penalty, or signing Lewin Diaz prior to July 2nd is not at all analogous to attempting to corner the international market to the dtriment of the fans of every other MLB team. One behavior is going 60MPH on Highway 100. The other is driving while crack-addled and drunk. Well, maybe not THAT bad...but you get the point.

 

The violator in either case will rationalize his behavior to create a distorted truth. But the truth isn't altered. If the speed limit is 55MPH, I'm breaking the law. But when I go 60, it feels like I'm right and the law is wrong. Some things are worth getting pissy about, and personally I get pissy about what the Yankees are possibly about to do.

[bird]

How is it bogus? The team should act ethically in terms of unwritten roster manuevers but not in terms of unwritten rules involving new stadiums and commitments to fans?

 

Do we need to live in a world are shenanigans against other billionaire owners is more of an injustice than shenanigans agaist the taxpaying peons?

 

If it's bogus, you should probably clarify why instead of just throwing that word out there, otherwise it seems like it just doesn't fit your narrative.

 

nick, I didn't want to hijack the thread. But quickly, you agreed to the stadium through the political process. No one promised you anything that hasn't been delivered. It's your own mirage that your staring at about how much spending you are entitled to and on what timetable. You are not entitled to a thing, nick. Moreover, isn't it convenient to ignore the financial and intrinsic benefits we're enjoying because of Target Field.

 

So, here's my analogy of why it's a bit hypocritical for us to blast the Twins on this and pretend we're being cheated. If I was one of those who bought a cheap chunk of pasture out north of Rogers and built my new house on it, the rest of you helped me make this dream work. You bought me roads, and a sewer, and the LRT. So, thanks. But if you think, for one minute, that you have the right to tell me what to do with my house, you're mistaken. It's not yours.

 

Public subsidies are part of our deal. If you work for Best Buy, or Allina, or any other company that has built facilities, the taxpayers have a few nickels invested in your cubicle. So we expect you to work real hard to make your company profitable so we get paid back in tax revenues generated from your loyal efforts. That's how the system works.

[Linus]

Teams certainly want a draft, they want to artificially hold down salaries every way possible. I'd like to see a hybrid, something like this:

 

The 10 worst teams get first crack at signing up to 3 players eligible for the "entry draft". If they sign three, they can only sign 2 the next year if they are in the bottom 10. This is totally a FA period, and it lasts for a month. Then, the non-playoff teams that that were not in the bottome 10 get to draft. Then, they have a draft like they do now. That way, the best players get their money, but only the worst teams get their crack at them. Money is given to the best players, but those players generally go to the worst teams. Because you can sign three, you get to make up ground faster. Maybe you change that to 2 guys....

 

This is a very interesting idea. Since there really isn't any chance of getting an actual salary cap in baseball, an idea like this might be the most effective way to address the big market - small market inequities that exist currently.

 

I also believe that there needs to be an international draft to replace all of this stuff. It makes no sense that a 23 year old Cuban can become a free agent and sign a huge contract, but the same can't happen for a kid from the States. Treat them all the same regardless of where they come from.

[chaderic20]

Just to be clear, I definitely think it's ethically questionable, just wanted to play devil's advocate and give a possible explanation for some teams' thinking. You could use the logic in my previous post to justify to yourself just about any rule- or law-breaking activity. It doesn't necessarily make the activity any more or less ethical though.

 

As many others here have said, I think the easiest and best solution to this is to just have an international draft.

[Willihammer]

So, here's my analogy of why it's a bit hypocritical for us to blast the Twins on this and pretend we're being cheated. If I was one of those who bought a cheap chunk of pasture out north of Rogers and built my new house on it, the rest of you helped me make this dream work. You bought me roads, and a sewer, and the LRT. So, thanks. But if you think, for one minute, that you have the right to tell me what to do with my house, you're mistaken. It's not yours.

 

Ironically, the plot on which Hennepin County built Target Field was acquired by eminent domain.

 

Alright I did my part derailing the thread. Now to bring it back on track:

 

Go Twins Go!

[Dman]

I was under the impression they were more than 500K under, so thanks for the update on that. I continue to hope they spend the full amount. As for "they aren't worth it"......we are talking about less money than almost any other way they can spend money. It is a dice roll. Spending this money doe not stop them from spending it otherwise. There is no reason not to spend the money, from a baseball perspective at all. The worst thing that happens is that they get nothing for their relatively small investment.

 

The rules are: if you spend over the amount in one year, you get less the next year. Those are the rules. Teams doing that ARE following the rules. They are choosing a different strategy than teams that want more money every year. Neither has the "ethical highground".

