2018 Roster Expectations

[calsnowskier]

Are you proposing that they flip the draft rules with the International Signing rules? Because your proposal is basically, at it's core, what the international signing rules are.

Except the international rules have a soft cap. I am proposing a hard cap.

 

[LHG]

Mark Davis, owner of the Raiders.

Thanks! Now I know.

 

[SFGRTB]

Except the international rules have a soft cap. I am proposing a hard cap.

Hmm. I tend to agree to get rid of the draft. I personally think it should be an open market. All amateur players are eligible for any bonus, but are only open for one period of 2 weeks in December. Every team has a bonus pool with a cap that is determined by reverse record over the past 3 years, with descending weight. So the previous year effects the bonus pool the most, followed by 2 years ago, followed by 3 years ago. This ideally discourages tanking for a year (to an extent).

Teams can trade up to half of their pool, but after trading any money, they are unable to trade more for 3 years. There is no limit to how much you can acquire. I'm thinking teams at the top would have around $50M to spend, and teams at the bottom would have around $18M, before trades. Any money un-spent is distributed either to the players association or the owners, or both (haven't decided which would be more beneficial).

A team can sign a player that exceeds their bonus pool, but pay 50% for how much the player is over and can't sign any more players. So a team with a $40M pool can sign one player to a $60M deal, but have to pay $30M on top and can't sign any more players. If they signed a player already, they are not allowed to go over their cap.

A team doesn't have to spend their money if they don't want to, but repeat offender's pools are distributed to the other teams if they don't spend 25% of their pool.

Ideally, this would address everyone. Free market for the players to chose where they go, a cap so salaries don't go to wild, still somewhat competitive. Obviously, there are probably a lot of things I'm over looking and require more thought.

 

[calsnowskier]

Hmm. I tend to agree to get rid of the draft. I personally think it should be an open market. All amateur players are eligible for any bonus, but are only open for one period of 2 weeks in December. Every team has a bonus pool with a cap that is determined by reverse record over the past 3 years, with descending weight. So the previous year effects the bonus pool the most, followed by 2 years ago, followed by 3 years ago. This ideally discourages tanking for a year (to an extent).

Teams can trade up to half of their pool, but after trading any money, they are unable to trade more for 3 years. There is no limit to how much you can acquire. I'm thinking teams at the top would have around $50M to spend, and teams at the bottom would have around $18M, before trades. Any money un-spent is distributed either to the players association or the owners, or both (haven't decided which would be more beneficial).

A team can sign a player that exceeds their bonus pool, but pay 50% for how much the player is over and can't sign any more players. So a team with a $40M pool can sign one player to a $60M deal, but have to pay $30M on top and can't sign any more players. If they signed a player already, they are not allowed to go over their cap.

A team doesn't have to spend their money if they don't want to, but repeat offender's pools are distributed to the other teams if they don't spend 25% of their pool.

Ideally, this would address everyone. Free market for the players to chose where they go, a cap so salaries don't go to wild, still somewhat competitive. Obviously, there are probably a lot of things I'm over looking and require more thought.

I like everything, at least as a starting point.

Here are a couple quick tweaks...

1) if the minimum bonus is 10k, than the first 10k of every bonus is exempt from the pool. This makes sure that teams are always able to field a team, regardless. If a team with a 40M pool wants to dump it all into a single player, that’s fine. But the entirety of the rest of their class will be UDFA level kids.

2) no single player limits, but if a team exceeds their pool, 150% of the overage is removed from the next years pool AND the overage must be payed as a tax. Where, exactly that money goes can be figured out later (player fund? Community fund? Charity?). For example, if a team has a 40M pool, and they spend 45M, than 7.5M will be forfeited from the next years pool AND they are taxed 5M. If the penalty fir the previous seasons overage is greater their entire pool, the overage is assumed to be an overage and the calculation is run again. Maybe a stepped up penalty could be used if teams ignore their pools too much.

