Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 19 Feb 2015, 1:47 pm

I floated this idea to Mike today, and I thought I'd also post it here.

It seems there are a growing number of veterans from other countries coming to play in the majors. Right now our rule is that when rosters are open, any owner can place a hold on a player not in ESPN's system as long as he or she has a free roster spot. Once the player enters ESPN system, Mike puts the player on the team's roster and assigns a salary of $1.

Most of these claims recently have been for veterans from other countries, primarily Cuba, who sign or are about to sign with an MLB team. A number of the claims have occurred during the season prior to the player's actually appearing in an MLB game, meaning the player's salary is $1 for their first season. Jose Abreu is the most prominent example of this sequence of events.

I'm wondering about the $1 price tag for veterans in particular. Technically, all foreign players entering MLB are rookies (right?), but the designation makes much more sense for an 18 year old than it does for a 27 year old like Abreu. Our current system may be working fine, especially since it's a way for a team out of the running with a free roster spot to potentially claim a valuable $1 player for the next season. Since some of these players are not young, they may not be resigned after a first contract, so their initial value may taper off quickly. The sticking point for me is that some of these guys are fast-tracked to the majors and thus there's no real risk associated with owning a $1 Yasmany Tomas, for example. A $1 rookie who is not in the majors is different, because he's dead weight on the bench and therefore has an opportunity cost.

It would also be a pain to track, but I wonder if a guy who has played professionally in another country for at least three seasons (picking a random number) and is over 21 (picking a random number) should perhaps have a higher initial salary.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 19 Feb 2015, 2:15 pm

I agree. I think foreign players should be subject to waiver claims or FAAB. When minor league players are claimed and they are not on ESPN that is ok because ESPN could have them in their system and they don't. But I don't see any reason to treat Cuban players that way. Until the player actually plays in the minor leagues or major league baseball a team can put in their claim and a team gets him by either waiver priority or highest free agent dollar amount bid.

As for price tag, I would suggest that foreign players start at $6.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 20 Feb 2015, 2:03 pm

I'm fine with things as they are (and not just because I've got two Cubans) but I would be ok with running out an amendment proposal next year.

I don't think we should mess with contracts - MLB rookies are MLB rookies no matter where they played previously.

We could do as Freeman proposed and not allow a player to be claimed until he has actually signed a contract with a MLB franchise. It's not ideal. What constitutes proof of a signed contract, though? A news report, a press release from the club, a tweet?

We don't use FAAB in the RBL (at least in the auction sense - ours is just a transaction cap) so that's out. I suppose you could use the waiver system but then we're leaving these players off the table until ESPN adds them.

While I don't think we need to do anything, if there's a lot of owners who see this as an issue, it's probably a good time to address it. I expect to see more of these types of signings in the future.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 20 Feb 2015, 2:06 pm

I came across this article - apparently some don't like it when these players win ROY.

ROY - Abreu
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 23 Feb 2015, 11:30 am

FAAB would definitely be the easiest solution to the problem, but admittedly it's a solution with much larger overall implications, and for whatever reason people don't seem to like it in general.

What if we just said that players with either no minor league games, or no minor league games in any years prior to their MLB debut, had a different salary structure than other rookies? Just trying to think of a (relatively) administratively simple way to identify the right group. Though I'm not sure I think the problem is big enough to warrant a fix.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 23 Feb 2015, 1:22 pm

One simple solution is to simply not to allow picking up of players until they get added on ESPN. That is extremely administratively simple..
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 23 Feb 2015, 3:02 pm

freeman3 wrote:One simple solution is to simply not to allow picking up of players until they get added on ESPN. That is extremely administratively simple..


I like the way you think, Freeman!

The drawback is that ESPN sucks at getting players into the pool. Yet strangely enough I can still pick up the 45 year old Arthur Rhodes who last pitched MLB in 2011.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 23 Feb 2015, 5:06 pm

SLOTerp wrote:
freeman3 wrote:One simple solution is to simply not to allow picking up of players until they get added on ESPN. That is extremely administratively simple..


I like the way you think, Freeman!

The drawback is that ESPN sucks at getting players into the pool. Yet strangely enough I can still pick up the 45 year old Arthur Rhodes who last pitched MLB in 2011.


Easier to *not* delete a database entry than to make a new one.

That's the same Arthur Rhodes who retired after winning a World Series title, by the way.