john reel: great. i'm glad you're putting a possible non-compulsory draft up for discussion at the next board meeting.
will you tell us please when the next meeting is and where it's being held?
and, a quick comment (can i be quick? i'll try.) on things that you, dave vanwormer, jon martin and mike girard say.
you're right, john, the key to this non-compulsory draft idea is making sure all managers know who's free and all free players getting the best deals they can. it's about equal access and more offers for free agents, which may, or may not, lead to more parity but it may improve the odds for the lower-ranking teams. it should be a victory for managers, players and teams.
i like and respect jon, dave and mike a great deal, but i have disagree with them. they all say or imply that the current system works well. well, no.
the current system allows what i call parking lot or private deals: managers and players talk and suddenly one or more very talented players move from one team to another, without many of the other managers knowing about it or without in many cases those players passing through the open viewing of free agency.
that's apparently what happened this past week when three stars on the talented and now folded thunder, who finished tied for second at 11-5, moved to the equally talented reds, who also finished second at 11-5. correct me if i'm wrong on this please, but i understand that jon is one of those top players moving from the thunder to dave's reds. i understand that john's marlins also picked up a star thunder pitcher.
right now, all i can say is good for all of them.
but not good for all the league.
the deal for those players was done in private. again, that's ok now. that's how the system works and as i understand it, there's nothing in our bylaws against it. that's how it's been done for years.
but do the math: how much does one team that finished at, say, .500 the year before profit from picking up just one star player? could this player, through his pitching, hitting or fielding, be worth at least one victory a year? maybe two? maybe three? entirely probable, and if he's a top pitcher like jim shook maybe five, six or seven wins.
(a way to check the value of one player is to look a how teams finished the season before. now, subtract the top pitchers' wins from those teams' records, and see what the resulting records of the teams would be. look to see especially how many clubs would stay over .500 or fall below it without that pitcher? one person, a good pitcher or a top hitter, can make huge difference to a team's fortunes, lifting them well over .500.)
now, what if the 5 top teams each pick up a minimum of one star player a year for four years? in the fourth year, each of those already talented teams, which are still around in part because they've acquired talent, could pick up a minimum of 4 more wins, which is not only enough to keep them at the top of the standings but enough for one of them to claim a title.
that's pretty much what happens now. it's not for nothing that the top teams tend to stay around for years and collect a majority of the wins: they lure the best players.
but that also means the lower level teams struggle, have very little chance of competing for a title, and often fold. i'm not saying that losing is the only reason they fold, but it's a big contributor, especially if the glue of regular victories is missing.
now it's true, as jon says, guys play for the love of the game; but, be careful. that can be a blinding line, hiding the other reason guys play: they play to win, too. i don't know a single fellow in the league who says he doesn't care what the final score is. the fact is, the game tastes better with victories, always has. and defeat often tastes sour. just ask the thunder: i heard (it's a rumor, from a good source, and open to correction) that one of the reasons the thunder folded is that some players were unhappy that they didn't win more games.
i'm not saying that a non-compulsory draft will change all that. but giving all the managers an equal chance to compete for talent is better than the way things are now, where the top teams hear first about the talent and then go get it, and everybody else ends up surprised. yet not.
as for the players, guys may wonder: will a slugger who hits, say, .400 go play for a team that finished below .500 the year before? i'd say yes. in fact, that happened in the thunder fallout when two of that team's sluggers left for the 6- 10 (.375) vets without passing through free agency. again, legal now.
finally, mike throws out some lines that need looking at:
first, he argues that teams will improve only when managers go out and actively try to make their teams better. i happen to know virtually every manager in the 35s, 45s and 55s and i can say, almost without exception, that each of these guys spends long winter hours calling players, and players to be, hoping they'll get good talent and more wins. they also set up winter workouts, often paying much of it out of their own pockets, to help their teams improve. so it's not true, not true at all, to suggest that managers aren't working hard to make better teams. in fact, it could be argued that the managers at the bottom of the standings have to work harder than others, not only for wins, but just to keep their teams together.
and i know, from last friday's outing in ralph's memory, that much as ralph did a lot to create last year's dodgers, and hats off to him for that, he wasn't the only person who drew the talent. he had one top player in particular who was absolutely crucial in getting others. in fact, that's how it often happens: if a manager does get a star, the star's name is often enough to lure other players.
and the league's history tells us that there are a number of talented players who have chosen not to play on teams with their friends, but instead go where more talent is, because they want to win. friends are great for talking and for beers after games; talent is better for winning. example? last week three thunder started the ball rolling, leaving their teammates of several years, to go where more victories might be. they may say they have friends on the reds, but one presumes they had a few on the thunder too.
i foresee more elements to the draft than i'm discussing here; others will see them too, and they can be aired at the meeting.
if the draft works, we should have a more open league and quite possibly a more competitive one. only way to find out is to try it.