 

I understand how the rules are setup but what is the true intent of those rules? Is the intent to have the teams with higher revenue's willfully take the penalty and corner the market? Or is the intent to give teams with worse records a chance to become better despite there lower revenue? To me their is no question of the ethical high ground here. The teams that skirt the intention of fair play are way out of bounds ethically.

 

Are they breaking the rules as currently written, No, but they are ruthlessly pillaging talent from the teams that this was designed to help, thus the system as it stands isn't really working in my opinion.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Teams certainly want a draft, they want to artificially hold down salaries every way possible. I'd like to see a hybrid, something like this:

 

The 10 worst teams get first crack at signing up to 3 players eligible for the "entry draft". If they sign three, they can only sign 2 the next year if they are in the bottom 10. This is totally a FA period, and it lasts for a month. Then, the non-playoff teams that that were not in the bottome 10 get to draft. Then, they have a draft like they do now. That way, the best players get their money, but only the worst teams get their crack at them. Money is given to the best players, but those players generally go to the worst teams. Because you can sign three, you get to make up ground faster. Maybe you change that to 2 guys....

 

 

The problem I see is that most players whose agents are worth anything will tell them to wait until all the teams can be in to maximize their value.

 

Like it or not, this was an attempt to do this without an international draft. However, as long as the big maket teams have a way of dumping their excess reserves back into the system, they will do it. I don't blame them, b/c I'd do it to, but from a best interests of baseball standpoint, there has to be a way of maintaning competitive balance, and I see this as nothing more than a way to eventually get the international draft.

[Mike Sixel]

Not sure I understand diehard.....there are 30 spots for 10 teams as FAs....after that, it is a draft. Unlikely they'll get nearly as much money in a draft.....certainly not all of them. The other strategy for a team could be to sign 3 2nd rounders for good money, then draft the top guys left....or a team could go all out and pay 3 guys huge money.....or a team could save their money and just pay the guy they draft.

 

Thirty players, regardless of level (or 20 if you use my limit thing....) would be signed with virtual certainty. Also, this way, the PLAYERS get to choose what they do. They can sign, or they can go into the draft. Right now, they have no real choice other than to sit out 1-2 years.

[Don't Feed the Greed Guy]

Kiley McDaniel has been reporting that the International trading rules are about to be taken advantage of again, this time on a whole new spending level. For a few months now he has been writing about how the Yankees plan to blow by their international "cap" limits this year. Just like the Cubs and Rangers did last year, and the Rays the year before that. He also goes into the Game Theory: The Tragedy of the Commons to explain why this is happening now.

 

The Game Theory link is a fascinating read for those who like to link sports to leadership. The Sword of Damocles? You don't get to read about that in a baseball blog too often. Cool read.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Not sure I understand diehard.....there are 30 spots for 10 teams as FAs....after that, it is a draft. Unlikely they'll get nearly as much money in a draft.....certainly not all of them. The other strategy for a team could be to sign 3 2nd rounders for good money, then draft the top guys left....or a team could go all out and pay 3 guys huge money.....or a team could save their money and just pay the guy they draft.

 

Thirty players, regardless of level (or 20 if you use my limit thing....) would be signed with virtual certainty. Also, this way, the PLAYERS get to choose what they do. They can sign, or they can go into the draft. Right now, they have no real choice other than to sit out 1-2 years.

 

I misunderstood you... makes more sense now.

[zenser]

The problem I see is that most players whose agents are worth anything will tell them to wait until all the teams can be in to maximize their value.

 

Like it or not, this was an attempt to do this without an international draft. However, as long as the big maket teams have a way of dumping their excess reserves back into the system, they will do it. I don't blame them, b/c I'd do it to, but from a best interests of baseball standpoint, there has to be a way of maintaning competitive balance, and I see this as nothing more than a way to eventually get the international draft.

 

This is an interesting idea. I can't see that the big boys would go for 3. That would potentially mean someone is picking their first guy at 60. Maybe you lower it to 2 and if a team signs two, their first pick in the draft portion is skipped but they would get a chance to grab another guy after the first round of the draft portion.

 

I like the idea you have proposed.

[johnnydakota]

I honestly think that most teams want an international draft. The easiest way for that to happen is for these rules to get broken enough that the sytem fails. They tweak the rules to fix a broken system and then at the next CBA, they will be rightfully upset when teams like the Cubs, Yankees, and RedSox do what they did last year and will do this year.

 

Oh, and we'll see Cubans, Japanese, and Koreans subject to it too.

 

I don't like it for the players, but I do think that long term it's best for baseball.

