rob currier ("the hurricane") raised in the most recent posting on the draft issue a question that's come up more than once. rather than have readers go through a long string of comments, i thought i'd re-post his comments here and then try to answer his question more clearly this time:
rob writes: "The only problem I see with this argument," about having a draft, "is how do you force a guy who is paying for the priviledge to play baseball to play for a team he may not want to play for I'm all for more competitive balance but this seems extreme. "
the draft i'm suggesting is different from nearly every one i've ever seen in that it would be NON-BINDING and NON-COMPULSORY. it would force no one to go nowhere. so why have it?
because it would still be a draft and i think it could be very useful in making the league more open, more democratic, with increased opportunities for all free agents and all the teams. if done right, it could strengthen the competition among all the teams, reducing the chance that toward season's end, a 2-12 team, say, would be facing a 12-2 club. and players would be able to see just how many managers may be interested in their services and make the best deals for themselves.
the draft would work like this: sometime in late fall or early winter, all the managers of each age division would meet (or they could do this on line; but i think talking in person would be better) and get the lay of the free-agent land. that is, they'd see who wants to be a free agent and which teams are folding.
the managers would then have 2-3 weeks to tender offers to those agents. the offers are no more than bids, but they could be very attractive: they could include chances of increased playing time, to play other positions, to bat more, to help manage, to play with friends, or to help lift up a club on the verge of rising in the standings.
players then would have those 2-3 weeks to decide. they'd be true free agents, able to accept, reject or ignore the offers. they can negotiate with every manager who writes or calls. the players could question potential managers on the nature of their clubs, getting clear answers on the roles they might play and accepting the best bids that come their way.
i've written all that, but this is a new wrinkle i've thought of since i posted the idea: there'd be no official changes to rosters, no accepted free agents, until this 2-3 week window has passed. if there's one binding element, it's that.
that's not to say that players can't make informal agreements on their own with any manager, any time. they can. but it won't become official until the free agent period has passed and both managers and players can get the lay of the land. in theory, that waiting period should work well for both teams and players: each can see if they are getting the best deal. (it should also be very informative to the players already on teams, learning who they might be getting and what they might do in turn.)
once the period ends, players have until rosters are frozen in early july to make deals with clubs. new free agents can come onto the market any time after that, but they'd have to pass by all the managers first. this could be done online.
as a related aside, i'm not sure if there's a league rule about "tampering" with other teams' rosters. i'm not saying that's going on now. (and i don't think it's tampering if, after the season, a player from one team calls a manager from another, inquiring about openings; tampering, in my book, goes the other way, with a manager calling players on another team without the permission of the affected manager.) but i have heard that at least one player from one team has gone to another without first becoming a declared free agent. is that allowable? is it tampering?
i do believe we now have a kind of "gentlemen's agreement" against meddling, of managers calling players on other rosters. but i'm unclear if there's a formal rule. i'd like to learn it if there is one and if we don't have one, we might consider creating one, with appropriate penalties. another good thing about a non-binding draft is that it should put some blocks on any tampering that may be going on, because everything would be in the open and because players could have more than one offer to weigh.
the non-binding draft would primarily serve two ends: first, of letting all the managers know who's out there, available to be drafted, and, second, it would give players more offers than perhaps they might get on their own.
right now, neither situation exists. deals are made in parking lots and nighttime calls between managers and players and not everyone in the league knows what's going on.
case in point: the 45+ thunder, which made it to the semifinals this past season, folded within the past week or so, and that was sudden and belated news to many managers. since then, i've learned (but not verified) that one of their top pitchers went to the marlins, which finished first last season with a 14-2 record, and three of their top players went to the reds, which finished tied for second at 11-5 last year.
as far as i know, those deals were made pretty much in private, and no or few other teams had a shot at bidding for these players. and right now, as far as i know, too, that's ok, those moves are within the by-laws and practice of the league. but that practice is good part of the reason why the same top teams continue to be the same top teams and the teams below the middle have mountains to climb if they want to challenge.
