This season started the advent of yet another new phenomenon in baseball: year-round interleague play. Nearly every day at least one team from the National League is forced to tangle with a team from the American League. Making each league carry an even number of teams, 15, has that effect on the schedule. Baseball purists have been up in arms decrying this as the latest affront to our National Pastime. They see this as another money grabbing move by Selig and the players to get the National League to adopt the designated hitter (DH). Small ball and true strategy will be gone, the game will be inevitably compromised! Cats will also marry dogs and the apocalypse is nigh! Take a deep breath purists, the game will continue, but there will be a change, what I call "the new DH".
Baseball as a game is constantly evolving. The distance between the mound and home and the distance between bases are about the only two things that haven't changed since baseball as we know it started. The mound has been raised and lowered, rotations have been altered, even the uniforms have changed. Technology and innovation have improved the game, the innovation lasts as long as the players on the roster permit it. The Moneyball A's did not want to steal bases, with their success many spoke of the end of the stolen base. Last year the A's were 9th overall and stole 14 more bases than the league average. The players changed, not the front office. Rumors of stolen bases' demise have been greatly exaggerated. Steroid/PED prevalence likely played a larger role in teams opting for the long ball over small ball.
Purists can rest easy in the knowledge that Bud Selig stated in April that "some cataclysmic event” would be required for the NL to adopt the DH. I do not have an issue with universal designated hitters. We now have 7th inning specialists and LOOGY's, we are in an age of specialization and there is nothing wrong with that. Let pitchers pitch and hitters hit, less embarrassment and less injury risk for all.
But what about strategy? How much strategy is it to know the pitcher will be sacrificing or striking out 8 of 10 times? The idea that small ball and other strategies would disappear is as overblown as the death of the stolen base, and for a similar reason. When the DH was introduced it was done to allow older, big hitting sluggers to continue to contribute and keep going to the ballpark. That notion was amplified through the 90's and aughts. However, no where does it say that is how position must be used.
National League teams are not going to invest heavily in players who can't field for a whopping 19 games, half of which will not have a DH option. The new DH has been employed for a few years now, signing veterans who will take lower salaries and are known as "good clubhouse guys". Jason Giambi, Jim Thome, and Carlos Pena come to mind. Their value is based as much on the off field intangibles as their on field production. Most of these players are being platooned to maximize their value while they mentor younger players. Both
leagues have 25 man rosters, but NL teams are often carrying two bench
players who are really just bats to the AL's one. Platoon players are another rising trend, batting lefties exclusively against righties and vice versa, which increases the value of every roster spot.
The NL should take an aggressive approach to this for their benefit. When teams play early interleague games, highlight that player, let him produce, then trade him. Showcase a veteran and ship him out as soon as you get a decent offer. If he is a problem that cannot be traded, dump him. Improve the roster by subtracting a player who has become upset with a lack of at bats as the season wears on. Give his platoon partner a chance to prove himself against all pitchers. If the player is not a problem and no trades materialized, there are worse things than a player/manager/mentor for younger players to look up to.
The DH is not coming to the National League anytime soon. Small ball will not be going anywhere either. Manufactured runs are the lifeblood of postseason play, regardless of league. The game of baseball is evolving yet again to yet another change, NL teams would be wise to turn this situation to their advantage. The friendly, useful veteran is headlining this new DH and at current prices it is a sound gamble to take.
Are you buying in to the new DH or am I talking nonsense? Feel free to sound off in the comment section below.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
All Star Balloting Still Has A Ways To Go
MLB recently released their online balloting for the 2013 All-Star Game taking place at Citi Field July 16. I was waiting for this. I was ready to call on MLB to step up there system to be more judicious, more fair, to players who, well, actually played. Upon reviewing their ballot, I have to applaud the changes they have made, but note there are still ways to improve the ballots.
Previous all star ballots let fans vote for 1 of 8 players for each position. The biggest problem with that was MLB never updated the rosters. Despite being the most tech savvy major sport, they willfully remained stuck in the dark ages when it came to updating online ballots. Arguably this was to show some consistency with ballots fans filled in at ball parks. However, fans were already at a virtual voting advantage as they could vote up to 25x for all stars per e-mail account registered with mlb.com. Furthermore, the ballots often seemed preordained as players who started break out seasons remained off the ballot while past stars who struggled or were injured remained on the ballot despite not playing at all.
