PDA

View Full Version : The Reserve Clause, Revenue Sharing, & Importance of the Draft


Lip Man 1
12-19-2010, 10:14 PM
Frater:

And by 2016 they'll be dumping all these "great" players because they won't want to pay them! LOL

:D:

With the Royals like a fistfull of other "major league" teams, the more things change, the more they stay exactly the same...

Lip

Brian26
12-19-2010, 10:42 PM
Frater:

And by 2016 they'll be dumping all these "great" players because they won't want to pay them! LOL

:D:

With the Royals like a fistfull of other "major league" teams, the more things change, the more they stay exactly the same...

Lip

It's a problem with the system that needs to be corrected. I'm not quite sure how to implement it, but I'd like to see MLB mandate that teams use part of the revenue sharing they receive on re-signing (or attempting to re-sign) what we'll call homegrown "franchise" players. If San Diego is going to receive revenue sharing funds, they should spend a percentage of that on trying to re-sign Adrian Gonzalez (before they traded him). Milwaukee should spend their money to re-sign Fielder. The Reds would have to use the money to re-sign Jay Bruce (which they already have). So on and so forth. There are quite a few details to work through, but there must be a way to correct this and decrease the fan apathy that builds up in the down years.

Daver
12-19-2010, 10:45 PM
It's a problem with the system that needs to be corrected. I'm not quite sure how to implement it, but I'd like to see MLB mandate that teams use part of the revenue sharing they receive on re-signing (or attempting to re-sign) what we'll call homegrown "franchise" players. If San Diego is going to receive revenue sharing funds, they should spend a percentage of that on trying to re-sign Adrian Gonzalez (before they traded him). Milwaukee should spend their money to re-sign Fielder. The Reds would have to use the money to re-sign Jay Bruce (which they already have). So on and so forth. There are quite a few details to work through, but there must be a way to correct this and decrease the fan apathy that builds up in the down years.

Reinstate the reserve clause.

Curt Flood never should have started this mess, it was a lot easier for the owners to make money before he started all this nonsense.

mzh
12-19-2010, 10:47 PM
Reinstate the reserve clause.

Curt Flood never should have started this mess, it was a lot easier for the owners to make money before he started all this nonsense.
Dave, there are plenty of solutions in between having free agency and not having free agency. Not saying I know what they are, but even with the reserve clause you still had teams like the KC A's serving as a farm team to New York.

Brian26
12-19-2010, 10:49 PM
Reinstate the reserve clause.

Curt Flood never should have started this mess, it was a lot easier for the owners to make money before he started all this nonsense.

Unfortunately, the horse has left the barn and is halfway across the country on this one. If that were to ever happen, it would be after a baseball apocalypse probably including a several-year strike and the collapse of many franchises altogether.

Daver
12-19-2010, 10:49 PM
Dave, there are plenty of solutions in between having free agency and not having free agency. Not saying I know what they are, but even with the reserve clause you still had teams like the KC A's serving as a farm team to New York.

Charles Finley made money off it.


And I don't do teal.

mzh
12-19-2010, 10:53 PM
Charles Finley made money off it.


And I don't do teal.
So how is Chuck Finley making money off those teams different than the Pirates or Marlins or Padres turning big profits while refusing to spend to keep competitive whenever they have the chance to?

This is a serious question, so please don't give me a snarky answer. I wasn't around back then, so I'm trusting your first hand knowledge.

bestkosher
12-19-2010, 10:56 PM
Those Yankees are really setting up a great AAAA team

Daver
12-19-2010, 11:07 PM
So how is Chuck Finley making money off those teams different than the Pirates or Marlins or Padres turning big profits while refusing to spend to keep competitive whenever they have the chance to?

This is a serious question, so please don't give me a snarky answer. I wasn't around back then, so I'm trusting your first hand knowledge.

It isn't. Everyone thinks this is a recent problem in baseball, but it isn't, it has been around since long before free agency. The trade deadline in baseball was created to stop owners like Finley from basically selling players to the Yankees and the Dodgers for the pennant chase.

Bill Veeck owned several franchises, and ran every one of them on a shoestring budget, he was the one that brought the idea of revenue sharing into the sport, but was not fortunate enough to be around when it was finally embraced in the limited fashion that it was, the NFL took his idea to it's full fruition though.

The bottom line really is this, all shared revenue in MLB is doled out at the whim of the commissioner, there is no policy, no formula, no nothing, the commissioner decides who gets what at his sole discretion, so if the commissioner is not going to force teams to use the money to improve the team then who is?

I don't know what answer you are looking for from me, but I hope that one was low on snark.

mzh
12-19-2010, 11:33 PM
It isn't. Everyone thinks this is a recent problem in baseball, but it isn't, it has been around since long before free agency. The trade deadline in baseball was created to stop owners like Finley from basically selling players to the Yankees and the Dodgers for the pennant chase.

Bill Veeck owned several franchises, and ran every one of them on a shoestring budget, he was the one that brought the idea of revenue sharing into the sport, but was not fortunate enough to be around when it was finally embraced in the limited fashion that it was, the NFL took his idea to it's full fruition though.

The bottom line really is this, all shared revenue in MLB is doled out at the whim of the commissioner, there is no policy, no formula, no nothing, the commissioner decides who gets what at his sole discretion, so if the commissioner is not going to force teams to use the money to improve the team then who is?

I don't know what answer you are looking for from me, but I hope that one was low on snark.
:tiphat:

Good points. There are flaws in the revenue sharing system, and there were flaws long before the system. Do you think an NFL style socialistic setup where every team gets an equal amount of TV money would work? The differences between the local and national contracts are huge obviously, but the same thing that allows a franchise to flourish in Green Bay would be the savior of the Florida teams, the Pirates, etc. I'm not sure how it could be structured given the relatively minuscule MLB national contract but it certainly would take salary dumps out of the equation.

I don't know how much this directly correlates to the frustrating situation that arises every year in the NFL, when there are 2 really good teams, 2 really bad team, and a logjam of 8-8 teams vying for a playoff spot. But whatever is done or not done it's something to keep in mind.

cards press box
12-19-2010, 11:54 PM
Charles Finley made money off it.


And I don't do teal.

So how is Chuck Finley making money off those teams different than the Pirates or Marlins or Padres turning big profits while refusing to spend to keep competitive whenever they have the chance to?

This is a serious question, so please don't give me a snarky answer. I wasn't around back then, so I'm trusting your first hand knowledge.

Without getting into the merits of this discussion, I just wanted to correct a couple of points. First, Chuck Finley, the former Angels pitcher, is not the same person as the late Charles O. Finley, former owner of the K.C and Oakland A's. Second, Finley did not own the KC A's when they essentially served as the Yankees' unofficial farm club in the 1950's.

In fact, Arnold Johnson owned the K.C. A's from 1955 to his death in 1960 from a cerebral hemorrhage. Prior to owning the A's, Johnson actually owned both Yankee Stadium and Blues Stadium, the home of the Yankees' then AAA club, the K.C Blues. So Johnson always had a cozy business relationship with the Yanks. After Johnson's death in 1960, his estate eventually sold the A's to Chicago insurance magnate Charles O. Finley. As it turned out, Finley was a shrewd judge of baseball talent and after the "Yankee pipeline" was closed and the amateur draft came on the scene in 1965, Finley eventually built the A's into a dynasty.

Daver
12-19-2010, 11:57 PM
:tiphat:

Good points. There are flaws in the revenue sharing system, and there were flaws long before the system. Do you think an NFL style socialistic setup where every team gets an equal amount of TV money would work? The differences between the local and national contracts are huge obviously, but the same thing that allows a franchise to flourish in Green Bay would be the savior of the Florida teams, the Pirates, etc. I'm not sure how it could be structured given the relatively minuscule MLB national contract but it certainly would take salary dumps out of the equation.

I don't know how much this directly correlates to the frustrating situation that arises every year in the NFL, when there are 2 really good teams, 2 really bad team, and a logjam of 8-8 teams vying for a playoff spot. But whatever is done or not done it's something to keep in mind.

Comparing the NFL to MLB is a waste of time, there is no single part of either league that is close enough to being similar to base a comparison on.

MLB is flourishing right now, and enjoying a labor peace it hasn't had since free agency started, despite a poor economy, and the NFL and it's salary cap are facing a labor impasse and may well lose a season because of it.

Bud Selig has done many things to earn my disdain, but it does not change the fact that he is the most powerful commissioner the game has ever had, and has acted against the best interest of the owners for the good of the game, think about what he could do if his office was truly autonomous.

Daver
12-20-2010, 12:06 AM
Without getting into the merits of this discussion, I just wanted to correct a couple of points. First, Chuck Finley, the former Angels pitcher, is not the same person as the late Charles O. Finley, former owner of the K.C and Oakland A's. Second, Finley did not own the KC A's when they essentially served as the Yankees' unofficial farm club in the 1950's.

In fact, Arnold Johnson owned the K.C. A's from 1955 to his death in 1960 from a cerebral hemorrhage. Prior to owning the A's, Johnson actually owned both Yankee Stadium and Blues Stadium, the home of the Yankees' then AAA club, the K.C Blues. So Johnson always had a cozy business relationship with the Yanks. After Johnson's death in 1960, his estate eventually sold the A's to Chicago insurance magnate Charles O. Finley. As it turned out, Finley was a shrewd judge of baseball talent and after the "Yankee pipeline" was closed and the amateur draft came on the scene in 1965, Finley eventually built the A's into a dynasty.

This is why we have baseball historians here to correct me, I based this on the fact that the first owner to sell his team after arbitration was introduced was Charles Finley.

Coincidence?

Probably not.

Lip Man 1
12-20-2010, 01:02 AM
Just wanted to bring some points to this discussion, not trying to prove a point...again just to further the talk.

