Mental Experiment Regrading International Players

H

Horsehide Harry

<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
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?
 
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?
 
smootness said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
smootness said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
If we had a monopoly on international talent we could push back the signing age by a year or two. No?
 
clvclv said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
nsacpi said:
If we had a monopoly on international talent we could push back the signing age by a year or two. No?
Click to expand...

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.
 
smootness said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Sure. BUT, I think you run the risk of other leagues such as Japan coming in on the talent.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.'
 
smootness said:
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.'
Click to expand...

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.
 
smootness said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not even my hypothetical.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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
 
nsacpi said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top