The current ballot appears to go some way to address this issue. Each team has a position player listed and every team has three outfielders. However, there are still a handful of players who have not produced enough to garner "point-and-click" votes due to injury. Injuries that will keep them out until the all-star break anyway. A quick review identified Brian Roberts, Jose Reyes, Derek Jeter, and Brian McCann as names that should be dropped. The first two suffered injuries in season that will keep them out, the latter two have yet to play a game this season. McCann is particularly problematic as his inclusion is keeping Evan Gattis, who is off to a blistering start, from being on the ballot. If MLB really wants to reward its fans it can start giving them the best opportunity to place educated votes for starters and not simply relying on managers selecting the best of the rest. I am not saying Gattis would garner more fan votes than Buster Posey or Yadier Molina, but he deserves more votes than McCann this year.
Roster lists appear to have been submitted by each team to MLB sometime during Spring Training on what they thought would be their projected starters. Given how MLB provides a daily updated lineup link for each team, I find it hard to believe that could not create a list based off opening day rosters or update it based on updated information (such as long term injuries). Yes each of these players mentioned have previously been all-stars. They are fan favorites to many even outside their current teams. If fans really want to see them, that is why the write-in candidate box exists.
Current stars. Rising Stars. The Next Generation. The All-Star Game should highlight these players, build the game with more new players, not mediocre production (if any) from older names. With so many teams embracing a youth movement MLB should jump on that bandwagon and knock off players who do not play in April or miss more than 25 days. Josh Hamilton would not make my ballot today, but at least he is playing, if you want to vote him in go ahead. Jeter, icon of all things Yankees though he is, does not deserve to be on the ballot. He is injured, he will not play before the all-star break. Future Hall of Famer though he is, he does not warrant being voted onto the all star team even if this is his last season. If enough people want to disagree with me and write his name in, I could live with that result. I find it hard to believe that enough people would vote him as the best American League shortstop despite not playing a single inning, but I have been wrong before.
The perversion of the All-Star Game from an exhibition of the games top stars to having some relevance should encourage managers to endorse this remedy. When the game was "just" for the fans there was little harm in letting players on the team to tip their caps and sign some autographs. Unfortunately, Bud Selig decided the game needed to "mean" something and tied it to home field advantage in the World Series. With such a prize awarded to the victor, each manager should want the best current players on his team. That is the best players of this season, not of their careers. Pitchers who pitch the Sunday before the game are already blocked from participation, which limits how effective the managers can be. Allowing fans to dictate starting rosters, and presumably players who will play the longest, further cripples managers abilities so long as lackluster options are just a click away.
Popular, but limited, players do not help either side win. They also keep casual fans from seeing the next batch of all-star talent. Baseball fans are not dumb, most can put aside team affiliations for the All-Star Game and appreciate the spectacular performances provided. MLB has improved their online balloting by including more players than ever, but until they start knocking players off due to significant injuries or failure to play in games, they are still doing their fans a disservice.
Previous all star ballots let fans vote for 1 of 8 players for each position. The biggest problem with that was MLB never updated the rosters. Despite being the most tech savvy major sport, they willfully remained stuck in the dark ages when it came to updating online ballots. Arguably this was to show some consistency with ballots fans filled in at ball parks. However, fans were already at a virtual voting advantage as they could vote up to 25x for all stars per e-mail account registered with mlb.com. Furthermore, the ballots often seemed preordained as players who started break out seasons remained off the ballot while past stars who struggled or were injured remained on the ballot despite not playing at all.
The current ballot appears to go some way to address this issue. Each team has a position player listed and every team has three outfielders. However, there are still a handful of players who have not produced enough to garner "point-and-click" votes due to injury. Injuries that will keep them out until the all-star break anyway. A quick review identified Brian Roberts, Jose Reyes, Derek Jeter, and Brian McCann as names that should be dropped. The first two suffered injuries in season that will keep them out, the latter two have yet to play a game this season. McCann is particularly problematic as his inclusion is keeping Evan Gattis, who is off to a blistering start, from being on the ballot. If MLB really wants to reward its fans it can start giving them the best opportunity to place educated votes for starters and not simply relying on managers selecting the best of the rest. I am not saying Gattis would garner more fan votes than Buster Posey or Yadier Molina, but he deserves more votes than McCann this year.
Roster lists appear to have been submitted by each team to MLB sometime during Spring Training on what they thought would be their projected starters. Given how MLB provides a daily updated lineup link for each team, I find it hard to believe that could not create a list based off opening day rosters or update it based on updated information (such as long term injuries). Yes each of these players mentioned have previously been all-stars. They are fan favorites to many even outside their current teams. If fans really want to see them, that is why the write-in candidate box exists.