First off, from my interview with Phil Rogers for WSI, August 2002:

ML: Revenue sharing and competitive balance were the central issues in this discussion but the agreement makes no provisions that teams have to spend revenue sharing money on players. What safeguards are there that owners will try to get better?

PR: "There isn’t a minimum payroll requirement because the union objected to having one, the owners tried to get one put in. That being said, it has recently come out that clubs who get revenue sharing money must file a report every year to the commissioner’s office detailing where and how that money was spent. The commissioner then has the power, if he doesn’t like where the money is going, to levy substantial fines on teams. The money has to be spent on things like player salaries, adding minor league teams or stadium improvement."

ML: Then how does that square with published accounts quoting Jerry Reinsdorf as saying in the owners ratification meeting, that teams should use that money towards reducing operating debt rather then going to player acquisitions or salaries?

PR: "I’ve seen that story. All I can tell you is that I was at that meeting and all reporters were outside the conference room. I know that when I’ve tried to get comments from owners afterwards in these kind of situations, they were always tight lipped. I can’t vouch for the veracity of that story. Assuming that comment was made, I don’t think reducing team debt would fall under the guidelines of where revenue sharing money has to go, therefore the commissioner would get involved to stop it."

Second tonight Phil has a column at the Tribune where he states that the Royals got the better end of the deal for the long term because of all the talent they received.

I respect Phil and I give him credit for sticking to his guns, he has always felt the way to build a team is through the minor league system but he ignores the statistical facts as pointed out in the study Baseball America did several years ago on the minor leagues. That report stated that 1% of all minor league players ever spend any real time in the big leagues.

1%

So the Royals will be very fortunate if one of these guys is on the big league team long term. One guy. And ironically if that guy is worth a damn the first chance he gets he's out the door or the Royals deal him because they won't pay him what he's worth.

Meanwhile the Brewers get a quality major league pitcher with a track record of at least moderate success at the highest level. The Royals got a crap shoot and a bunch of maybe's.

Some deal there Phil eh?

And in the interest of full discolsure I have always felt that I'd trade every guy in the Sox minor league system no matter how "can't miss..." at anytime for proven major league talent, guys who have shown they can get it done at the highest level...like the old saying says, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush..."

Lip

Corlose 15
12-20-2010, 08:56 AM
I think this is a great trade for the Brewers. Last year their starters ERA was 15th in the NL and they've added to pitchers who've gotten it done in the AL. Greinke, Gallardo, Marcum, Wolf, Narveson combined with a good lineup is enough to push them right into contention in the NL Central.

palehozenychicty
12-20-2010, 10:45 AM
It's a problem with the system that needs to be corrected. I'm not quite sure how to implement it, but I'd like to see MLB mandate that teams use part of the revenue sharing they receive on re-signing (or attempting to re-sign) what we'll call homegrown "franchise" players. If San Diego is going to receive revenue sharing funds, they should spend a percentage of that on trying to re-sign Adrian Gonzalez (before they traded him). Milwaukee should spend their money to re-sign Fielder. The Reds would have to use the money to re-sign Jay Bruce (which they already have). So on and so forth. There are quite a few details to work through, but there must be a way to correct this and decrease the fan apathy that builds up in the down years.

Exactly. People bitch about salary caps in other sports, but at least in the NBA, teams can pay their own stars through the Bird exception. MLB is a better draw right now, so small market franchises can still build around two-three players.

palehozenychicty
12-20-2010, 10:54 AM
Just wanted to bring some points to this discussion, not trying to prove a point...again just to further the talk.

First off, from my interview with Phil Rogers for WSI, August 2002:

ML: Revenue sharing and competitive balance were the central issues in this discussion but the agreement makes no provisions that teams have to spend revenue sharing money on players. What safeguards are there that owners will try to get better?

PR: "There isnít a minimum payroll requirement because the union objected to having one, the owners tried to get one put in. That being said, it has recently come out that clubs who get revenue sharing money must file a report every year to the commissionerís office detailing where and how that money was spent. The commissioner then has the power, if he doesnít like where the money is going, to levy substantial fines on teams. The money has to be spent on things like player salaries, adding minor league teams or stadium improvement."

ML: Then how does that square with published accounts quoting Jerry Reinsdorf as saying in the owners ratification meeting, that teams should use that money towards reducing operating debt rather then going to player acquisitions or salaries?

PR: "Iíve seen that story. All I can tell you is that I was at that meeting and all reporters were outside the conference room. I know that when Iíve tried to get comments from owners afterwards in these kind of situations, they were always tight lipped. I canít vouch for the veracity of that story. Assuming that comment was made, I donít think reducing team debt would fall under the guidelines of where revenue sharing money has to go, therefore the commissioner would get involved to stop it."

Second tonight Phil has a column at the Tribune where he states that the Royals got the better end of the deal for the long term because of all the talent they received.

I respect Phil and I give him credit for sticking to his guns, he has always felt the way to build a team is through the minor league system but he ignores the statistical facts as pointed out in the study Baseball America did several years ago on the minor leagues. That report stated that 1% of all minor league players ever spend any real time in the big leagues.

1%

So the Royals will be very fortunate if one of these guys is on the big league team long term. One guy. And ironically if that guy is worth a damn the first chance he gets he's out the door or the Royals deal him because they won't pay him what he's worth.

Meanwhile the Brewers get a quality major league pitcher with a track record of at least moderate success at the highest level. The Royals got a crap shoot and a bunch of maybe's.

Some deal there Phil eh?

And in the interest of full discolsure I have always felt that I'd trade every guy in the Sox minor league system no matter how "can't miss..." at anytime for proven major league talent, guys who have shown they can get it done at the highest level...like the old saying says, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush..."

Lip

All of these points are true, but eventually, you reach a point where you gotta give a guy a shot to prove that he can play. Everyone starts somewhere. Think about your first journalist position. Someone had to believe that you were capable.

Hitmen77
12-20-2010, 11:41 AM
Frater:

And by 2016 they'll be dumping all these "great" players because they won't want to pay them! LOL

:D:

With the Royals like a fistfull of other "major league" teams, the more things change, the more they stay exactly the same...

Lip

I think "can't" is a more accurate word here. Yes, I know some bottom feeder teams like Pittsburgh have been exposed for making a profit, but practically none of the small market teams can hold on to good players once they hit free agency.

Of course, I don't know their true revenues, but common sense tells me that it's not as simple as all the small market teams all having cheap/incompetent owners while the owners who are willing to spend to win just happen to be in the major markets.

It's a problem with the system that needs to be corrected. I'm not quite sure how to implement it, but I'd like to see MLB mandate that teams use part of the revenue sharing they receive on re-signing (or attempting to re-sign) what we'll call homegrown "franchise" players. If San Diego is going to receive revenue sharing funds, they should spend a percentage of that on trying to re-sign Adrian Gonzalez (before they traded him). Milwaukee should spend their money to re-sign Fielder. The Reds would have to use the money to re-sign Jay Bruce (which they already have). So on and so forth. There are quite a few details to work through, but there must be a way to correct this and decrease the fan apathy that builds up in the down years.

I agree. The worst part is that this doesn't just affect 1 or 2 teams. I'd say it's probably 1/3 of the league that is in this "we can't ever keep any homegrown stars" situation. Like I said earlier, it just can't simply be that Cle, Pitt, KC, Tampa, Cin, Milw, Tor, Oak all just happen to have "bad ownership".

The medium market teams like Minnesota and Seattle seem to be on the bubble here. They can keep some stars (like Joe Mauer), but even they most often see good players depart upon free agency.

Yes, MLB is making a ton of profit, but at the same time they seem to be worried that interest in the sport is on the wane. How does MLB expect people outside of the major markets to stay interested in baseball if so many cities have teams that are in constant youth-movement and constantly say goodbye to any good players once they become FA eligible?

There's always going to be some teams that simply have bad ownership or management. Florida, SD, and Wash (who really should be medium market teams) are current examples. But the point isn't to try to ensure that all teams are frequently competitive since every league and every era has their long-term cellar dwellers. The point is to somehow address the problem that so many teams, based on market size, almost never can hold onto the core of a successful team.

Hitmen77
12-20-2010, 11:53 AM
I respect Phil and I give him credit for sticking to his guns, he has always felt the way to build a team is through the minor league system but he ignores the statistical facts as pointed out in the study Baseball America did several years ago on the minor leagues. That report stated that 1% of all minor league players ever spend any real time in the big leagues.

1%

So the Royals will be very fortunate if one of these guys is on the big league team long term. One guy. And ironically if that guy is worth a damn the first chance he gets he's out the door or the Royals deal him because they won't pay him what he's worth.

Meanwhile the Brewers get a quality major league pitcher with a track record of at least moderate success at the highest level. The Royals got a crap shoot and a bunch of maybe's.

Some deal there Phil eh?

And in the interest of full discolsure I have always felt that I'd trade every guy in the Sox minor league system no matter how "can't miss..." at anytime for proven major league talent, guys who have shown they can get it done at the highest level...like the old saying says, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush..."

Lip

Lip,
I'd agree with this if this were a borderline competitive team making this trade.

But this is Kansas City. Keeping Greinke isn't going to make a difference in their chances to make the playoffs. In 2 years, he's leaving via FA anyway. Even if they shelled out the bucks to extend him, they still would have to rely on a minor league "crap shoot" to get within range of the playoffs.

Maybe their odds of becoming a contender are better by seeing how successful they are with the haul of talent they got instead of just hoping they can somehow win with Greinke in the next 2 years before he would leave anyway.

Lip Man 1
12-20-2010, 12:14 PM
Hit:

Your points are valid but that showcases a broader, bigger question though (i.e. the system currently in place in baseball / deadbeat owners / have's vs. have-not's). I'm focusing narrowly on this deal from my perspectivie which like I said has always been, proven big league talent at the expense of maybe's and question mark's no matter how talented.