3) I like the idea of using previous years to influence the pool as well. Each “pick” has a base pool level (ie the worst record = 20M). The most recent season would earn a full share of the base level, the previous season would earn .5 the base rate and two years back would earn .2 the base rate. In my example of the top pick getting a 20M base, if the same team is the worst for 3 straight years, they would have a 34M pool (20M + 10M + 4M).

4) pool funds should be able to be traded, but if a team carries a penalty, they are unable to trade these funds in either direction. If a team does not carry a penalty, they are able to begin trading their next years funds immediately following the signing period. But they only allowed to trade 50% of a WS base pool amount (a single year, assuming the last pick). This would probably end up being about 30% of their actual pool. Maybe expend this limit once pools are locked?

 

[SFGRTB]

I like everything, at least as a starting point.

Here are a couple quick tweaks...

1) if the minimum bonus is 10k, than the first 10k of every bonus is exempt from the pool. This makes sure that teams are always able to field a team, regardless. If a team with a 40M pool wants to dump it all into a single player, that’s fine. But the entirety of the rest of their class will be UDFA level kids.

2) no single player limits, but if a team exceeds their pool, 150% of the overage is removed from the next years pool AND the overage must be payed as a tax. Where, exactly that money goes can be figured out later (player fund? Community fund? Charity?). For example, if a team has a 40M pool, and they spend 45M, than 7.5M will be forfeited from the next years pool AND they are taxed 5M. If the penalty fir the previous seasons overage is greater their entire pool, the overage is assumed to be an overage and the calculation is run again. Maybe a stepped up penalty could be used if teams ignore their pools too much.

3) I like the idea of using previous years to influence the pool as well. Each “pick” has a base pool level (ie the worst record = 20M). The most recent season would earn a full share of the base level, the previous season would earn .5 the base rate and two years back would earn .2 the base rate. In my example of the top pick getting a 20M base, if the same team is the worst for 3 straight years, they would have a 34M pool (20M + 10M + 4M).

4) pool funds should be able to be traded, but if a team carries a penalty, they are unable to trade these funds in either direction. If a team does not carry a penalty, they are able to begin trading their next years funds immediately following the signing period. But they only allowed to trade 50% of a WS base pool amount (a single year, assuming the last pick). This would probably end up being about 30% of their actual pool. Maybe expend this limit once pools are locked?

Yeah I thought about having something like your first point, but I guess my worry would be high-profile kids taking minimum deals and piling onto one team. A way to combat that could be to have each team set a number of players they intend to sign, which would effect the size of their pool, and if they fail to sign the number of kids they intended, they lose a portion of their pool (kinda like how the draft is set up, if you fail to sign a player, you lose that portion of the pool, which could effect other signings). In reality though, I'd say the majority of kids WOULDN'T sign a minimum deal with their favorite team so it probably wouldn't matter. Too risky in baseball to pass on good money.

I think baseball is the one sport where a free market for all amateur players could work, without changing the rules too drastically. Obviously, this proposal is a huge shift, but it doesn't change the salaries and payrolls all that much thanks to the unlimited cap and a relative lack of big sponsorship deals. In the NBA, I think amateur players would take minimum salaries all the time and sign with the big teams because they are almost guaranteed to sign a sponsorship deal that is greater than a regular rookie contract. Then you would basically have 10 teams run by Nike, Addidas and Under Armor, and 20 teams in perennial doom.

 

[LHG]

Yeah I thought about having something like your first point, but I guess my worry would be high-profile kids taking minimum deals and piling onto one team. A way to combat that could be to have each team set a number of players they intend to sign, which would effect the size of their pool, and if they fail to sign the number of kids they intended, they lose a portion of their pool (kinda like how the draft is set up, if you fail to sign a player, you lose that portion of the pool, which could effect other signings). In reality though, I'd say the majority of kids WOULDN'T sign a minimum deal with their favorite team so it probably wouldn't matter. Too risky in baseball to pass on good money.