Current stars. Rising Stars. The Next Generation. The All-Star Game should highlight these players, build the game with more new players, not mediocre production (if any) from older names. With so many teams embracing a youth movement MLB should jump on that bandwagon and knock off players who do not play in April or miss more than 25 days. Josh Hamilton would not make my ballot today, but at least he is playing, if you want to vote him in go ahead. Jeter, icon of all things Yankees though he is, does not deserve to be on the ballot. He is injured, he will not play before the all-star break. Future Hall of Famer though he is, he does not warrant being voted onto the all star team even if this is his last season. If enough people want to disagree with me and write his name in, I could live with that result. I find it hard to believe that enough people would vote him as the best American League shortstop despite not playing a single inning, but I have been wrong before.
The perversion of the All-Star Game from an exhibition of the games top stars to having some relevance should encourage managers to endorse this remedy. When the game was "just" for the fans there was little harm in letting players on the team to tip their caps and sign some autographs. Unfortunately, Bud Selig decided the game needed to "mean" something and tied it to home field advantage in the World Series. With such a prize awarded to the victor, each manager should want the best current players on his team. That is the best players of this season, not of their careers. Pitchers who pitch the Sunday before the game are already blocked from participation, which limits how effective the managers can be. Allowing fans to dictate starting rosters, and presumably players who will play the longest, further cripples managers abilities so long as lackluster options are just a click away.
Popular, but limited, players do not help either side win. They also keep casual fans from seeing the next batch of all-star talent. Baseball fans are not dumb, most can put aside team affiliations for the All-Star Game and appreciate the spectacular performances provided. MLB has improved their online balloting by including more players than ever, but until they start knocking players off due to significant injuries or failure to play in games, they are still doing their fans a disservice.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Waiver Debate Much Ado About Nothing
Recently MLBTR's Charlie Wilmoth asked if something should be done about MLB's waiver claim system. His trumpeting call for the change? The Toronto Blue Jays. According to a review by MLBTR's Steve Adams, Alex Anthopoulos has made 22 waiver claims over the last year, more than any other GM in the game. Brian Cashman of the New York Yankees was second with 14 claims. Toronto has made at least one additional claim since the post on Aaron Laffey. I can admit it is interesting that one team is so active on waiver claims compared to other teams, but there is no need to change anything. MLBTR should stick with transactions and rumors and not attempt to create controversy where it does not exist.
To start, as Mr. Wilmoth points out, the Blue Jays making claims prevents teams with lower waiver priority from acting. Bad records create better opportunities for teams to improve. Once a claim is made the process starts over, so fans rarely hear of other teams that make claims once a player is claimed. More shocking to fans should be that the Yankees have been able to make the second most claims given their overall record should have limited their ability to get players worthy of claiming.
Second, and completely ignored in Wilmoth's post, was the busy offseason Toronto had. Blockbuster trades with the Miami Marlins and New York Mets cost the team prospects. By my count 6 prospects including 4 that were ranked in the top 100 overall by Baseball America . The other two were also highly regarded. As a result of these trades, Baseball America currently rates Toronto's farm system at #22 overall. Any team ranked in the bottom third should put a premium on targeting players on the waiver wire as a way to improve their team. After this offseason especially, the Blue Jays likely have 4-6 players occupying spots in their organizational top 30 by necessity not talent. An aggressive pursuit of the waiver system permits the restocking of that lost depth.
Finally, Anthopolulos is a younger GM with a solid track record of success. He is also a fan of advanced metrics. At the most basic level the "Moneyball" philosophy is about exploiting market inefficiencies. OBP is no longer that inefficiency, nor is the "ugly body" type. Look at Matt Adams of St. Louis or Darren O'Day of the Orioles for that. Waiver claims are a gamble that many teams do not look at to improve their teams. Toronto found a diamond a few years back with Jose Bautista. Numerous other teams had tried with him, but it was not until Toronto claimed him and were able to afford him regular at bats that he really turned things around and flourished. Many of Toronto's waiver claims are on out-of-options players. These players usually have shown flashes in the majors, but their current team does not want to commit the major league playing time to them. Toronto has no problem trying to claim them and hope to restock their 40 man roster. At the major league or minor league level they feel they can offer regular playing time. If they perform in AAA they might be useful call-ups or trade chips. If not, well other teams can take a chance.