We do know one thing however, if Kansas City keeps trading away the few good / decent players they have, they'll NEVER get competitive because the odds are very, very small that enough quality "kids" will all come up at the same time and play well at the same time and remain healthy at the same time to turn them around.

It's probably happened once or twice (Tampa maybe? The 1990 White Sox ??) but if it were easily done a lot of teams would be following the same model.

Lip

RockJock07
12-20-2010, 12:52 PM
I think this is a great trade for the Brewers. Last year their starters ERA was 15th in the NL and they've added to pitchers who've gotten it done in the AL. Greinke, Gallardo, Marcum, Wolf, Narveson combined with a good lineup is enough to push them right into contention in the NL Central.

It was a trade that had to happen for Milwaukee, The brewers needed pitching. On paper they have a pretty good rotation but so did the sox going into 2010 and we see how that went.

Who plays CF though? Gomez? Jefferess is sick but the guy smokes so much weed he bairly stays on the field.

ComiskeyBrewer
12-20-2010, 03:21 PM
Who plays CF though? Gomez? Jefferess is sick but the guy smokes so much weed he bairly stays on the field.

Gomez and Dickerson will probably platoon.

downstairs
12-20-2010, 03:25 PM
Comparing the NFL to MLB is a waste of time, there is no single part of either league that is close enough to being similar to base a comparison on.

MLB is flourishing right now, and enjoying a labor peace it hasn't had since free agency started, despite a poor economy, and the NFL and it's salary cap are facing a labor impasse and may well lose a season because of it.

Bud Selig has done many things to earn my disdain, but it does not change the fact that he is the most powerful commissioner the game has ever had, and has acted against the best interest of the owners for the good of the game, think about what he could do if his office was truly autonomous.

Thanks- that needed to be said. Baseball is doing better than ever. Ever as in a century! Go look at attendance figures from the 1900s to the 1980s. Unless you were the best team in the league, you probably drew less than 10,000 every night. Merchandise sales were basically non-existent. Maybe you bought your kid a 50 cent felt pennant, sure. But the stadium wasn't filled with people in $200 jerseys like it is now. TV was unable to get enough viewers for many teams to make it worthwhile.

Baseball will always have issues of some sort, only because nothing is perfect in life. And its totally valid to discuss those issues... but everyone does need to step back and look at baseball's history as well.

The labor peace is huge as well. Baseball was, for a long time, the most contentious sport in terms of labor vs. management. I'm pretty sure they had multiple work stoppages before any other sport. Now it seems like they'll go decades without one. There's so much money for everyone that no one wants to rock the boat. That's not true even in the nation's most popular sport- football!

doublem23
12-20-2010, 05:06 PM
I respect Phil and I give him credit for sticking to his guns, he has always felt the way to build a team is through the minor league system but he ignores the statistical facts as pointed out in the study Baseball America did several years ago on the minor leagues. That report stated that 1% of all minor league players ever spend any real time in the big leagues.

1%

So the Royals will be very fortunate if one of these guys is on the big league team long term. One guy. And ironically if that guy is worth a damn the first chance he gets he's out the door or the Royals deal him because they won't pay him what he's worth.

Meanwhile the Brewers get a quality major league pitcher with a track record of at least moderate success at the highest level. The Royals got a crap shoot and a bunch of maybe's.

Some deal there Phil eh?

And in the interest of full discolsure I have always felt that I'd trade every guy in the Sox minor league system no matter how "can't miss..." at anytime for proven major league talent, guys who have shown they can get it done at the highest level...like the old saying says, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush..."

Lip

Really that's a stupid "statistical fact" to bring up in these situations because not all minor leaguers are the same. No **** the numbers are overwhelmingly stacked against the guys when you throw in the several thousand guys who get picked every year after the first few rounds that we all know essentially have no chance anyways and are organizational filler. To compare top prospects to these kids is absolutely ridiculous.

The Royals didn't just pick 4 random names out of a hat. They got 4 players generally regarded as "top" prospects. Go back and check how often those guys spend quality time in the Major Leagues. It will likely be much higher than 1%.

Lip Man 1
12-20-2010, 06:06 PM
Double:

Time will tell won't it?

The game is littered with the wreckage of "top" prospects / top picks who never did squat in the bigs as well. It's not just guys drafted in the 35th round.

I'll take a quality player who has a track record of success over a prospect, even a top prospect any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

The Royals did what they thought was best however their record since the start of the 90's doesn't give anybody confidence that they did the right thing.

Lip

Daver
12-20-2010, 06:29 PM
Really that's a stupid "statistical fact" to bring up in these situations because not all minor leaguers are the same. No **** the numbers are overwhelmingly stacked against the guys when you throw in the several thousand guys who get picked every year after the first few rounds that we all know essentially have no chance anyways and are organizational filler. To compare top prospects to these kids is absolutely ridiculous.

The Royals didn't just pick 4 random names out of a hat. They got 4 players generally regarded as "top" prospects. Go back and check how often those guys spend quality time in the Major Leagues. It will likely be much higher than 1%.

15 years worth of White Sox top picks.

1991: Scott Ruffcorn
1992: Eddie Pearson
1993: Scott Christman
1994: Mark Johnson
1995: Jeff Liefer
1996: Bobby Seay
1997: Jason Dellaero
1998: Kip Wells
1999: Jason Stumm
2000: Joe Borchard
2001: Kris Honel
2002: Royce Ring
2003: Brian Anderson
2004: Josh Fields
2005: Lance Broadway

Lyle Mouton
12-20-2010, 07:07 PM
15 years worth of White Sox top picks.

1991: Scott Ruffcorn
1992: Eddie Pearson
1993: Scott Christman
1994: Mark Johnson
1995: Jeff Liefer
1996: Bobby Seay
1997: Jason Dellaero
1998: Kip Wells
1999: Jason Stumm
2000: Joe Borchard
2001: Kris Honel
2002: Royce Ring
2003: Brian Anderson
2004: Josh Fields
2005: Lance Broadway
If you're trying to argue that the White Sox were an extraordinarily terrible team at identifying first-round talent in those years, you won't have any opponents. But bringing that up in an argument about the direction of the Kansas City Royals doesn't really say much at all, if anything, about the topic at hand.

Daver
12-20-2010, 07:14 PM
If you're trying to argue that the White Sox were an extraordinarily terrible team at identifying first-round talent in those years, you won't have any opponents. But bringing that up in an argument about the direction of the Kansas City Royals doesn't really say much at all, if anything, about the topic at hand.

I would say that it does back Lip's statement about 1% of players making it rather effectively.

DumpJerry
12-20-2010, 07:21 PM
Double:

Time will tell won't it?

The game is littered with the wreckage of "top" prospects / top picks who never did squat in the bigs as well. It's not just guys drafted in the 35th round.

I'll take a quality player who has a track record of success over a prospect, even a top prospect any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

The Royals did what they thought was best however their record since the start of the 90's doesn't give anybody confidence that they did the right thing.

Lip
During one offseason (I forget which one, since the arguments on here are the same each year), I said prospects are like the cute girl in your high school class who is dating the captain of the football team who tells you she would consider going on a date with you if things don't work out with the football player. Lots of promise with less than 50% chance of delivery on the promise while you wait for said delivery.

Lyle Mouton
12-20-2010, 07:24 PM
I would say that it does back Lip's statement about 1% of players making it rather effectively.
Both Lip's statement and your assertion that the White Sox sucked at drafting -- while true -- have nothing to do with the quality of the Kansas City Royals' minor league system. It's window dressing.

Daver
12-20-2010, 07:32 PM
Both Lip's statement and your assertion that the White Sox sucked at drafting -- while true -- have nothing to do with the quality of the Kansas City Royals' minor league system. It's window dressing.


I wasn't saying anything about the Royals farm system, or making a comparison, I was pointing out to Doub that it is not that far fetched to believe the one percent number he was debating because of the number of high picks.

Reading comprehension is a skill you might want to look into.

Lyle Mouton
12-20-2010, 07:47 PM
I wasn't saying anything about the Royals farm system, or making a comparison, I was pointing out to Doub that it is not that far fetched to believe the one percent number he was debating because of the number of high picks.

Reading comprehension is a skill you might want to look into.
No, you were overlooking the broader, i.e. actual debate at hand.

Snark on, brother. Whatever makes you feel superior.

Edit: and it's pretty clear you ignored what Doub was talking about.

dickallen15
12-20-2010, 07:55 PM
Listening to Greinke talk reminds me of Billy Bob Thornton in Slingblade.

doublem23
12-20-2010, 11:59 PM
I would say that it does back Lip's statement about 1% of players making it rather effectively.

A) NOBODY IS ARGUING that 1% of minor league players make the Show. THAT'S ****ING OBVIOUS. That's an irrelevant point because the Royals didn't just get 4 random minor leaguers, they got guys who are well regarded as talented, young baseball players. Find me what percentage of well respected prospects end up making an impact in the MLB is... I betcha it's going to be slightly better than 1%. Some guys, THIS MIGHT AMAZE YOU, actually work for a living evaluating young baseball players for draft, trade, or other acquisition. This isn't some sort of nu-aged voodoo science that takes some sort of master's degree in quantum hyper astrophysics (you know, you might have to do LONG DIVISION), this is a well-respected baseball practice since, oh, the dawn of professional baseball.

B) The Sox are probably the ****tiest team in the Draft the last 20 years. The fact that our 1st round picks are apparently under Lip's boner 1% rule should illustrate that.

Daver
12-21-2010, 12:13 AM
A) NOBODY IS ARGUING that 1% of minor league players make the Show. THAT'S ****ING OBVIOUS. That's an irrelevant point because the Royals didn't just get 4 random minor leaguers, they got guys who are well regarded as talented, young baseball players. Find me what percentage of well respected prospects end up making an impact in the MLB is... I betcha it's going to be slightly better than 1%. Some guys, THIS MIGHT AMAZE YOU, actually work for a living evaluating young baseball players for draft, trade, or other acquisition. This isn't some sort of nu-aged voodoo science that takes some sort of master's degree in quantum hyper astrophysics (you know, you might have to do LONG DIVISION), this is a well-respected baseball practice since, oh, the dawn of professional baseball.

