SI: MLBPA rejects 2020 draft proposal - UPDATE 5 round implemented

[dbmillertime]

5 round draft puts a lot more pressure on hitting on our picks and being active in the international market.  

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, dbmillertime said:

5 round draft puts a lot more pressure on hitting on our picks and being active in the international market.  

I wouldn't say a lot more.  If you are banking on your picks in the 6th round and later getting the job done you might want to rethink your plan.

[atomic]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

It will be interesting to see if the teams take a drastically different approach to the number of <$20 k guys they will sign.   

Yankees and Red Sox sign 60 each and the Orioles and Rays sign none?

[dbmillertime]

14 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I wouldn't say a lot more.  If you are banking on your picks in the 6th round and later getting the job done you might want to rethink your plan.

You should be expecting all your picks to be successful or why would you even participate in the draft?  I understand the later the round, the less likely the player is to make an impact, but there is still a lot of value to be had.

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, dbmillertime said:

You should be expecting all your picks to be successful or why would you even participate in the draft?  I understand the later the round, the less likely the player is to make an impact, but there is still a lot of value to be had.

Because you have rosters to fill.  

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Because you have rosters to fill.  

Contraction.  There aren't seven levels of minors because that's been mathematically proven to best develop baseball players.  It's the level that teams are comfortable paying for and hoping for the odd 500-to-1 19th rounder making an impact.  I think we're seeing that teams would probably be okay with 2-3 levels of minors with real prospects if it wasn't for the negative political ramifications of cutting loose a few hundred teams in a few hundred congressional districts.

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Contraction.  There aren't seven levels of minors because that's been mathematically proven to best develop baseball players.  It's the level that teams are comfortable paying for and hoping for the odd 500-to-1 19th rounder making an impact.  I think we're seeing that teams would probably be okay with 2-3 levels of minors with real prospects if it wasn't for the negative political ramifications of cutting loose a few hundred teams in a few hundred congressional districts.

They are working on that.  I would not be surprised to see the draft shortened once they are done.

[Redskins Rick]

On 5/10/2020 at 10:09 AM, DrungoHazewood said:

Contraction.  There aren't seven levels of minors because that's been mathematically proven to best develop baseball players.  It's the level that teams are comfortable paying for and hoping for the odd 500-to-1 19th rounder making an impact.  I think we're seeing that teams would probably be okay with 2-3 levels of minors with real prospects if it wasn't for the negative political ramifications of cutting loose a few hundred teams in a few hundred congressional districts.

 

On 5/10/2020 at 10:20 AM, Can_of_corn said:

They are working on that.  I would not be surprised to see the draft shortened once they are done.

Contraction.

Is it because the teams are tired of supporting the minor league system the way we know it, and cut down on expenses, so they can have a higher profit line. Because we all know, none of the MLB are losing money.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

 

Contraction.

Is it because the teams are tired of supporting the minor league system the way we know it, and cut down on expenses, so they can have a higher profit line. Because we all know, none of the MLB are losing money.

Ultimately it is about money of course but I do think that they think the current minor league system is outmoded.  From a development standpoint do you think teams need as many teams as they currently have?  Are the younger kids better off playing in rookie league ball or working in camps the year they are drafted?

[Redskins Rick]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Ultimately it is about money of course but I do think that they think the current minor league system is outmoded.  From a development standpoint do you think teams need as many teams as they currently have?  Are the younger kids better off playing in rookie league ball or working in camps the year they are drafted?

IMO.

I will leave the actual numbers to the ones that do it better.

But, just say, these the numbers.

70% of all the prospects will fail to have a legitimate pro career and that doesnt count a few games in the expanded season rosters.

So you reduce the number of teams, from what 240 to 160? (Again not sure what the actual contractual numbers are)

I dont think the percent of the prospect chances increase.

But, you just lost 30% of 80 teams worth of players in the major leagues

Which will at some point, impact the quality of the players on the 26 man roster.