 

Maybe 2 international drafts 1 for 21 and under and 1 for those 22 and older,then a exzemption to 3 years of team controll before free agency?arbritration after the first year ,and a free agent after the 3rd year?

[johnnydakota]

nick, I didn't want to hijack the thread. But quickly, you agreed to the stadium through the political process. No one promised you anything that hasn't been delivered. It's your own mirage that your staring at about how much spending you are entitled to and on what timetable. You are not entitled to a thing, nick. Moreover, isn't it convenient to ignore the financial and intrinsic benefits we're enjoying because of Target Field.

 

So, here's my analogy of why it's a bit hypocritical for us to blast the Twins on this and pretend we're being cheated. If I was one of those who bought a cheap chunk of pasture out north of Rogers and built my new house on it, the rest of you helped me make this dream work. You bought me roads, and a sewer, and the LRT. So, thanks. But if you think, for one minute, that you have the right to tell me what to do with my house, you're mistaken. It's not yours.

 

Public subsidies are part of our deal. If you work for Best Buy, or Allina, or any other company that has built facilities, the taxpayers have a few nickels invested in your cubicle. So we expect you to work real hard to make your company profitable so we get paid back in tax revenues generated from your loyal efforts. That's how the system works.

 

And if the shoe was on the other foot? If the Pohlads had approached Hennipen county and said ,look we will build a stadium , and we want you to raise taxes , paying us 35 million a year for 10 years...and in year 1 (2010) it was paid, but in the next 4 years Hennipen county didnt pay ,do you think the Twins LLC would be angry? Sue? threaten to move?

[maxisagod]

Just a note, the Twins had an agreement with Lewin Diaz well in advance of last July 2. Obviously not this early, but the Twins, like all other teams bend the rules. Teams, and players, also have been known to break verbal agreements. And teams have also made much earlier - and sometimes shadier - deals with trainers in the past. The issue isn't the Yankees, but the system. And I think we'll see a change coming in the future.

 

One other thing to consider: the Yankees are significantly overpaying for guys this year. I *speculate* that in return for that, the trainers that benefited this year will scratch the Yankees back in the future, whether that means bargain deals or hiding prospects remains to be seen.

 

I forget who did the interview, if it was you Jeremy, Seth, or Jesse Lund over at Twinkie Town, but the Twins area scout for East Asia (China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea) was saying once agents and handlers notices your team is starting to spend money in the region they start bring the talented guys to your team's scout attention, doing the hard work of scouting for them. The Benefits for The Yankees this year is ever high end players handler will be checking in with the Yankees before doing written agreements. So a guy like Lara might drive his price up with the Brewers after talking to the Yankees or just go back on the verbal 'agreement' like you mentioned. Also next year every player will contact the Cubs and Rangers with their prized players and they'll contact the Yankees again in 2016 if a draft isn't in place.

[jokin]

Not all problems are resolved through lawsuits, jokin. The league will certainly address the problem.

 

So you concur. As Mike so eloquently stated, no rules are presently being "broken" to the point that someone has filed a legal suit. And when the league "addresses the problem", teams from both sides of the "spirit of the law" divide will have a hand in coming up with a new structure and a set of rules, that once again will have teams employing their own strategies based upon that new structure and rules.

 

Ethics will play no part in their new strategies.

[Jim H]

I think that I would avoid talking too much about about ethics in any of this. We have very wealthy organizations throwing what is chump change for them, (but is incredible amounts of money for these kids that might set up their families as for at least a generation) at 16 year kids with the intention of tieing them up for at the next ten years IF they prove to be good. All of the advantages are for the organizations.

 

I would prefer that the various teams would follow the "rules" that they all agreed to and negotiated on. Clearly, that won't happen. The wealthier organizations will look for loopholes in the rules that will give them advantages over their competitors. I expect that when we are talking about 16 year kids here, the ones that look much, much better at 16, might not look so much better at 18 or 21. Lets face it, Arcia, Polanco, and several pitchers who are looking very promising right now for the Twins, were signed to relatively modest contracts. It is almost impossible to make any predictions on how good signings of 16 year kids are going to look in 3/5/10 years from now.

 

At this point, I am not going to worry very much if various teams bend the rules to sign 16 year old kids to huge contracts. The chances are much better that those signings will prove to be poor investments for those teams than they will come away with incredible talents.

[bird]

You make sound points, Jim. I guess I still feel strongly that, when we witness cheating in our society, we should feel some measure of outrage about it. The message we're sending to our younger fans, in this instance, is that agreements don't have to be kept and cheating has its benefits, so don't be a chump, get in there and get yours. The international market has been notoriously filled with shady dealings, and MLB has been complicit. I don't know what the solution is, but would appreciate seeing much of the unsavoriness eliminated from the process. I won't hold my breath though.