B) The Sox are probably the ****tiest team in the Draft the last 20 years. The fact that our 1st round picks are apparently under Lip's boner 1% rule should illustrate that.

And despite all those experts that can do long division, the number of draft picks that fail is 99 to 1, and that is being generous. There is a long rich history of numbers to back this up.

Lyle Mouton
12-21-2010, 12:15 AM
And despite all those experts that can do long division, the number of draft picks that fail is 99 to 1, and that is being generous. There is a long rich history of numbers to back this up.
And despite his lowbrow swipes at us peasants for failing at reading comprehension, the king himself continues to flail at a topic seemingly beyond his grasp.

Lyle Mouton
12-21-2010, 12:18 AM
And I did a study my sophomore year at college, evaluating the drafts between 1998 and 2005. About eight percent of drafted players reached the major leagues -- for what it's worth.

doublem23
12-21-2010, 12:21 AM
And despite all those experts that can do long division, the number of draft picks that fail is 99 to 1, and that is being generous. There is a long rich history of numbers to back this up.

1st round draft picks do not fail at a 99% clip. That's a fact. Yell and scream into the wind all you want.

Daver
12-21-2010, 12:41 AM
1st round draft picks do not fail at a 99% clip. That's a fact. Yell and scream into the wind all you want.How many that reach the majors actually have a career?

Lyle Mouton
12-21-2010, 12:45 AM
How many that reach the majors actually have a career?
Goalposts moved. Hats off.

doublem23
12-21-2010, 12:54 AM
How many that reach the majors actually have a career?

Probably still more than 1%

WhiteSox5187
12-21-2010, 02:11 AM
Probably still more than 1%

I wouldn't be shocked if it were less than 5% though.

doublem23
12-21-2010, 02:34 AM
I wouldn't be shocked if it were less than 5% though.

Well that starts to enter the realm of semantics, what is a "career," hell what's even a "decent show in the Majors?"

Just randomly I picked the 1998 June Draft (year I graduated from grade school) and just the 30 1st round picks and 12 supplemental round picks, there's a nice haul of good baseball players.

Just sorting them by WAR, you've got:


JD Drew, 44.3, 5th pick by St. Louis
CC Sabathia, 38, 20th pick by Cleveland
Aaron Rowand, 19.3, 35th pick by the Sox
Mark Mulder, 16.3, 2nd pick by the A's
Pat Burrell, 15, 1st pick by the Phillies
Jeff Weaver, 14.1, 14th pick by the Tigers
Austin Kearns, 13.5, 7th pick by the Reds
Carlos Pena, 11.8, 10th pick by the Rangers
Brad Wilkeson, 10.3, 33rd pick by the Expos
Adam Everett, 9.1, 12th pick by the Red Sox
Felipe Lopez, 7.4, 8th pick by the Jays
Matt Thornton, 7.3, 22nd pick by Seattle
Brad Lidge, 6.3, 17th pick by Houston

That's 12 guys right there, all of whom were (or still are) average to above average MLB players (maybe with the exception of Wilkerson whose longevity seems to be more related to how ****ty the teams were he was on as opposed to his actual value).

Still, 42 picks. 12 guys who have had more than just a cup of coffee in the Majors. Now, I don't want to scare anyone away with my fancy mathematical trickery, but when I divide 12 into 42, I end up with 28.5% which I'm pretty certain is a shade higher than 1%.

Nellie_Fox
12-21-2010, 02:38 AM
Well that starts to enter the realm of semantics, what is a "career," hell what's even a "decent show in the Majors?"

Just randomly I picked the 1998 June Draft (year I graduated from grade school) and just the 30 1st round picks and 12 supplemental round picks, there's a nice haul of good baseball players.

Just sorting them by WAR, you've got:


JD Drew, 44.3, 5th pick by St. Louis
CC Sabathia, 38, 20th pick by Cleveland
Aaron Rowand, 19.3, 35th pick by the Sox
Mark Mulder, 16.3, 2nd pick by the A's
Pat Burrell, 15, 1st pick by the Phillies
Jeff Weaver, 14.1, 14th pick by the Tigers
Austin Kearns, 13.5, 7th pick by the Reds
Carlos Pena, 11.8, 10th pick by the Rangers
Brad Wilkeson, 10.3, 33rd pick by the Expos
Adam Everett, 9.1, 12th pick by the Red Sox
Felipe Lopez, 7.4, 8th pick by the Jays
Matt Thornton, 7.3, 22nd pick by Seattle
Brad Lidge, 6.3, 17th pick by Houston

That's 12 guys right there, all of whom were (or still are) average to above average MLB players (maybe with the exception of Wilkerson whose longevity seems to be more related to how ****ty the teams were he was on as opposed to his actual value).

Still, 42 picks. 12 guys who have had more than just a cup of coffee in the Majors. Now, I don't want to scare anyone away with my fancy mathematical trickery, but when I divide 12 into 42, I end up with 28.5% which I'm pretty certain is a shade higher than 1%.Maybe I'm missing something here, but Daver didn't say "first-round draft picks." He just said "draft picks."

doublem23
12-21-2010, 02:48 AM
Maybe I'm missing something here, but Daver didn't say "first-round draft picks." He just said "draft picks."

Right but my counterargument to that is that not all minor league players or draft picks aren't created equal. Sure, if you look at them all in a vacuum, they probably do fail at a 99-1 clip. That might even be generous, but to then use that as a rational for not trying to stockpile good and respected young players is logic that's so crazy it's almost intentionally ignorant.

Yes, most minor league players never make it to the Show. Hell, most minor league players are lucky to make it to AAA. So if the Royals just picked 4 names out of a hat in their Zack Greinke trade, yes, it would be a boneheaded move. But they didn't, they acquired 4 good young players.

If you just think young players aren't worth the time to develop, that's fine. If you prefer veteran, established players because they're a safer bet, that's OK, too. But to argue that any move in which you trade away a MLB player for prospects is a bad one because "99 of 100 minor league players never make it to the show" is just terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE logic. That'd be like saying we should just close down all the universities and colleges in America because really, how many incoming freshmen in college will go on to become astrophysicists or neurosurgeons or the President of the United States?

My point is there actually is a method to evaluating young baseball players, some of which have been around since baseball first became a professional business. Arguing that building your team internally through the minor leagues is a failed approach is just plain silly, and even sillier when you're only defense for your opinion is that of all the minor league players in baseball today, less than 1% will ever make the Show is just silly when you realize that well regarded and properly coached prospects succeed at a much, much higher rate.

khan
12-21-2010, 01:16 PM
I'll take a quality player who has a track record of success over a prospect, even a top prospect any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Actually, earlier you stated,

"...And in the interest of full discolsure I have always felt that I'd trade every guy in the Sox minor league system no matter how "can't miss..." at anytime for proven major league talent, guys who have shown they can get it done at the highest level...like the old saying says, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush..."


So I read this as going into 2010, Lip would take Scott Linebrink, who has "proven he can get it done at the highest level," while I'll take Chris Sale on my team. Enjoy that.



Right but my counterargument to that is that not all minor league players or draft picks aren't created equal.

Yes, most minor league players never make it to the Show. Hell, most minor league players are lucky to make it to AAA. So if the Royals just picked 4 names out of a hat in their Zack Greinke trade, yes, it would be a boneheaded move. But they didn't, they acquired 4 good young players.

If you just think young players aren't worth the time to develop, that's fine. If you prefer veteran, established players because they're a safer bet, that's OK, too. But to argue that any move in which you trade away a MLB player for prospects is a bad one because "99 of 100 minor league players never make it to the show" is just terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE logic.
I suppose some people don't understand Pareto's Principle, as it is applied to minor league ball players.

I would state that the "1% argument" isn't "terrible logic" so much as it is incomplete logic, lazy, and intellectually dishonest, all in the name of promoting an argument without merit.

Even at that, I'd have to see numbers to back it either way. After all, baseball is a game that lends itself well to statistical analysis.

kittle42
12-21-2010, 01:44 PM
I would state that the "1% argument" isn't "terrible logic" so much as it is incomplete logic, lazy, and intellectually dishonest, all in the name of promoting an argument without merit.

Just like almost all arguments against statistics here.

Corlose 15
12-21-2010, 01:59 PM
I think this is a trade that benefits both teams for what they want to do. The Brewers want to win while they still have Fielder and the Royals probably wouldn't have been able to compete until after Greinke left in free agency anyways.

That said there is no guarantee the Royals are ever going to be able to compete. They've been "rebuilding" since 1993 and have had one winning season in that time frame. Even with the loaded farm system they have now it's still pretty unlikely because they have to "hit" with all of these players and it all has to happen at the same time.

I mean even just a few years ago Alex Gordon was as sure of a thing as there was, now the new rage at 3B for them is Moustakas. Even if they develop Hosmer, and Moustakas, and Escobar hits his weight, and Crain becomes a serviceable major league player, they still have to develop a pitching staff. The 2000 Royals had Jermaine Dye, Johnny Damon, Carlos Beltran, Mike Sweeney, and a productive Joe Randa and still finished 8 games under .500.

Now the Royals have plenty of good pitching prospects to do it but it's just as likely that the Royals competing in 2012 turns into 2013 turns into 2014.

Lip Man 1
12-21-2010, 04:21 PM
Khan:

I make no bones about being a "veteran" guy, always have, always will be. I don't apologize for that.

That's not to say you shouldn't have a good minor league system and what the Sox have done for 15 years is an embarrassment. However I don't think building with kids in this market is the way to go. You have a good minor league system to give you trade fodder.