a counter argument might be that the top players might not want to go to teams that weren't consistently finishing in the top 5. actually, no. for reasons i stated above good players are willing to go to teams that may have even a less than .500 mark for various reasons.
in fact, one of those reasons may explain another rumor i heard (which again needs verification, if anyone cares to do it) and that is that the vets, who finished in sixth place at 6-10 last season, picked up two of the thunder's better power hitters. so why would two top players go to a 6-10 team? because that team has good players, it had a hard year last year but had a good year two years ago, and because the team has a chance of rising.
the question, though, would be would those players have found better offers if they'd received bids from rising teams like, say, the blue jays, or from a start- up, like the shaskys squad i'm co-managing? no one knows.
in the end, a non-binding draft could end these private deals and give all teams an equal shot at getting better players. the players in turn can reject all the offers, if they like, and go with the teams they first talked to in the parking lot. so maybe they will. or maybe they won't. be interesting to see.
i don't presume that my idea is without its flaws or problems and i welcome critiques. but i do hope that the board will consider the notion at its next meeting and put down their reasoning for accepting or rejecting it for all to see.
there, i hope all that explains things. i've written far more than i've wanted to, and no doubt, more than nearly all of you would want to read. if i had more time, i'd write less. what i really hope is that the idea gets a try and proves workable. if not, we can jettison it, return to things as they are and say we tried.
-mike
-- Edited by mhart on Monday 19th of December 2011 06:31:43 PM
I see your point Mike. The bottom line is, players can go wherever they want. As it stands now, private agreements are being made and not all managers are aware of the availability of these players. Players are agreeing to join up with teams without being listed on the so called "waiver/FA" list. Mike's proposal ensures all available players are listed and that all managers have the opportunity to make a pitch for them. In the end, each player decides what team he wants to be a part of, but at least each manager is given a fair chance to contact them.
This sounds reasonable to me.
-- Edited by PJalst on Tuesday 20th of December 2011 11:04:04 AM
__________________
We don't stop playing because we get old, we get old because we stop playing.
I see your point Mike. The bottom line is, players can go wherever they want. As it stands now, private agreements are being made and not all managers are aware of the availability of these players. Players are agreeing to join up with teams without being listed on the so called "waiver/FA" list. Mike's proposal ensures all available players are listed and that all managers have the opportunity to make a pitch for them. In the end, each player decides what team he wants to be a part of, but at least each manager is given a fair chance to contact them.
This sounds reasonable to me.
-- Edited by PJalst on Tuesday 20th of December 2011 11:04:04 AM
I agree with this sentiment - Mike's idea seems reasonable to me - it would require free agent players to make themselves available for that two-three week period of time.
I'd like to see this put into practice to see how it works.
I must say I appreciate Mike's eloquent, albeit lenghly, summation of his concerns. :) However, regarding the 45 division primarily, I don't see the overiding need to implement changes. This division, I believe, is the most competetive, top to bottom, that we have. In the past three years we have had three different regular season champs, yet neither of those three went on to win the overall championship. John Reel has implemented the "unbalanced " schedule approach, which has been popular among the teams. There will always be player movement among teams, which I am totally in favor of. The challenge for new teams entering a division, or teams wanting to "improve", should be to bring NEW talent to the division, not simply recylcling current players.
Ultimately, the success of teams in this league should be measured by the enjoyment of the players on the team, the comraderie, both on and off the field, and the respect and sportsmanship shown its oppenents. Simply trying to accumulate as many wins as possible, in an over 45 rec league, misses what should be the more important goal - enjoy the greatest game there is with the bunch of guys you want to be out there with!
I too agree that it sounds like an excellent idea, as well as agreeing with Jonny's points in regards to the 45's already being highly competitive and the fact that it is only a rec league... I certainly know part of what made the 45 season so cool for me was the camaraderie we developed on the Yankees and that far exceeds the fact we made the Championship Game...