[bird]

So you concur. As Mike so eloquently stated, no rules are presently being "broken" to the point that someone has filed a legal suit. And when the league "addresses the problem", teams from both sides of the "spirit of the law" divide will have a hand in coming up with a new structure and a set of rules, that once again will have teams employing their own strategies based upon that new structure and rules.

 

Ethics will play no part in their new strategies.

 

You lost track of your own argument, my friend.

 

When I made the simple and true statement that a handful of teams have (Cubs) or would be (Yanks) cheating the system, you disagreed. You said that if this was true, there would be a slew of lawsuits. I have no clue where you wandered off to after that, but there were some terrific contributions from others in the thread, and the overwhelming consensus is that the league, in the face of this cheating, will certainly address the problem. So the majority concurs.

[nicksaviking]

nick, I didn't want to hijack the thread. But quickly, you agreed to the stadium through the political process. No one promised you anything that hasn't been delivered. It's your own mirage that your staring at about how much spending you are entitled to and on what timetable. You are not entitled to a thing, nick. Moreover, isn't it convenient to ignore the financial and intrinsic benefits we're enjoying because of Target Field.

 

So, here's my analogy of why it's a bit hypocritical for us to blast the Twins on this and pretend we're being cheated. If I was one of those who bought a cheap chunk of pasture out north of Rogers and built my new house on it, the rest of you helped me make this dream work. You bought me roads, and a sewer, and the LRT. So, thanks. But if you think, for one minute, that you have the right to tell me what to do with my house, you're mistaken. It's not yours.

 

Public subsidies are part of our deal. If you work for Best Buy, or Allina, or any other company that has built facilities, the taxpayers have a few nickels invested in your cubicle. So we expect you to work real hard to make your company profitable so we get paid back in tax revenues generated from your loyal efforts. That's how the system works.

 

I never argued against the stadium, this discussion is getting twisted but not by me. I argued against your claim that going over the International spending limit was unethical. I didn't blast the Twins for being hypocritical, it wasn't THEM who claimed it was unethical to spend more than the International slotting.

 

Again, you haven't clarified why the analogy is bogus. I'm more than happy the stadium was built and I didn't argue it shouldn't have been. I said with the new stadium an implied payroll was expected to be sustained. In fact it was promised. Things changed, we'll get over it. But how is that any less unethical than going over an International signing slot?

 

Bottom line is it isn't. All teams have the prerogative to go over the bonus allotment, just as all teams have the prerogative to set their payroll.

[bird]

I never argued against the stadium, this discussion is getting twisted but not by me. I argued against your claim that going over the International spending limit was unethical. I didn't blast the Twins for being hypocritical, it wasn't THEM who claimed it was unethical to spend more than the International slotting.

 

Again, you haven't clarified why the analogy is bogus. I'm more than happy the stadium was built and I didn't argue it shouldn't have been. I said with the new stadium an implied payroll was expected to be sustained. In fact it was promised. Things changed, we'll get over it. But how is that any less unethical than going over an International signing slot?

 

Bottom line is it isn't. All teams have the prerogative to go over the bonus allotment, just as all teams have the prerogative to set their payroll.

 

A critical difference, nick, is that the teams formally agreed to the international signing rules.

 

You were not promised, by the Twins or anyone else, that they would spend "X" amount on payroll in "Y" timeframe. More importantly, you are not entitled to be a party to some agreement. Most importantly, there has been no unethical conduct that you can legitimately cite, unlike with the Cubs, who breached a formal agreement that they participated in formulating. Yes, Jim Pohlad said they'd spend more on payroll. Yes, Jim Pohlad and others have said they have a guideline (not a promise or agreement) to spend an average of about 52% of revenue. Apparently, many of you believe, because this hasn't happened (yet), that you have been betrayed. There is no agreement, nick. There is only an expectation, a false one, that the Twins should spend 52% on payroll, each and every year I guess, and some of you have convinced youeselves that not doing so is unethical, or some sort of violation against you.

 

So, your analogy is bogus, nick. Bottom line? The Cubs were unethical. They have the prerogative to be unethical. The Twins, who by the way HAVE at least increased their spending in fits and starts, have not been unethical.

 

If we think the Twins are not spending enough, we can vote with our pocketbook and whine about it on TD, but those are our only choices. And we are not entiltled to anything more.

[diehardtwinsfan]

You lost track of your own argument, my friend.