I completely agree, totally, 100% with Kenny's philosophy. Trade kids for proven players, more often than not it's worked for him and the Sox record since 2000 bears that out.

Sorry you and the stat-folks disagree with it...that's your right.

And Khan let's not automatically go to "extremes" here OK? Nobody, not me, not Daver not anyone has stated they would build a team 100% the same way all the time, there are always exceptions. I just think using kids, minor leaguers... are a crapshoot at best no matter how highly touted they are. I want guys who have done the job at the highest level.

The good thing is though we'll never know which way is "right" because nobody here at WSI will ever be in a position to build a team. Not me, not you, not any of the stat only gang...nobody.

Although I am going to get in touch with some of my friends / contacts in the Sox front office, run this debate past them and see what they think. If they allow it, I'll try to post in general what they think, it'll be after the holidays.

Lip

cards press box
12-21-2010, 06:18 PM
Nobody, not me, not Daver not anyone has stated they would build a team 100% the same way all the time

Thinking along those same lines, most good teams have a mix of youth and experience. The 2011 Sox, for example, appear to be one such team. Yes, they have vets like Paul Konerko, Adam Dunn, Juan Pierre, Mark Buerhle and Jake Peavy but they also have some young guys like Chris Sale, Sergio Santos, Brent Morel and Gordon Beckham. And they have some guys that are neither grizzled vets nor 1st or 2nd year players.

Look at the 2009-2010 Blackhawks. They were a young team with a few vets, like John Madden and Marian Hossa, added to the mix. That team clicked and hopefully the 2011 Sox will click, too. I am encouraged that Peavy's rehab (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101220&content_id=16350410&vkey=news_cws&c_id=cws) is apparently going well.

Daver
12-21-2010, 06:39 PM
Even at that, I'd have to see numbers to back it either way. After all, baseball is a game that lends itself well to statistical analysis.

At any given time there are over 5200 minor league players playing in affiliated leagues competing for 750 roster spots, and this does not include players that are playing in the independent leagues ( some of whom were fairly high draft picks at one time ). If you want it broken down further do your own math, I have better things to do than play fun with numbers.

kittle42
12-21-2010, 07:48 PM
At any given time there are over 5200 minor league players playing in affiliated leagues competing for 750 roster spots, and this does not include players that are playing in the independent leagues ( some of whom were fairly high draft picks at one time ). If you want it broken down further do your own math, I have better things to do than play fun with numbers.

You completely did not address the valid points made by posters above about the level of prospects involved, which is unsurprising, because you can't address it adequately without giving up ground, which you won't do.

Lyle Mouton
12-21-2010, 10:50 PM
It's easy to avoid substantial debate when you can hide behind your title.

ComiskeyBrewer
12-22-2010, 12:22 AM
This thread needs to be re-titled, it hasn't been about the Grienke trade for a few pages now. :redneck

kittle42
12-22-2010, 12:23 AM
It's easy to avoid substantial debate when you can hide behind your title.

Title is irrelevant. I find it hard to believe he is any different outside of this realm.

Lamp81
12-23-2010, 12:32 AM
Here's a plan for revenue sharing

Each team gets to keep 50% of their ticket sales, TV, and radio income, and the other 50% goes into a pool, NFL style, where each team gets a 1/30th share from the pool.

This plan still encourages teams to get the highest amount possible for their media deals and to price their tickets in the most profitable methods, so they can get a 50% share of that dollar.

As for the other 50%, that should be shared because the Yankees would have no product to sell if they couldn't play the Rays, Royals, Blue Jays, etc.

Balfanman
12-23-2010, 09:10 AM
Lip;
I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate all of the information and "from the horses mouth" type of stories that you add to the discussions. I don't always agree with you, but then this would be a pretty boring forum if we all agreed. I do like what you add, and the calm, peaceful way in which you present it. You don't provoke arguements, just state what your opinion is.

Lyle Mouton
12-23-2010, 10:19 AM
Lip;
I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate all of the information and "from the horses mouth" type of stories that you add to the discussions. I don't always agree with you, but then this would be a pretty boring forum if we all agreed. I do like what you add, and the calm, peaceful way in which you present it. You don't provoke arguements, just state what your opinion is.
I, too, appreciate the calm and peaceful way he calls people nerds for having different opinions.

Daver
12-23-2010, 10:43 AM
Here's a plan for revenue sharing

Each team gets to keep 50% of their ticket sales, TV, and radio income, and the other 50% goes into a pool, NFL style, where each team gets a 1/30th share from the pool.

This plan still encourages teams to get the highest amount possible for their media deals and to price their tickets in the most profitable methods, so they can get a 50% share of that dollar.

As for the other 50%, that should be shared because the Yankees would have no product to sell if they couldn't play the Rays, Royals, Blue Jays, etc.

If that were implemented every owner in MLB would put their franchise up for sale.

Oblong
12-23-2010, 11:31 AM
It's a problem with the system that needs to be corrected. I'm not quite sure how to implement it, but I'd like to see MLB mandate that teams use part of the revenue sharing they receive on re-signing (or attempting to re-sign) what we'll call homegrown "franchise" players. If San Diego is going to receive revenue sharing funds, they should spend a percentage of that on trying to re-sign Adrian Gonzalez (before they traded him). Milwaukee should spend their money to re-sign Fielder. The Reds would have to use the money to re-sign Jay Bruce (which they already have). So on and so forth. There are quite a few details to work through, but there must be a way to correct this and decrease the fan apathy that builds up in the down years.

But now can you force a team to resign a player? I don't get that. A case can be made that a team would be better off playing cheaper home grown talent that's under team control than a player who's now in line to make $12-$14 million a year since he's now a 6 year player. The increase in wins that might result would not be off set by an increase on the business bottom line, which is still important.

Why should the league get to tell SD that they have to resign Adrian Gonzalez? What if they'd rather have somebody else at that price? And how do you even write that into a CBA or whatever standard you wish to apply? "Teams must use revenue sharing to resign their own players. Not all of them, some of them." Does that mean a team would have to use the money to resign a 32 year old first time free agent coming off a big year? How do you decide which player is Adrian Gonzalez?

Lip Man 1
12-23-2010, 11:40 AM
Lyle:

I don't claim to be perfect, but unless provoked I sincerely try to stay away from certain things like for example, using "one liners" to show how "smart" I am by denigrating another poster. (That's not an attack on you by the way but I see this quite often around here -- to me it's a show of arrogance and I despise that))

I use the term "stat-geeks" a lot because I've seen it used elsewhere quite often, I try to use it as a descriptive general phrase regarding a certain type of individual who thinks a human sport should be reduced to a set of quadratic equations (or mathematical constructs or algebraic equations or whatever term that fits best) that I'd expect to see in a college math class. To me that's not baseball in any way, shape or form and I'll be honest that attitude royally pisses me off.

I tend to agree with Daver on this, that it's nothing more than as he puts it, "mental masturbation..." Some stats I think are worthwhile and interesting to consider but even you'll admit that "knowing" what PK hits against left handed pitchers with last names comprised of eight letters or less, on home Tuesday night games in the 7th inning or later is a little absurd. (Yes that's stretching the bounds of statistics but you'll admit there are a number of "stats" out there that are for all practical purposes, completely worthless and irrelevant.)

But if I'd said something to offend you, I apologize. I will try to refrain from using the term "stat-geek" in the future if I can.

Lip

Brian26
12-23-2010, 01:25 PM
I, too, appreciate the calm and peaceful way he calls people nerds for having different opinions.


Consider this your first and last warning because you're starting to annoy me. I could not give a crap if you hate Daver or Lip, but knock off the personal attacks and public insults. Your last few posts have contributed nothing to the conversation in what is a really good discussion.

asindc
12-23-2010, 01:57 PM
Here's a plan for revenue sharing

Each team gets to keep 50% of their ticket sales, TV, and radio income, and the other 50% goes into a pool, NFL style, where each team gets a 1/30th share from the pool.

This plan still encourages teams to get the highest amount possible for their media deals and to price their tickets in the most profitable methods, so they can get a 50% share of that dollar.

As for the other 50%, that should be shared because the Yankees would have no product to sell if they couldn't play the Rays, Royals, Blue Jays, etc.

That's the thing that I always come back to when someone makes an argument against revenue sharing. There is currently no reliable method for accounting for how much of any team's revenue can be attributed to the opposing teams' fans attending their games, listening to their games on radio, or watching their games on TV or internet. Every team benefits from this, but at this time it is impossible to determine how much so.

Also, the fact that the NFL is the most lucrative North American sports league in spite of (or really more accurately, because of) revenue sharing indicates to me that the argument is one of philosophy more than practical economics.

Daver
12-23-2010, 02:16 PM
Also, the fact that the NFL is the most lucrative North American sports league in spite of (or really more accurately, because of) revenue sharing indicates to me that the argument is one of philosophy more than practical economics.

The NFL is lucrative because it lends itself well to gambling more than because the owners have a guaranteed profit margin.

TDog
12-23-2010, 02:41 PM
The reserve clause didn't go away because of Curt Flood. Curt Flood's case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and baseball won the case. The reserve clause went away because the union grew stronger.

You can't compare the NFL to major league baseball on any level. Football money comes from network television contracts. All NFL games are network games. Baseball teams make local television deals in addition to shared money. The big difference between big- and small-market teams is local television revenue. The Brewers drew more than 3 million fans in 2008 and 2009 respectively, and people still considered them a small-market team.

Baseball isn't going to pool all broadcast revenues and divide it up among teams. They aren't going to pool merchandising either.

I would love to see the NFL shut down for a year, maybe two, and emerge with a labor agreement that is fairer for the players.

Daver
12-23-2010, 02:47 PM
Baseball isn't going to pool all broadcast revenues and divide it up among teams. They aren't going to pool merchandising either.