I think baseball is the one sport where a free market for all amateur players could work, without changing the rules too drastically. Obviously, this proposal is a huge shift, but it doesn't change the salaries and payrolls all that much thanks to the unlimited cap and a relative lack of big sponsorship deals. In the NBA, I think amateur players would take minimum salaries all the time and sign with the big teams because they are almost guaranteed to sign a sponsorship deal that is greater than a regular rookie contract. Then you would basically have 10 teams run by Nike, Addidas and Under Armor, and 20 teams in perennial doom.

These ideas you two are throwing around remind me a bit how colleges have to recruit their prospects from high school. Sure, there are differences, but each team basically has a set amount to work with based on the number of spots they have to fill. I think the signing periods that you or cal (I cannot remember which) suggested should be moved up to November, when the NCAA has their early signing period. That way, colleges can know which high school guys are going pro earlier in the recruiting period and can make fall back choices by April, when their normal signing period starts.

 

[SFGRTB]

These ideas you two are throwing around remind me a bit how colleges have to recruit their prospects from high school. Sure, there are differences, but each team basically has a set amount to work with based on the number of spots they have to fill. I think the signing periods that you or cal (I cannot remember which) suggested should be moved up to November, when the NCAA has their early signing period. That way, colleges can know which high school guys are going pro earlier in the recruiting period and can make fall back choices by April, when their normal signing period starts.

True, that's a good point. I picked December only because it was a late enough time in the offseason where teams can make moves to acquire more budget space.

I do think that this mock system would hurt the NCAA quite a bit. It takes away many of their prospects, more so than the current system at least.

 

[LHG]

True, that's a good point. I picked December only because it was a late enough time in the offseason where teams can make moves to acquire more budget space.

I do think that this mock system would hurt the NCAA quite a bit. It takes away many of their prospects, more so than the current system at least.

What could hurt the NCAA (and maybe the NAIA, but not really) would be if the rules about who can sign are gone. Four year institutions can now know that they get to keep the best players currently on their rosters for at least 2 years. Does this new system allow MLB teams to sign anyone out of high school? Can high school seniors sign a professional contract before they graduate? If so, does the signing month get moved to July, just after the high schoolers have graduated so that they don't have the unknown of enrolling in college for a semester? I would think that a December signing date would have to allow high school seniors to sign their first professional contract before graduation but that means, unless a clause is given to provide them to finish their senior year of high school, and play with their team once last year, before they start their professional career. More likely, the signing month would have to be in July, closer to the current draft date.

 

[SFGRTB]

What could hurt the NCAA (and maybe the NAIA, but not really) would be if the rules about who can sign are gone. Four year institutions can now know that they get to keep the best players currently on their rosters for at least 2 years. Does this new system allow MLB teams to sign anyone out of high school? Can high school seniors sign a professional contract before they graduate? If so, does the signing month get moved to July, just after the high schoolers have graduated so that they don't have the unknown of enrolling in college for a semester? I would think that a December signing date would have to allow high school seniors to sign their first professional contract before graduation but that means, unless a clause is given to provide them to finish their senior year of high school, and play with their team once last year, before they start their professional career. More likely, the signing month would have to be in July, closer to the current draft date.

Well, you could really get into the nitty gritty and ask, why is it okay that kids in Latin America can sign when they're 16, but kids in the U.S. have to graduate High School first? Maybe set the requirement for all amateur players to graduate High School before they are eligible to sign. MAYBE, the money that teams don't use from their bonus pools is distributed to schools in the U.S. and Latin America to improve the infrastructure and encourage more youth to learn (especially in Latin America where these kids don't even go to school if they have baseball aspirations)....