Now if we can only hit (No Thanks to Bob Bolt!) and Win the damned thing next year, it will of course be a whole helluva lot better... But either way, we kinda have the Pirates "We Are Family" thing going on... No real superstars, just a bunch of good guys gelling and playing some solid, fundamental ball (except when we suck of course ~ it happens ~ see the rec ball thing).
However, the 35's is a COMPLETELY different animal... I took quite a lambasting when I first brought this whole idea up in regards to the fact I saw the 35's as having an automatic Champion and everyone else playing for second place... Neverminding the FACT I was 100% right about it this past year, I am no more willing to concede the 2012 title to the Dodgers anymore than I suspect the Cubs, Kingston guys, or the new team full of young bucks (I forget their name) are... And so I have not sat idly by but rather injected myself into the "backrooms" to make some deals where there are some to be made...
Good players (new or old) are not going to seek out chitty teams (why the hell should they), so they have to be pursued... Jon's idea about finding new talent is a good one, but not easily accomplished, whereas recruiting the young guys coming up is far more realistic it seems to me... A few well placed 35 year old "kids" may well turn the Highlanders into a REAL contender this next year, and I fully suspect that to be the case ~ and time will certainly tell...
But good things rarely just happen... And though I wouldn't have minded a 35 year old "work-out/try-outs" followed by a simple draft done in reverse order of finish, that's not the system we have, and hence the "backroom deals" have to be made or you suffer the consequences and get to come on here and post all these great ideas, but with NO real results ~ at least not as far as W's go... We all have the same rules and with the exception of the rarest stud pitcher or two, there are no single game-changers out there anyways ~ otherwise they'd prolly not be in our most excellent rec league...
I genuinely appreciate all that Q, the Board, Hall members, and everyone who keeps this whole awesome thing running does as I am super excited about this upcoming year ~ both for the 35's and 45's... I trust they will make a good decision based on the information they have available to them and if they implement Mike's idea, then so be it, I'm all for it... And if not, I trust they weighed the pro's and cons and decided to stick with the current system for equally good reason... Either way, I am going to work with what I get to work with and roll with it...
And more importantly ~ I hope all you guys have a Merry Christmas and enjoy your family's... For all you guys who go to Church or Temple (or just pray on your own even), throw one in for me, will ya??? I need the help...
The 35 division, in my opinion, is also HIGHLY competitive. The Dodgers,however, have the one player that elevates their team over the top - Jimmy Shook.
As far as I know, he has won a championship every year,regardless of the team or division he plays in. I dare say he would carry ANY team in the division to a title. He is an absolute shoo in for the hall, whenever they want to put him in.
And, by the way, his going to the Dodgers had nothing to do with free agency, as some have suggested as an example of what is bad about the system. He was a first year player in the division (rookie), and therefore could have chosen any team he wanted. I still thing, however, he would look better in Cubbie blue!!
Merry Christmas everyone - and a Healthy New Year!!
I'll place this on the board agenda. I think what's being said is managers need access to players when they become free agents. as it is free agents have the power to go to the managers. that way we presume they make their own best decisions and take into account all possibilities. Does every free agent want to be contacted during this 3 week period by interested managers? I feel too that disparity is far more complex than free agency and player movement. There can be various attitudes about not having sub par players or giving everyone an opportunity to play. there can be a manager who plays himself over the obviously better players around him, or mis-management in general. some teams gel others don't. I feel we are a league for everyone. and because of this and the tendencies for some teams to get more talent, have better management, gel, and have some luck...while others tend towards the opposite. we'll have disparity. Attempts have been made to assuage that disparity with allowances in scheduling. this has the short term effect of having more closely fought games. It hopefully has the long term effect ,a d there is evidence of this, of having teams that want to build more talent look more attractive. But there is no crime in just playing the game no matter the outcome for the sheer joy of it. So I'll make sure we discuss all these points. and its noted. perhaps when its schedule we can invite some of you to further explain the finer points. Jreel, board member