I would love to see the NFL shut down for a year, maybe two, and emerge with a labor agreement that is fairer for the players.

MLB already shares revenue on MLB licensed product.

khan
12-23-2010, 02:54 PM
Khan:

I make no bones about being a "veteran" guy, always have, always will be. I don't apologize for that.

That's not to say you shouldn't have a good minor league system and what the Sox have done for 15 years is an embarrassment. However I don't think building with kids in this market is the way to go. You have a good minor league system to give you trade fodder.
Thank you for agreeing with me.

I completely agree, totally, 100% with Kenny's philosophy. Trade kids for proven players, more often than not it's worked for him and the Sox record since 2000 bears that out.
And this statement ignores the very real reality that KW started his tenure with the benefit of having a lot of kids to trade away. Let's see how it works going forward from 2010 on, as the farm system is denuded of anything worthwhile.

And Khan let's not automatically go to "extremes" here OK? Nobody, not me, not Daver not anyone has stated they would build a team 100% the same way all the time, there are always exceptions. I just think using kids, minor leaguers... are a crapshoot at best no matter how highly touted they are. I want guys who have done the job at the highest level.
Actually, you're the one who went to extremes:

"...And in the interest of full discolsure I have always felt that I'd trade every guy in the Sox minor league system no matter how "can't miss..." at anytime for proven major league talent, guys who have shown they can get it done at the highest level...like the old saying says, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush..."

In other words, you'd take Scott Linebrink over Chris Sale, right? Or you'd trade Chris Sale for a "proven veteran" like Mike Hampton, yes?

The good thing is though we'll never know which way is "right" because nobody here at WSI will ever be in a position to build a team. Not me, not you, not any of the stat only gang...nobody.
Yeah, no one should have an opinion about it either, right?

Although I am going to get in touch with some of my friends / contacts in the Sox front office, run this debate past them and see what they think. If they allow it, I'll try to post in general what they think, it'll be after the holidays.

Lip
Lip, you're a pretty reasonable and smart poster. But, you DID go to extremes in suggesting that you'd always go for the veteran over the youngster. I'm merely pointing out that it is a bit silly to globalize ALL youngsters as having the same ability and the same potential ability.

I'll agree that none of us will ever know, but then NO GM, whether (s)he's a promoter of youth or a promoter of veterans-ONLY ever gets it right 100% of the time.

Lip Man 1
12-23-2010, 03:01 PM
Asin:

Just something to consider. The NFL reportedly is a seven billion dollar a year business. Bud Selig himself said last year that MLB is now a six billion dollar a year business because of the new revenue streams they are tapping into.

Is one billion dollars that much of a difference when are talking about figures that large?

The NFL may still be the most lucrative but according to the commissioner himself, MLB isn't that far behind.

Lip

khan
12-23-2010, 03:09 PM
At any given time there are over 5200 minor league players playing in affiliated leagues competing for 750 roster spots, and this does not include players that are playing in the independent leagues ( some of whom were fairly high draft picks at one time ). If you want it broken down further do your own math, I have better things to do than play fun with numbers.
Again, Pareto's Principle has to be applied here, inasmuch as anywhere in life.

I've read that out of the players drafted in the 50 or so rounds every year, only 5 or so in each teams' draft is really expected to have a chance to make the bigs. I've read that only 1 of 10 or so domestic and international amateur free agents is expected to have a chance to make the bigs.

The reason for this is that the nature of baseball is that teams require a minimum of 9 field players to contest a game, and perhaps 3 or so pitchers to contest a game. In other words, teams need organizational fodder on each side to help to give "the vital few" a place to contest games, and to hone their craft.

I am in no way stating that the ratio of success for "legit" prospects is one in ten. Rather, it is believed that perhaps only one in ten youngsters "have a chance" to make it; This ratio is further thinned when a player's health, work ethic, and other factors "filters out" non-hackers in the minors.

In other words, it's lazy logic to merely look at an overall percentage of minor leaguers contesting games in AAA down to rookie ball. GMs and scouts know this, and have "filtered out" the "suspects" from the REAL "prospects."


In other words, the kids sent to KC in the Greinke trade probably aren't "suspects," but rather are "prospects" in baseball terminology. [Or "the vital few" as Pareto termed it 100 years or so ago.]

DumpJerry
12-23-2010, 03:15 PM
Why do people always want to compare MLB to the NFL? They are completely different products. That is like Harley-Davidson looking at Ford for how to construct their business model. Apples and oranges. Why not compare MLB to the NBA or the NHL?

The fact that so many different MLB teams representing a wide range of payroll levels made the playoffs at one time or another over the past 10 years shows that its business model is working reasonably well.

DumpJerry
12-23-2010, 03:20 PM
Again, Pareto's Principle has to be applied here, inasmuch as anywhere in life.
Pareto is commonly misapplied when the light of the real world shines on it. How does it work for baseball players given that there is no way to predict ahead of time which draft picks will pan out (Mark Buehrle)?

Fenway
12-23-2010, 03:24 PM
The under-funded owners of the Expos started this mess after the 94 strike. Charles Bronfman says the worst mistake of his life was selling the Expos to Claude Brouchu who claimed he had far deeper pockets than he really had.

Selig was furious at what they were doing and told them to bring in another investor. Selig compounded things by listening to George Steinbrenner on what a great owner Jeff Loria would be.

What has happened in Pittsburgh is just tragic, Kansas City, Cleveland, Baltimore right behind them.

The remodeled Kauffman Stadium is great, PNC Park is great, Camden Yards is great but there is only so much losing a fanbase can take.

Yes Boston spends a lot of money but if you are in the same division as the Yankees you have to.

The reserve clause died 35 years ago this week and the game hasn't been the same since.

NOTHING will change until local TV money is pooled equally. PERIOD

khan
12-23-2010, 03:28 PM
Pareto is commonly misapplied when the light of the real world shines on it. How does it work for baseball players given that there is no way to predict ahead of time which draft picks will pan out (Mark Buehrle)?
And this is an exception that proves the rule. Every once in a long while a low draft pick beats the odds to make it. However, I've read that far fewer than 1% of 38th-rounders make it out of AA, let alone to The Show. [Again, you need a minimum of 9 warm bodies on each side to play a game of baseball.]

But any GM or competent scout KNOWS who the prospects and the suspects are in an organization. They usually come earlier in the draft, with more bonus money, and more fanfare. Neither Buehrle nor Piazza disprove "the law of the vital few" as it applies to minor leaguers. [Full disclosure: I don't necessarily agree 100% with the way Pareto mathematically expressed it, but I believe in his concept as a general idea.]

Daver
12-23-2010, 03:43 PM
Pareto is commonly misapplied when the light of the real world shines on it. How does it work for baseball players given that there is no way to predict ahead of time which draft picks will pan out (Mark Buehrle)?

There are way to many variables that affect the success rate of minor league players to even try and apply any formula to it, doing so is mental masturbation in it's truest form.

DumpJerry
12-23-2010, 03:50 PM
There are way to many variables that affect the success rate of minor league players to even try and apply any formula to it, doing so is mental masturbation in it's truest form.
Quite true. Now, if an Econometric model can be created to predict with a high degree of certainty who will get injured with what injuries during their minor league careers, the Sox can avoid drafting another Jared Mitchell.

Injuries are the 800 pound gorilla wild card in the overall equation the stat heads try to apply.

Daver
12-23-2010, 04:00 PM
Quite true. Now, if an Econometric model can be created to predict with a high degree of certainty who will get injured with what injuries during their minor league careers, the Sox can avoid drafting another Jared Mitchell.

Injuries are the 800 pound gorilla wild card in the overall equation the stat heads try to apply.

Injuries are one, player development is another, some teams just plain don't develop talent well, the White Sox are a pretty good example of this.

Daver
12-23-2010, 04:02 PM
NOTHING will change until local TV money is pooled equally. PERIOD

This will never happen, it is not in the owners best interest to do so.

khan
12-23-2010, 04:02 PM
Quite true. Now, if an Econometric model can be created to predict with a high degree of certainty who will get injured with what injuries during their minor league careers, the Sox can avoid drafting another Jared Mitchell.

Injuries are the 800 pound gorilla wild card in the overall equation the stat heads try to apply.
You're correct that injuries are ONE major variable for which GMs/scouts have a complete solution. Nor is there [yet] a known means to accurately predict a player's work ethic, the effect of his intellect/education, or the ability to predict a player's absolute peak ability to improve over time, etc...

However, GMs/scouts/stat heads do have means to predict other attributes about a player that makes evaluating a youngster somewhat less than a "complete crapshoot." [i.e. They can measure a pitcher's pitch speed, or time a runner from home to first, or peruse his stats from the players' previous seasons, etc...] These metrics do have varying degrees of value in terms of evaluating a player.

Having said that, if the scouting and drafting process were in fact a "complete crapshoot," then it would be more efficient to fire all scouts/GMs/coaches, and merely pick teams from a random pool of human beings, without any regard to any foreknowledge of them.

Fenway
12-23-2010, 04:08 PM
There are way to many variables that affect the success rate of minor league players to even try and apply any formula to it, doing so is mental masturbation in it's truest form.

David Eckstein is a prime example of this.

I first saw him at short-season A Lowell in 1997. Big knock on him was a weak throwing arm.....

I told friends, that this kid will make 'The Show' as he just had something that stood out, extra hustle, last one off field, first one on it. It is the one thing that the statheads can't put a number on, the soul of a player. He has wound up with a decent career and two rings of which he was a big part of both.

A Red Sox minor league coach told me - The biggest hurdle we have is when a player fails for the first time as to get signed you had to be one of the best players in the history of your school. Suddenly you get here and you are no longer the best - some can handle that, many can not.