This is starting to sound pageant world piece-y haha

 

[LHG]

Well, you could really get into the nitty gritty and ask, why is it okay that kids in Latin America can sign when they're 16, but kids in the U.S. have to graduate High School first? Maybe set the requirement for all amateur players to graduate High School before they are eligible to sign. MAYBE, the money that teams don't use from their bonus pools is distributed to schools in the U.S. and Latin America to improve the infrastructure and encourage more youth to learn (especially in Latin America where these kids don't even go to school if they have baseball aspirations)....

This is starting to sound pageant world piece-y haha

How about using the penalty money to invest in Latin America? And this thread really took a left turn.

 

[SFGRTB]

How about using the penalty money to invest in Latin America? And this thread really took a left turn.

2018 Baseball Reformation EXPECTATIONS

 

[SFGRTB]

Getting back on track a bit, was thinking about some trades. Minnesota has a clear need for a starting pitcher. Their offense is stacked, but their pitching leaves some to be desired. There could be a match here.

I wonder if there could be a match for Miguel Sano. This probably falls under the 1% probability mark, but it's noteworthy that the Twins have plenty of depth the cover for his absence and desperately need pitching. Unfortunately, though to say what the Twins would want. Shark would be ideal, but it's unlikely with his no-trade clause. Matt Moore is a perfect match if he wasn't so damn terrible with no trade value. Bumgarner would work and we could wring out some more from the Twins probably, but the Giants just aren't going down that road.

Cueto might work though. If the Giants eat some of that money, maybe throw in a bone (a reliever like Strickland, or a prospect) I think it could work. Cueto at 4 years $60M isn't that bad. Giants could even take on the rest of Phil Hughes' contract.

Pretty much the entirety of the Twins' roster is comprised of Pre-Arb guys. Mauer is off the books after 2018. They have the space. Just something to think about.

As for fit with the Giants, well it's obvious. Sano is a better 3rd baseman than outfielder, and is one of the best power hitters in the game, and is a right handed batter. If the Giants wanted, they could flip Panik somewhere else knowing they had 3rd base covered and put Arroyo at 2nd.

 

[LHG]

Getting back on track a bit, was thinking about some trades. Minnesota has a clear need for a starting pitcher. Their offense is stacked, but their pitching leaves some to be desired. There could be a match here.

I wonder if there could be a match for Miguel Sano. This probably falls under the 1% probability mark, but it's noteworthy that the Twins have plenty of depth the cover for his absence and desperately need pitching. Unfortunately, though to say what the Twins would want. Shark would be ideal, but it's unlikely with his no-trade clause. Matt Moore is a perfect match if he wasn't so damn terrible with no trade value. Bumgarner would work and we could wring out some more from the Twins probably, but the Giants just aren't going down that road.

Cueto might work though. If the Giants eat some of that money, maybe throw in a bone (a reliever like Strickland, or a prospect) I think it could work. Cueto at 4 years $60M isn't that bad. Giants could even take on the rest of Phil Hughes' contract.

Pretty much the entirety of the Twins' roster is comprised of Pre-Arb guys. Mauer is off the books after 2018. They have the space. Just something to think about.

As for fit with the Giants, well it's obvious. Sano is a better 3rd baseman than outfielder, and is one of the best power hitters in the game, and is a right handed batter. If the Giants wanted, they could flip Panik somewhere else knowing they had 3rd base covered and put Arroyo at 2nd.

Interesting trade idea. I kinda like it! (Not sure about the Phil Hughes pick up though. Feels like we'd have two Matt Moores in the rotation then, but he may be better than who the Giants bring in to fill a rotation spot until Beede is, hopefully, ready).
As for Panik, I say hold on to him until mid season. Arroyo needs to come back from injury, maybe get his feet under him at AAA again. Then, if he's doing well and Panik's value stays the same or continues to increase, we can swing a mid season deal for someone the team needs. Maybe that sub-par 1st baseman that Bochy and cal want to replace Brandon Belt.