Calling for a change based on one teams approach is an extreme call. While it is no doubt frustrating for players to be unsure where they are supposed to travel to, they are still getting MLB salaries and service time. Toronto appears to be making claims to restock depth lost this winter. Not every claim will pan out, but there is nothing wrong with playing the odds. Rather than make a mountain out of this molehill, perhaps the better question is, why aren't other teams doing the same?
Is Toronto on to something or should there practice be stopped? Add your two cents in the comments section.
To start, as Mr. Wilmoth points out, the Blue Jays making claims prevents teams with lower waiver priority from acting. Bad records create better opportunities for teams to improve. Once a claim is made the process starts over, so fans rarely hear of other teams that make claims once a player is claimed. More shocking to fans should be that the Yankees have been able to make the second most claims given their overall record should have limited their ability to get players worthy of claiming.
Second, and completely ignored in Wilmoth's post, was the busy offseason Toronto had. Blockbuster trades with the Miami Marlins and New York Mets cost the team prospects. By my count 6 prospects including 4 that were ranked in the top 100 overall by Baseball America . The other two were also highly regarded. As a result of these trades, Baseball America currently rates Toronto's farm system at #22 overall. Any team ranked in the bottom third should put a premium on targeting players on the waiver wire as a way to improve their team. After this offseason especially, the Blue Jays likely have 4-6 players occupying spots in their organizational top 30 by necessity not talent. An aggressive pursuit of the waiver system permits the restocking of that lost depth.
Finally, Anthopolulos is a younger GM with a solid track record of success. He is also a fan of advanced metrics. At the most basic level the "Moneyball" philosophy is about exploiting market inefficiencies. OBP is no longer that inefficiency, nor is the "ugly body" type. Look at Matt Adams of St. Louis or Darren O'Day of the Orioles for that. Waiver claims are a gamble that many teams do not look at to improve their teams. Toronto found a diamond a few years back with Jose Bautista. Numerous other teams had tried with him, but it was not until Toronto claimed him and were able to afford him regular at bats that he really turned things around and flourished. Many of Toronto's waiver claims are on out-of-options players. These players usually have shown flashes in the majors, but their current team does not want to commit the major league playing time to them. Toronto has no problem trying to claim them and hope to restock their 40 man roster. At the major league or minor league level they feel they can offer regular playing time. If they perform in AAA they might be useful call-ups or trade chips. If not, well other teams can take a chance.
Calling for a change based on one teams approach is an extreme call. While it is no doubt frustrating for players to be unsure where they are supposed to travel to, they are still getting MLB salaries and service time. Toronto appears to be making claims to restock depth lost this winter. Not every claim will pan out, but there is nothing wrong with playing the odds. Rather than make a mountain out of this molehill, perhaps the better question is, why aren't other teams doing the same?
Is Toronto on to something or should there practice be stopped? Add your two cents in the comments section.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Flush with Cash, Teams Should Reward Their Fans
Beginning in 2014 MLB will see a fundamental change in the way teams operate and this will have significant implications for on field production. It is also a perfect opportunity to garner some good will among the fan base. Thanks to new national television deals kicking in new money to every team starting next year the "small market" teams will be extinct. When considering all potential revenue streams, super agent Scott Boras estimates "[teams] are going to be making between $110 and $120 million before they sell a ticket". With the league so flush with cash even Jeffery Loria cannot complain about profits, there needs to be a league wide ticket price freeze for the next three years.
The majority of the increase is coming from newly structured television deals. Each team will get in the neighborhood of $52 million annually thanks to deals negotiated by MLB with Fox, ESPN, and TBS. This roughly doubles the previous amount. Regional sports network revenue is another major part of the equation. These deals include the Yankees getting $85 million annually from YES (an amount that will increase annually to $350 million! by 2042). NESN pays the Red Sox $60 million. The Houston Astros, owners of the lowest payroll this year, signed a rights fee that will pay them $80 million annually for the next 20 years. The Cleveland Indians, at less than $30 million annually, are near the bottom of reported teams regional sports revenue. Fangraphs has put together known data on teams local television deals which you can find here.
I have not even figured revenue sharing or luxury tax payments and we are still sitting on more money than most teams can wisely spend. We have already seen teams hand out significant extensions over the past two offseasons and I expect that trend to continue. Necessarily frugal, yet competitive, teams such as the Tampa Bay Rays and Atlanta Braves are now in a better position to acquire talent or lock in home grown talent going forward. The Rays extended Evan Longoria for an extra $100 million over 6 years (2017-22); The Braves acquired both B.J. Upton and Justin Upton, but should still be able to lock up Jayson Heyward and Freddie Freeman if they so choose. Rebuilding teams such as the Astros and Miami Marlins should continue rebuilding, knowing when their front office identifies core pieces they attempt to sign them long term.