I see it all the time with Harvard and MIT college students - they show up as a freshman and in most cases were the smartest one from their high school - suddenly they are in a classroom with others who had the same tag. Sadly some can not handle the shame of failure or not being the best with tragic results.

asindc
12-23-2010, 04:38 PM
This will never happen, it is not in the owners best interest to do so.

It is not in some owners' best interest to do so, which was part of the dispute that led to the 1994 strike/lockout.

Daver
12-23-2010, 06:06 PM
It is not in some owners' best interest to do so, which was part of the dispute that led to the 1994 strike/lockout.

Luckily the MLBPA managed to save the rest of the owners from rewarding a few teams for incompetence.

asindc
12-23-2010, 08:57 PM
David Eckstein is a prime example of this.

I first saw him at short-season A Lowell in 1997. Big knock on him was a weak throwing arm.....

I told friends, that this kid will make 'The Show' as he just had something that stood out, extra hustle, last one off field, first one on it. It is the one thing that the statheads can't put a number on, the soul of a player. He has wound up with a decent career and two rings of which he was a big part of both.

A Red Sox minor league coach told me - The biggest hurdle we have is when a player fails for the first time as to get signed you had to be one of the best players in the history of your school. Suddenly you get here and you are no longer the best - some can handle that, many can not.

I see it all the time with Harvard and MIT college students - they show up as a freshman and in most cases were the smartest one from their high school - suddenly they are in a classroom with others who had the same tag. Sadly some can not handle the shame of failure or not being the best with tragic results.

I've seen that happen to a few athletes from different sports.

gosox41
12-24-2010, 02:19 AM
Dave, there are plenty of solutions in between having free agency and not having free agency. Not saying I know what they are, but even with the reserve clause you still had teams like the KC A's serving as a farm team to New York.


There is no sure fire solution, and baseball is just a microcosm of society. Imagine an organization (or individual) trying to take advantage of rules and find loopholes to make money or benefit some other way. It's almost like the American way.

I would start with a salary floor first. Surprisingly, the players don't want a floor, even if it means no ceiling. Right or wrong I don't know, but they came out looking bad on their drug testing stand.


Bob

Lyle Mouton
12-24-2010, 07:26 AM
Lyle:

I don't claim to be perfect, but unless provoked I sincerely try to stay away from certain things like for example, using "one liners" to show how "smart" I am by denigrating another poster. (That's not an attack on you by the way but I see this quite often around here -- to me it's a show of arrogance and I despise that))

I use the term "stat-geeks" a lot because I've seen it used elsewhere quite often, I try to use it as a descriptive general phrase regarding a certain type of individual who thinks a human sport should be reduced to a set of quadratic equations (or mathematical constructs or algebraic equations or whatever term that fits best) that I'd expect to see in a college math class. To me that's not baseball in any way, shape or form and I'll be honest that attitude royally pisses me off.

I tend to agree with Daver on this, that it's nothing more than as he puts it, "mental masturbation..." Some stats I think are worthwhile and interesting to consider but even you'll admit that "knowing" what PK hits against left handed pitchers with last names comprised of eight letters or less, on home Tuesday night games in the 7th inning or later is a little absurd. (Yes that's stretching the bounds of statistics but you'll admit there are a number of "stats" out there that are for all practical purposes, completely worthless and irrelevant.)

But if I'd said something to offend you, I apologize. I will try to refrain from using the term "stat-geek" in the future if I can.

Lip
No worries, Lip. Just wish you'd open your mind a little bit. That's all. I didn't mean to offend you either.

Daver
12-24-2010, 03:56 PM
There is no sure fire solution, and baseball is just a microcosm of society. Imagine an organization (or individual) trying to take advantage of rules and find loopholes to make money or benefit some other way. It's almost like the American way.

I would start with a salary floor first. Surprisingly, the players don't want a floor, even if it means no ceiling. Right or wrong I don't know, but they came out looking bad on their drug testing stand.


Bob

Why would the players want to give the owners a guaranteed profit margin at the cost of their salary structure?

gosox41
12-24-2010, 10:16 PM
Why would the players want to give the owners a guaranteed profit margin at the cost of their salary structure?

I neve said give them a cap on the high end. Just a floor. Force the KC's and Pittsurgh's to spend.

I am in favor of some sort of revenue sharing, like the luxury tax they currently have. But I also think the teams receiving a lot of money need to spend it.


Bob

DumpJerry
12-24-2010, 11:06 PM
I neve said give them a cap on the high end. Just a floor. Force the KC's and Pittsurgh's to spend.
What would that accomplish? Higher ticket prices for their fans?

Daver
12-25-2010, 11:43 PM
I neve said give them a cap on the high end. Just a floor. Force the KC's and Pittsurgh's to spend.

I am in favor of some sort of revenue sharing, like the luxury tax they currently have. But I also think the teams receiving a lot of money need to spend it.


Bob

I never mentioned a cap either, you just chose to assume that a floor without a cap does not affect the salary structure, when it actually does.

Nellie_Fox
12-26-2010, 01:46 AM
I never mentioned a cap either, you just chose to assume that a floor without a cap does not affect the salary structure, when it actually does.Absolutely. It further escalates the price of mediocre players or adds more teams to the mix in bidding up the price of quality free agents.

doublem23
12-26-2010, 02:00 AM
What would that accomplish? Higher ticket prices for their fans?

Come on, we all know that ticket prices are set independently of payroll.

Mohoney
12-26-2010, 04:05 AM
Absolutely. It further escalates the price of mediocre players or adds more teams to the mix in bidding up the price of quality free agents.

Wouldn't this end up with more money going in the pockets of the players? I can't see why the MLBPA would object to this.

Nellie_Fox
12-27-2010, 12:58 AM
Wouldn't this end up with more money going in the pockets of the players? I can't see why the MLBPA would object to this.Because they know that the owners will then come back and want a cap. It's the "foot in the door." At least that's what I think.

AZChiSoxFan
12-28-2010, 10:35 AM
Just wanted to bring some points to this discussion, not trying to prove a point...again just to further the talk.

First off, from my interview with Phil Rogers for WSI, August 2002:

ML: Revenue sharing and competitive balance were the central issues in this discussion but the agreement makes no provisions that teams have to spend revenue sharing money on players. What safeguards are there that owners will try to get better?

PR: "There isnít a minimum payroll requirement because the union objected to having one, the owners tried to get one put in. That being said, it has recently come out that clubs who get revenue sharing money must file a report every year to the commissionerís office detailing where and how that money was spent. The commissioner then has the power, if he doesnít like where the money is going, to levy substantial fines on teams. The money has to be spent on things like player salaries, adding minor league teams or stadium improvement."

ML: Then how does that square with published accounts quoting Jerry Reinsdorf as saying in the owners ratification meeting, that teams should use that money towards reducing operating debt rather then going to player acquisitions or salaries?

PR: "Iíve seen that story. All I can tell you is that I was at that meeting and all reporters were outside the conference room. I know that when Iíve tried to get comments from owners afterwards in these kind of situations, they were always tight lipped. I canít vouch for the veracity of that story. Assuming that comment was made, I donít think reducing team debt would fall under the guidelines of where revenue sharing money has to go, therefore the commissioner would get involved to stop it."

Second tonight Phil has a column at the Tribune where he states that the Royals got the better end of the deal for the long term because of all the talent they received.

I respect Phil and I give him credit for sticking to his guns, he has always felt the way to build a team is through the minor league system but he ignores the statistical facts as pointed out in the study Baseball America did several years ago on the minor leagues. That report stated that 1% of all minor league players ever spend any real time in the big leagues.

1%

So the Royals will be very fortunate if one of these guys is on the big league team long term. One guy. And ironically if that guy is worth a damn the first chance he gets he's out the door or the Royals deal him because they won't pay him what he's worth.

Meanwhile the Brewers get a quality major league pitcher with a track record of at least moderate success at the highest level. The Royals got a crap shoot and a bunch of maybe's.

Some deal there Phil eh?

And in the interest of full discolsure I have always felt that I'd trade every guy in the Sox minor league system no matter how "can't miss..." at anytime for proven major league talent, guys who have shown they can get it done at the highest level...like the old saying says, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush..."

Lip

Lip, great points. Isn't it true though that the reason the Rays of the last few years were very good was because of players who came up through their minor league system?

Oblong
12-28-2010, 11:04 AM
I don't get the 1% point.... not all minor leaguers are equal. Yes there's always going to be uncertainty and I do think in general these "Prospects for big time player" deals seem to rarely work out for the team getting prospects. But organizations do have to consider resource and asset allocation and the Royals have what is considered by many to be the best and deepest farm system in baseball. Yes the Brewers get a good player but one that also is going to cost $27 million for 2 years. This deal doesn't have to be looked at as a salary dump by the Royals but rather a sell high. It's perfectly reasonable for a franchise to say that they want only young talent. They are cheaper. I don't see it as a crime or travesty to baseball that Zach Greinke didn't stay with the Royals.

Lip Man 1
12-28-2010, 01:51 PM
Oblong:

I don't see it as a crime or travesty either unless you are a Royals fan and have had 15 years of horsedung on the field and yet are continually being told about all the great minor league talent on the farm.

One of my points was that because the odds are long to start with of a single player making the show and producing, the odds must be incredible that (again using the Royals as an example) you'll get enough players who beat the odds, come up at the same time, stay healthy and produce...all at the same time, to make a marked difference on the field, in the standings and possibly go to the postseason.

If I was a Royals fan, I'd be asking what the hell has gone on for 15 years with all these "supposed" great kids. If they are what the organization was saying they are, why can't "we" win anything? Why have we had two winning seasons (maybe haven't looked it up) in 15 years?

The 'connection' isn't happening, why?

But since I'm not a Royals fan, I don't care. I agree with the way Kenny does his business.

Azchi: Completely true...of course it took ten years of disastrous baseball to get there for three years. (Not a great return in my book) and they aren't going to be able to keep these guys at all.