 

[SFGRTB]

Interesting trade idea. I kinda like it! (Not sure about the Phil Hughes pick up though. Feels like we'd have two Matt Moores in the rotation then, but he may be better than who the Giants bring in to fill a rotation spot until Beede is, hopefully, ready).
As for Panik, I say hold on to him until mid season. Arroyo needs to come back from injury, maybe get his feet under him at AAA again. Then, if he's doing well and Panik's value stays the same or continues to increase, we can swing a mid season deal for someone the team needs. Maybe that sub-par 1st baseman that Bochy and cal want to replace Brandon Belt.

Yeah I mean I don't think the Giants have any use for Phil Hughes other than to balance the salaries. Hughes comes off the books 2 years before Cueto, but would still be a burden. He had one good year out of the Pen 8 years ago, and one solid year as a starter where he walked 16 guys in 200+ innings. Wouldn't really want him on the squad.

And I brought up Panik more as a case where the Giants would have some stability in the infield if they brought on Sano, so if there was another really good deal out there for an outfielder they shouldn't hesitate. That's my worry about trading Panik now, puts a lot of pressure on Arroyo, which you allude to.

 

[SFGRTB]

This podcast shed some light on the press conference. Worth a listen



What really stands out is Sabean's conversations about Shaw and Duggar. Basically, don't be in utter shock if these guys are starting next to each other in San Francisco in 2018. They're going to get a long look this Winter and Spring.

My hope is the Giants are able to go out and get a true, young-ish CFer. Someone like Hamilton, Pillar, Yelich, Herrera, Michael Taylor perhaps. Then by the end of next year flank him with Shaw in LF and Duggar in RF. The CFer can be aggressive to his right to assist Shaw knowing Duggar can help him out to his left. Pence and Span come off the books, the outfield looks solid for a few years.

 

[LHG]

What do you all think the chances are that instead of the Giants announcing that they've exercised Bumgarner's option that they've signed him to another extension?

 

[calsnowskier]

What do you all think the chances are that instead of the Giants announcing that they've exercised Bumgarner's option that they've signed him to another extension?

I hope not.

Learn from Cain...

 

[LHG]

I hope not.

Learn from Cain...

Wasn't there talk last year about a possible extension? And haven't the Giants been somewhat quiet when they do the extension negotiations (like with Crawford and Belt, well, I guess not so much with Crawford)? I agree it may be not be best but I expect that they will at least try to go it this offseason or next.
The idea I like is doing an extension but just another two years past the current deal. Maybe add another couple of options at the end. Obviously, it would need the player's (and agent's) buy in but if I were a pitcher, I'd want the ability to get an out if the org goes in a direction I don't like or, from the team perspective, it is time to move on for various reasons. However, I doubt either side would be too interested in that concept.[/QUOTE]

 

[calsnowskier]

Wasn't there talk last year about a possible extension? And haven't the Giants been somewhat quiet when they do the extension negotiations (like with Crawford and Belt, well, I guess not so much with Crawford)? I agree it may be not be best but I expect that they will at least try to go it this offseason or next.
The idea I like is doing an extension but just another two years past the current deal. Maybe add another couple of options at the end. Obviously, it would need the player's (and agent's) buy in but if I were a pitcher, I'd want the ability to get an out if the org goes in a direction I don't like or, from the team perspective, it is time to move on for various reasons. However, I doubt either side would be too interested in that concept.

I fully expect the team to resign him to a 200M+ contract. I just don’t want that to happen. I WANT the team to trade him for a massive package of prospects. I just know that won’t happen.

And for the record, if Bum gets this 200M+ contract, he will deserve it. He has already earned it for his work in 10 and 12, then 14 came...

 

[LHG]

I fully expect the team to resign him to a 200M+ contract. I just don’t want that to happen. I WANT the team to trade him for a massive package of prospects. I just know that won’t happen.

And for the record, if Bum gets this 200M+ contract, he will deserve it. He has already earned it for his work in 10 and 12, then 14 came...

Meh. He's no Nick Lowery.