Mental Experiment Regrading International Players

[Horsehide Harry]

Just as a thought experiment....

Suppose it was possible the MLB would allow 1 team to have exclusive rights to all International talent from this year forward, but you can have NO access to ANY other draftable talent. So, you have exclusive rights to negotiate with Olivera, Moncada, Devers, Albies, type players (not them since this is a go forward proposition) etc. but you have NO access to the Bryant, Allard, Schwarber, Trout, etc. All other teams cannot sign International FA unless they have been previously signed by Your team or are coming from another professional league such as Japan.

A few other limitations: You can only field 6 minor league teams, just like every other team. You are limited to the same rules as far as control and total such as 40 man, 25 man, 6 year ML control, etc.

You CAN sign FA of any stripe but are also subject to losing YOUR players after control expires.

I'm not saying that you can pick an All Star team from existing ML players. NO, your team is an expansion team that will begin play in 4 years so you can acquire as much minor league talent that you want as Int ml FA. You can also sign Major League FA. But no first year player draft.

Would you do it?

[nsacpi]

Yes...no brainer

[smootness]

So the only difference is you can't draft anybody but you get all of the international talent? Of course I would do that. In a heartbeat.

In the draft, you only get a handful of lottery tickets. Even if most hit, you have a limited supply of top talent. Think of all the talent that has come through the international signings. Now realize you would have all of it.

So we wouldn't have Freddie, Simmons, Allard, Touki, Davidson, Riley, etc....but we would have Felix Hernandez, Miguel Cabrera, Robinson Cano, etc. And Miguel Sano, Julio Urias, Moncada, Devers, etc.

Albies would be an afterthought. We would dominate year after year. Why would there be a question?

[Horsehide Harry]

So the only difference is you can't draft anybody but you get all of the international talent? Of course I would do that. In a heartbeat.

When I thought of it, I had the same reaction. But, now I'm not so sure.

My concern would be that you can only have a 40 man and 25 man, so you lose any players who aren't ready when they need to be placed on the 40 man if you don't have room. So, you could end up training players for years only to see them leave to other teams because you don't have room. And, I think you have to keep in mind that most, if not all, of the MLB ready players in Cuba are already here so moving forward there won't be as many Puig's available (not saying that there will be no talent but it will have to be trained).

I don't think it's as clear cut slam dunk as you might think. Take Albies for instance. He will be starting his third year. He still is likely 2-3 years away from MLB. So, just as he is close to getting to the MLB, he has to go on the 40 man or be lost to a competing team. So, let's say at the ML level you have a player under contract at SS and you are satisfied with him or his contract is unmovable AND you have an adequate backup. Then you could be faced with trading Albies at a relative discount (since every team knows you are in a crunch) OR having to risk losing him through claim.

The other thing is that you would have a team FULL of International FA. Now, we here in the ConUS tend to view players from Cuba as the same as from the Dominican as the same as Venezuela since they share a language. However, each has a distinct culture. I'm not sure how good a TEAM you could make.

[smootness]

Why would you have to put Albies on the 40-man in that scenario?

You are way overthinking this. Your biggest potential problem is that you'll have more talent than you have spots for? And all your obscene talent may not have the same culture? Uh, ok. Sign me up.

Even if for some reason you have to lose Albies, you'll have all the other international SS's. You would be loaded. Again, it's not a question.

[clvclv]

Why would you have to put Albies on the 40-man in that scenario?

You are way overthinking this. Your biggest potential problem is that you'll have more talent than you have spots for? And all your obscene talent may not have the same culture? Uh, ok. Sign me up.

Even if for some reason you have to lose Albies, you'll have all the other international SS's. You would be loaded. Again, it's not a question.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think you can "way overthink" some hypothetical tossed out on a message board. That's kinda the whole point behind the exercise to begin with, no?

[Horsehide Harry]

I think the fact that the majority of that talent is very far away from the ML when signed. Many need nutritional development. All need cultural exposure for what they will face as MLB players.

I would think that it would be worth it. But, it might not be.

[nsacpi]

If we had a monopoly on international talent we could push back the signing age by a year or two. No?

[smootness]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think you can "way overthink" some hypothetical tossed out on a message board. That's kinda the whole point behind the exercise to begin with, no?

But your hypothetical is choosing between a few players with good talent every year in the draft or every single player in the entire international pool.

It's a no-brainer. My point is, going further than that is overthinking it. You get way more talent going the international route.

[Horsehide Harry]

If we had a monopoly on international talent we could push back the signing age by a year or two. No?

Sure. BUT, I think you run the risk of other leagues such as Japan coming in on the talent.