Maybe I am all wet, wont be the first time, but this is how I perceive things to be.

 

 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

IMO.

I will leave the actual numbers to the ones that do it better.

But, just say, these the numbers.

70% of all the prospects will fail to have a legitimate pro career and that doesnt count a few games in the expanded season rosters.

So you reduce the number of teams, from what 240 to 160? (Again not sure what the actual contractual numbers are)

I dont think the percent of the prospect chances increase.

But, you just lost 30% of 80 teams worth of players in the major leagues

Which will at some point, impact the quality of the players on the 26 man roster.

Maybe I am all wet, wont be the first time, but this is how I perceive things to be.

 

 

I think you will lose the occasional player that would have had a nice ML career otherwise but we won't know so no one will miss them.

For the most part you will just be removing chaff. 

[DrungoHazewood]

13 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Ultimately it is about money of course but I do think that they think the current minor league system is outmoded.  From a development standpoint do you think teams need as many teams as they currently have?  Are the younger kids better off playing in rookie league ball or working in camps the year they are drafted?

Think of Little League.  In a typical game the kids stand around for 90 minutes and bat three times, usually striking out.  Most of them find it so much fun they quit by the time they're in middle school.

Game situations are important, but there has to be a better way for a 19-year-old prospect to get reps than getting four PAs a day all summer against mostly non-prospects.

[DrungoHazewood]

9 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

IMO.

I will leave the actual numbers to the ones that do it better.

But, just say, these the numbers.

70% of all the prospects will fail to have a legitimate pro career and that doesnt count a few games in the expanded season rosters.

So you reduce the number of teams, from what 240 to 160? (Again not sure what the actual contractual numbers are)

I dont think the percent of the prospect chances increase.

But, you just lost 30% of 80 teams worth of players in the major leagues

Which will at some point, impact the quality of the players on the 26 man roster.

Maybe I am all wet, wont be the first time, but this is how I perceive things to be.

Talent in baseball is distributed exponentially or logarithmically.  For every star there are five guys in the next tier.  For every Ryan Flaherty there are five or 10 guys who wash out in AA.  For every of those AA journeymen there are five or 10 guys who play three years in the low minors and get released.  

Corn is right, each MLB has about one full minor league roster of guys who'll have even a short, forgettable MLB career.  Spread across seven levels.  Cutting org guys or players who look like org guys will suck for org guys, but decrease the level of play in the majors by an imperceptible amount.  And perhaps increase the level of play in foreign and non-affiliated leagues by a small amount, which I think is a good thing.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Think of Little League.  In a typical game the kids stand around for 90 minutes and bat three times, usually striking out.  Most of them find it so much fun they quit by the time they're in middle school.

Game situations are important, but there has to be a better way for a 19-year-old prospect to get reps than getting four PAs a day all summer against mostly non-prospects.

If you want to implement a swing change, or pitching delivery tweak it has to be a lot more difficult in game situations.  In a controlled environment they are getting instant feedback.

[Redskins Rick]

14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think you will lose the occasional player that would have had a nice ML career otherwise but we won't know so no one will miss them.

For the most part you will just be removing chaff. 

 

7 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Talent in baseball is distributed exponentially or logarithmically.  For every star there are five guys in the next tier.  For every Ryan Flaherty there are five or 10 guys who wash out in AA.  For every of those AA journeymen there are five or 10 guys who play three years in the low minors and get released.  

Corn is right, each MLB has about one full minor league roster of guys who'll have even a short, forgettable MLB career.  Spread across seven levels.  Cutting org guys or players who look like org guys will suck for org guys, but decrease the level of play in the majors by an imperceptible amount.  And perhaps increase the level of play in foreign and non-affiliated leagues by a small amount, which I think is a good thing.

Ok, fair enough, so my thought process was wrong.

But, the end result of this, town lose teams and jobs, and the owner get richer.

Im not saying the current MIL model doesnt need revamping or tweaking, to improve things.

But what is the prime motivation here for change?