-mike
-- Edited by mhart on Wednesday 21st of December 2011 07:51:55 PM
-- Edited by mhart on Wednesday 21st of December 2011 07:52:55 PM
just a little clarification on what free agency is, since i had helped to author the "rule". Every single player is technically a free agent at the end of each season. What this means is that every player in this league has the right to choose, if they wish, to pursue another team to play for in the upcoming season.
in some instances, players will, for whatever reason, decide that they want to leave their existing team and put themselves on the waiver wire for other teams to contact them. In other cases, and this applies to myself specifically, a player can choose to approach another team/manager to inquire about playing with them. In my case, i had no interest in being contacted by other teams or managers, i simply wanted to see if I could play with the Reds.
So there are two different scenarios- First- those players who wish to put their name on the waiver wire and who are essentially "testing" the market. Secondly- those who do not want to test the market, but simply want to inquire about a specific team. I think that Mike's draft suggestion may help with the former, but not the latter. And for the record, i have approached teams/gone to teams including (the late) Jim Jordan's Braves, a team that was sub 500 but a lot of fun to play with. And also an expansion team that was an unknown/created by Dennis Maille (35 Cubs) not to be confused with the current Cubs, which allowed me to meet many great guys in this league. The Blue Thunder was also a ..500 team when I decided, as a rookie, to play for them
I do appreciate that Mike is raising the questions and applaud his enthusiasm although I am not sure that the problem that he believes is there, is as serious as he presents. Perhaps the managers should discuss.
Jonny
-- Edited by jmartin on Wednesday 21st of December 2011 09:41:30 PM
I really appreciate what you are saying and can wholeheartedly agree on a large portion of what you are saying... However, I think I am falling more towards Jonny's view that it is not nearly as bad as it might appear... And maybe that's easier for me to say since I embrace the challenge of facing the Reds next year as they will certainly contend with the Marlins, Orioles, and us (Yankees of course)... I might be a little blinded by my high expectations of my beloved Yankees for next year, but I don't think so...
I just don't see any dominant player in our 45 league like Jonny mentioned Shook is in the 35's and yet if one comes along, he would surely want to join one of those 4 teams ~ why wouldn't he??? What exactly would a draft offer to a top player should one exist anyways??? A chance for the superstar to get the beejeezus harassed outta him by some guys he could have already told you he had no interest in playing for???
You are right on the money when you say the game tastes better with W's ~ always has, always will... And studs certainly do not like having their balls cut off (which is what the sour taste of L's feels like at times)... Sheesh man, I am still reeling from Bob Bolt shutting our asses down in the Championship games (Note the plural here!!! Bahaha)... The winters are already long and hard enough up here, but that bitter taste of defeat has only made this wait to get back on the field that much colder... I still rehash how we could have done maybe a lil more to get us the trophy, but simply didn't get it done ~ this time!
And I'll go out on the limb here and say the same holds true for the stars of the Thunder which you refer... Hell man, I respect those guys for NOT liking that taste ~ just as I admire that you are pushing this because you are clearly tired of absorbing your fair share of L's and know that can only change with better talent...
All I see from the Thunder guys doing as they have is a them doing what they needed to do to have better chance at getting rid of that sour taste, just as I see you trying to do the same thing with beating this drum as you are...
This has been an excellent topic and I genuinely appreciate you bringing it up and keeping me in "baseball brain" over this time ~ for the first time in a VERY LONG time... Thanks...
Mike Hart, I don't disagree with you that this will help. I am in favor of the draft as long as there are no mandates that any player is required to play with any team. I just disagree with what it will help with. This will help those managers that feel that they are on the outside looking in. If we have managers that blame the system for not getting a chance to woo free agents, then we should try to take down any barriers that may be real. I do not feel that this will help any of the lower division teams land any top talent. In fact, if all of the top teams are aware that there are top-line free agents available, then I feel it might even be less likely that the lower division teams will have a chance to sign them. Thus the old saying,"Be careful what you wish for." The grass isn't always greener on the other side.
Just throwing something out there to see if it sticks.
How about looking at it from the opposite side? How about something like - once a player commits to a team that player can only move to another team if either (a) the manager of that team releases the player; or (b) the team folds.? In the case of the former, a manager would be able to hang onto to the players and in the case of the latter the entire team would be put on the waiver wire?
i've already written far more about this than i'd imagined i would. i regret having taxed people's eyes but i'm grateful for so many reads and replies.
mike's right: a draft will not solve all problems for managers or players and no doubt it might ignite a few. hopefully, a discussion might anticipate and resolve some of them. and jon hit the sweet spot when he said that this issue is probably best discussed by the board. i look forward to a public airing, considering, among other points, the ones rob made.
i've tried to make my points in a civil, non-accusatory way. the system we have of allowing players to move from team to team has many good elements, (chief among them allowing players to go where they want) and it was not, i'm sure, put in place with any sinister intent of packing the top teams. but systems also evolve in ways we don't always anticipate and that may have happened here. some form of non-compulsory draft may be the wrench work we need to, among other things, help teams keep from folding or unleashing 15 guys into free agency and finding only 8 or 10 are taken up.
i've also always thought that the stewards of the league, the board members and its managers, have only the best interests of the league at heart, they've given it hours upon hours of their time and, in general, have done wonderful work. i've felt from the start that it's an honor to be in the same league with them and i still feel that way.