[smootness]

If we had a monopoly on international talent we could push back the signing age by a year or two. No?

But why would we need to? We get all of them every year, so we are signing the 16-year-olds, but we already have all the 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds anyway. After 4-5 years, it's a steady stream of awesome talent.

[Horsehide Harry]

But your hypotheticals choosing between a few players with talent every year in the draft or every single player in the entire international pool.

It's a no-brainer. My point is, going further than that is overthinking it. You get way more talent going the international route.

But is it like trying to drink water from a fire hydrant? You get overwhelmed and miss some talent and also develop some good talent that doesn't quite do well enough, fast enough to make your roster which would make them available to everyone else.

[Julio3000]

Sure. BUT, I think you run the risk of other leagues such as Japan coming in on the talent.

Japan has cultural exigencies—in fact, rules—that are going to prevent them from competing with you. At first blush, I say yes to this proposal all day, every day.

[smootness]

But is it like trying to drink water from a fire hydrant? You get overwhelmed and miss some talent and also develop some good talent that doesn't quite do well enough, fast enough to make your roster which would make them available to everyone else.

So, would you rather be Alabama in college football, or Duke?

Your 'problem' is something I would kill to have. 'We have too much great talent.'

[Horsehide Harry]

So, would you rather be Alabama in college football, or Duke?

Your 'problem' is something I would kill to have. 'We have too much great talent.'

Certainly not Auburn right now.

As far as too much great talent, you have to remember that you have a budget. Payroll can't be infinite. So, at some point, 3-4 years at least some of that Int talent will be moving into the other teams.

[clvclv]

But your hypothetical is choosing between a few players with good talent every year in the draft or every single player in the entire international pool.

It's a no-brainer. My point is, going further than that is overthinking it. You get way more talent going the international route.

It's not even my hypothetical.

[smootness]

Certainly not Auburn right now.

As far as too much great talent, you have to remember that you have a budget. Payroll can't be infinite. So, at some point, 3-4 years at least some of that Int talent will be moving into the other teams.

But you get to choose who you keep, who you pay, etc. It's a great problem. Again, you're overthinking it.

[smootness]

It's not even my hypothetical.

Sorry, thought Harry said that.

[nsacpi]

But why would we need to? We get all of them every year, so we are signing the 16-year-olds, but we already have all the 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds anyway. After 4-5 years, it's a steady stream of awesome talent.

My understanding is there was concern expressed in post four about losing players via the Rule 5 draft or six year minor league free agency. You can alleviate those concerns by signing the players when they are more mature and fewer years away from being in the majors

[smootness]

My understanding is there was concern expressed in post four about losing players via the Rule 5 draft or six year minor league free agency. You can alleviate those concerns by signing the players when they are more mature and fewer years away from being in the majors

True.

Ultimately, though, arguing that going with the draft will give you fewer tough decisions on who to lose is really just an argument for having fewer talented players.

I know you don't agree with it, just a general response.

[mqt]

10 times out of 10 you do this. Name me a draft where you bring in talent on par with Moncada, Alvarez, Eddy Julio Martinez, Hector Olivera and any of the other countless top 16-year-olds. At best, you'll get one or two prospects of that caliber in the draft each year. You'd also have exclusive negotiating rights, so the cost of this talent would drop off a cliff.

Also, you're totally screwing over the other 29 franchises who would have no access to any international talent. Even if a bunch of talent goes unsigned by your team, the others can't sign them so they'd lose a year of development on these kids.

[smootness]

10 times out of 10 you do this. Name me a draft where you bring in talent on par with Moncada, Alvarez, Eddy Julio Martinez, Hector Olivera and any of the other countless top 16-year-olds. At best, you'll get one or two prospects of that caliber in the draft each year. You'd also have exclusive negotiating rights, so the cost of this talent would drop off a cliff.

Also, you're totally screwing over the other 29 franchises who would have no access to any international talent. Even if a bunch of talent goes unsigned by your team, the others can't sign them so they'd lose a year of development on these kids.

Thank you.

[mqt]

Thank you.

This is before realizing he meant from now on. That makes it even more ridiculously obvious. You're seriously cutting out an insane amount of talent from the other teams. Even if you don't have room to sign all the talent, nobody else ever will be able to in this scenario. There is literally no way the answer is to take the draft picks.

[smootness]

This is before realizing he meant from now on. That makes it even more ridiculously obvious. You're seriously cutting out an insane amount of talent from the other teams. Even if you don't have room to sign all the talent, nobody else ever will be able to in this scenario. There is literally no way the answer is to take the draft picks.

Agreed.