 

When I made the simple and true statement that a handful of teams have (Cubs) or would be (Yanks) cheating the system, you disagreed. You said that if this was true, there would be a slew of lawsuits. I have no clue where you wandered off to after that, but there were some terrific contributions from others in the thread, and the overwhelming consensus is that the league, in the face of this cheating, will certainly address the problem. So the majority concurs.

 

That's just it, it isn't cheating. The rules don't say you can't over spend. They impose very weak penalties on you the next year if you do. All contracts are approved by the MLB front office, so if it was cheating, Selig would step in. It's not, because it's within the rules.

 

I can certainly agree about the spirit of the rules, and I doubt anyone would complain if a team spent a 100k more to get that one last guy, but the Cubs and Rangers destroyed their allotments last year and the Yanks and Sox appear to be doing it this season. The penalties that were agreed on were not strict enough to do it. Had these teams been forced to surrender their first rounder in the US draft, I don't think this would have happened unless they really really really liked someone.

 

As I said prior, I'm pretty sure this was by design. Most teams want an international draft, and to get around it, they need to show how the system is broken. Putting a good system together won't get them that.

 

We will see come July what actually happens...

[nicksaviking]

A critical difference, nick, is that the teams formally agreed to the international signing rules.

 

You were not promised, by the Twins or anyone else, that they would spend "X" amount on payroll in "Y" timeframe. More importantly, you are not entitled to be a party to some agreement. Most importantly, there has been no unethical conduct that you can legitimately cite, unlike with the Cubs, who breached a formal agreement that they participated in formulating. Yes, Jim Pohlad said they'd spend more on payroll. Yes, Jim Pohlad and others have said they have a guideline (not a promise or agreement) to spend an average of about 52% of revenue. Apparently, many of you believe, because this hasn't happened (yet), that you have been betrayed. There is no agreement, nick. There is only an expectation, a false one, that the Twins should spend 52% on payroll, each and every year I guess, and some of you have convinced youeselves that not doing so is unethical, or some sort of violation against you.

 

So, your analogy is bogus, nick. Bottom line? The Cubs were unethical. They have the prerogative to be unethical. The Twins, who by the way HAVE at least increased their spending in fits and starts, have not been unethical.

 

If we think the Twins are not spending enough, we can vote with our pocketbook and whine about it on TD, but those are our only choices. And we are not entiltled to anything more.

 

Teams did agree to to the international signing rules, BIRD, and no rules are being broken. This has been pointed out now many times over. Teams have have decided to take the financial hit and sacrifice their ability to sign players the following year and it appears more will do so again next year. Any team can do this, including the Twins. Unless the rules get changed, this is perfectly legal, ethical and every team has the ability to do it.

 

You are the one who keeps bringing up the payroll, I simply used it as another example of what many would consider questionable ethics. So enough of trying to misdirect the discussion. AGAIN I'm not arguing that the Twins need to stick to the statement that they'd spend 52% of revenue. AGAIN I am arguing against your claim that breaking a non-existent rule that you (and many of us) wish were in place is unethical. It isn't.

[bird]

I agree with you, diehard, that they didn't break the rules. I simply am holding them to a modest standard of ethics. I believe the prevalent view among people who study and teach ethics would be that the Cubs and Rangers intentionally bycheated and caused harm to other parties to the same agreement by circumventing the spirit and intent of the agreement.

[bird]

I think we covered the topic, nick. You brought up spending, I didn't, and you pressed me twice to clarify why I beleive, unlike you, that your analogy doesn't fit. We don't agree, and I fully understand your point of view. Thanks for being civil, I appreciate and respect your opinions.

[maxisagod]

....

As I said prior, I'm pretty sure this was by design. Most teams want an international draft, and to get around it, they need to show how the system is broken. Putting a good system together won't get them that.

....

 

First I'm avoiding the whole 'are the Twins spending what they should' dialog because I think that conversation has been played out.

 

Diehardtwinsfan comments make me think about one comment and one question.

 

The Comment: I don't think this system was created to fail, I think it's failing because there were too many compromises in the negotiations for a new system. The spending limits was set up to accomplish two things. 1, To keep spending down on amateur players and 2) to divide the young talent up more equally; essentially to change it from a 'who spends the most' system to a 'who scouts the best' system. When a low budget team like the Rays takes on the penalties, some could argue that team is just taking a calculated risk on talent they like this year vs the talent that is available next year. On the other hand, When The highest revenue team plans to spend more money than they ever have to grab the most high end talent they can; Then the new system failed to accomplish it's goals.

 

The Question: If only the owners and the players union are in the negotiations, what does the union have against an international draft of players, they don't, and in most cases will never, represent?