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
12-28-2010, 02:10 PM
Oblong:

I don't see it as a crime or travesty either unless you are a Royals fan and have had 15 years of horsedung on the field and yet are continually being told about all the great minor league talent on the farm.

One of my points was that because the odds are long to start with of a single player making the show and producing, the odds must be incredible that (again using the Royals as an example) you'll get enough players who beat the odds, come up at the same time, stay healthy and produce...all at the same time, to make a marked difference on the field, in the standings and possibly go to the postseason.

If I was a Royals fan, I'd be asking what the hell has gone on for 15 years with all these "supposed" great kids. If they are what the organization was saying they are, why can't "we" win anything? Why have we had two winning seasons (maybe haven't looked it up) in 15 years?

The 'connection' isn't happening, why?

But since I'm not a Royals fan, I don't care. I agree with the way Kenny does his business.

Azchi: Completely true...of course it took ten years of disastrous baseball to get there for three years. (Not a great return in my book) and they aren't going to be able to keep these guys at all.

Lip

Lip, the problem with the Royals was that they didn't hang on to their home-grown talent because they could not (or chose not) to afford it. But the Braves generally developed talent well, and they generally hung on to it, until they had another solid prospect ready to take the job. And they went to the playoffs every year from 1991 through 2005.

khan
12-28-2010, 02:15 PM
I don't get the 1% point.... not all minor leaguers are equal. Yes there's always going to be uncertainty and I do think in general these "Prospects for big time player" deals seem to rarely work out for the team getting prospects. But organizations do have to consider resource and asset allocation and the Royals have what is considered by many to be the best and deepest farm system in baseball. Yes the Brewers get a good player but one that also is going to cost $27 million for 2 years. This deal doesn't have to be looked at as a salary dump by the Royals but rather a sell high. It's perfectly reasonable for a franchise to say that they want only young talent. They are cheaper. I don't see it as a crime or travesty to baseball that Zach Greinke didn't stay with the Royals.

Well, the 1% idea came from the great Phil Rogers, so it's gotta be true!

His knowledge of the game is impeccable. Don't forget, Phil Rogers is a member of MENSA, a former Poet Laureate of the US, a Pulitzer Prize winner, a former Dean of the Medill School of Journalism, and a Rhodes Scholar. [I almost forgot: Phil Rogers' columns and blogs have won him a MacArthur Fellowship, as well.]

And anyway, a guy drafted in the 50th round is the same as a guy drafted #1 overall and given a multi-million dollar signing bonus. Also, a guy signed from an open tryout is the same as any other minor leaguer. None of them EVER pan out.

Hell, even the 25th man on each and every MLB roster is better than the #1 pick overall. And this is true in EVERY CASE. I'd take Brent Lillibridge and Scott Linebrink over any of those bust-outs in the draft.

Lip Man 1
12-28-2010, 02:27 PM
Frater:

Again valid points. Like I said earlier there isn't "one way" to build a team.

I happen to subscribe to the belief that because kids rarely make it to the show and rarely do well, as outlined in the Baseball America analysis, I prefer getting major league talent that's proven themselves at that level more often than not, then taking a shot with kids.

I recall Casey Stengel's favorite quote (and I paraphrasing) 'the only thing rookies do well is get managers fired...'

The Braves had it going for a long, long time. They figured out the way to do it, of course if it was that simple to do, everybody from the Pirates to the Padres to the Orioles would be doing it by now.

Lip

DonnieDarko
12-28-2010, 03:52 PM
Well, the Twins seem to be doing it at any rate right now. >_>

Frater Perdurabo
12-28-2010, 04:05 PM
Frater:

Again valid points. Like I said earlier there isn't "one way" to build a team.

I happen to subscribe to the belief that because kids rarely make it to the show and rarely do well, as outlined in the Baseball America analysis, I prefer getting major league talent that's proven themselves at that level more often than not, then taking a shot with kids.

I recall Casey Stengel's favorite quote (and I paraphrasing) 'the only thing rookies do well is get managers fired...'

The Braves had it going for a long, long time. They figured out the way to do it, of course if it was that simple to do, everybody from the Pirates to the Padres to the Orioles would be doing it by now.

Lip

Well, the Braves did have the advantage of a strong starting rotation (Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz) for much of that time, and then struck gold with Chipper Jones. But that afforded them the opportunity to bring up 1-2 youngsters each year to play a position or fill out the bullpen or the back end of the rotation.

If I were to run a team, one of my goals would be to have a good enough minor league system to produce one MLB-quality position player starter and one pitcher each year. That way, "surplus" prospects could be dealt for MLB-quality talent from other organizations. The Braves did that from 1991-2005, and the Twins are doing it right now.

Basically, I'd like to have the Twins' minor league system, with a GM as shrewd as KW, and a payroll befitting the #3 market in the country. That would be a recipe for the Sox winning the Central at least five times every decade.

Lip Man 1
12-28-2010, 04:17 PM
Frater:

Sounds good to me, now how do you 'fix' the Sox minor league system / philosophy?

Daver has studied the Sox minor league system closely for a long time, perhaps he has some ideas.

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
12-28-2010, 04:39 PM
Frater:

Sounds good to me, now how do you 'fix' the Sox minor league system / philosophy?

Daver has studied the Sox minor league system closely for a long time, perhaps he has some ideas.

Lip

Triple/quadruple/quintuple/(whatever is necessary) the minor league scouting and player development budget, and hire the best scouts and coaches money can buy. If that means raiding the Twins, Braves, Red Sox and Marlins, so be it. Then, open and staff White Sox baseball academies throughout Latin America, the Caribbean, and in Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia.

TheVulture
12-28-2010, 04:42 PM
Well, the 1% idea came from the great Phil Rogers, so it's gotta be true!

His knowledge of the game is impeccable. Don't forget, Phil Rogers is a member of MENSA, a former Poet Laureate of the US, a Pulitzer Prize winner, a former Dean of the Medill School of Journalism, and a Rhodes Scholar. [I almost forgot: Phil Rogers' columns and blogs have won him a MacArthur Fellowship, as well.]



At 1%, the average MLB team would be drafting one major leaguer every two years. Seems like it would be hard to field 30 MLB teams at that rate. It would take all of MLB ten years just to draft 150 major leaguer players. In the average season, somewhere around 900+ players play major league baseball. Good thing we've got the Dominican Republic.

DumpJerry
12-28-2010, 05:05 PM
Triple/quadruple/quintuple/(whatever is necessary) the minor league scouting and player development budget, and hire the best scouts and coaches money can buy. If that means raiding the Twins, Braves, Red Sox and Marlins, so be it. Then, open and staff White Sox baseball academies throughout Latin America, the Caribbean, and in Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia.
Just hire George Costanza. He was willing to leave the Yankees for the Head Scout position with the Mets. So determined, he dragged a World Series trophy behind his car in the parking lot and spilled mustard on a Babe Ruth jersey during a staff meeting.........

gosox41
12-28-2010, 10:46 PM
What would that accomplish? Higher ticket prices for their fans?


Not sure. Fans won't come to over pay too much if team is lousy.

MLB can go the contraction route again, but that hasn't worked yet.

gosox41
12-28-2010, 10:51 PM
And I did a study my sophomore year at college, evaluating the drafts between 1998 and 2005. About eight percent of drafted players reached the major leagues -- for what it's worth.


That sounds more right thenthe 1% number.

1% means a team drafts a maor league player ever 2 years assuming a 50 rund draft and no supplemental picks. I don't believe te countries that aren't in the ameture draft are supplying all the other talent in MLB.

I would like to see stats supporting the 1%.


Bob

Daver
12-28-2010, 10:51 PM
Frater:

Sounds good to me, now how do you 'fix' the Sox minor league system / philosophy?

Daver has studied the Sox minor league system closely for a long time, perhaps he has some ideas.

Lip

They aren't going to change anything till they have a different GM.

Daver
12-28-2010, 10:57 PM
That sounds more right thenthe 1% number.

1% means a team drafts a maor league player ever 2 years assuming a 50 rund draft and no supplemental picks. I don't believe te countries that aren't in the ameture draft are supplying all the other talent in MLB.

I would like to see stats supporting the 1%.


Bob

Not every player drafted signs, how do you quantify that?

Lyle Mouton
12-29-2010, 12:45 AM
Not every player drafted signs, how do you quantify that?
You remove those from the pool who did not sign. But, even including those, the numbers turn out virtually the same given the sample size.

Daver
12-29-2010, 12:53 AM
You remove those from the pool who did not sign. But, even including those, the numbers turn out virtually the same given the sample size.


Well, based on Gosox's parameters in any given three year stretch there are 4500 players drafted and 750 MLB rosters spots.

This does not include foreign players that are not subject to the draft, but make up a good percentage of all players playing in MLB affiliated leagues.

I think BA was being rather generous by saying 1% of all players drafted make it to the major leagues.

Lyle Mouton
12-29-2010, 09:28 AM
Well, based on Gosox's parameters in any given three year stretch there are 4500 players drafted and 750 MLB rosters spots.

This does not include foreign players that are not subject to the draft, but make up a good percentage of all players playing in MLB affiliated leagues.

I think BA was being rather generous by saying 1% of all players drafted make it to the major leagues.
I'm just offering 1998-2005.

Daver
12-29-2010, 06:21 PM
I'm just offering 1998-2005.

Well, the fact that you are only considering drafted players that actually sign does nothing to disprove BA's numbers that peg it at right around one percent of players drafted make it. But we all know numbers can be manipulated to give you any answer you want if you apply them to produce that result.

Lyle Mouton
12-30-2010, 06:08 AM
Well, the fact that you are only considering drafted players that actually sign does nothing to disprove BA's numbers that peg it at right around one percent of players drafted make it. But we all know numbers can be manipulated to give you any answer you want if you apply them to produce that result.
Whatever you say, guy.