Currently 18 teams are under $110 million payrolls, another 3 are under $120 million. Rather than trumpet the call for teams to spend money for the sake of spending it, I suggest front offices continue to invest wisely in players. The payrolls will naturally rise and going forward no one should have a payroll as low as the Marlins ($44 million), let alone the Astros. Teams will be better positioned to lock up their young stars which will help drive up local interest in teams. MLB should do fans the favor of freezing ticket pricing in recognition of the cash coming in. I do not expect a team to lower prices to reflect a poor on field product, but keeping prices stable has too many positive benefits to ignore.
MLB tickets in 2012 averaged $27, but taking a family of four costs over $200. For comparison, the a family of four is estimated to shell out more over $440 to experience an NFL afternoon or $300 for the NBA. Yes there are more MLB games than the other two combined which keeps the cost down, but the league should desire to not only bring the fans in, but get them excited about coming back. Cost certainty is an easy way for families to plan a few nights at the ball park each summer instead of one or two. As an added benefit this would likely lead to an increase in attendance which would offset ticket prices remaining unchanged.
The game is evolving, tickets and concessions are now needed to pad team revenues not determine them. Television companies are shelling out millions annually for access to the market. Most fans can't attend every game, but if teams make attendance more affordable, those same casual fans will reward them with buying the cable subscriptions which are leaving teams so flush with cash. MLB, it is time to step up and freeze ticket prices. Show fans you appreciate them. We love this game, with as much money as is coming in you should make it easier for us to "root, root, root, for the home team."
The majority of the increase is coming from newly structured television deals. Each team will get in the neighborhood of $52 million annually thanks to deals negotiated by MLB with Fox, ESPN, and TBS. This roughly doubles the previous amount. Regional sports network revenue is another major part of the equation. These deals include the Yankees getting $85 million annually from YES (an amount that will increase annually to $350 million! by 2042). NESN pays the Red Sox $60 million. The Houston Astros, owners of the lowest payroll this year, signed a rights fee that will pay them $80 million annually for the next 20 years. The Cleveland Indians, at less than $30 million annually, are near the bottom of reported teams regional sports revenue. Fangraphs has put together known data on teams local television deals which you can find here.
I have not even figured revenue sharing or luxury tax payments and we are still sitting on more money than most teams can wisely spend. We have already seen teams hand out significant extensions over the past two offseasons and I expect that trend to continue. Necessarily frugal, yet competitive, teams such as the Tampa Bay Rays and Atlanta Braves are now in a better position to acquire talent or lock in home grown talent going forward. The Rays extended Evan Longoria for an extra $100 million over 6 years (2017-22); The Braves acquired both B.J. Upton and Justin Upton, but should still be able to lock up Jayson Heyward and Freddie Freeman if they so choose. Rebuilding teams such as the Astros and Miami Marlins should continue rebuilding, knowing when their front office identifies core pieces they attempt to sign them long term.
Currently 18 teams are under $110 million payrolls, another 3 are under $120 million. Rather than trumpet the call for teams to spend money for the sake of spending it, I suggest front offices continue to invest wisely in players. The payrolls will naturally rise and going forward no one should have a payroll as low as the Marlins ($44 million), let alone the Astros. Teams will be better positioned to lock up their young stars which will help drive up local interest in teams. MLB should do fans the favor of freezing ticket pricing in recognition of the cash coming in. I do not expect a team to lower prices to reflect a poor on field product, but keeping prices stable has too many positive benefits to ignore.
MLB tickets in 2012 averaged $27, but taking a family of four costs over $200. For comparison, the a family of four is estimated to shell out more over $440 to experience an NFL afternoon or $300 for the NBA. Yes there are more MLB games than the other two combined which keeps the cost down, but the league should desire to not only bring the fans in, but get them excited about coming back. Cost certainty is an easy way for families to plan a few nights at the ball park each summer instead of one or two. As an added benefit this would likely lead to an increase in attendance which would offset ticket prices remaining unchanged.
The game is evolving, tickets and concessions are now needed to pad team revenues not determine them. Television companies are shelling out millions annually for access to the market. Most fans can't attend every game, but if teams make attendance more affordable, those same casual fans will reward them with buying the cable subscriptions which are leaving teams so flush with cash. MLB, it is time to step up and freeze ticket prices. Show fans you appreciate them. We love this game, with as much money as is coming in you should make it easier for us to "root, root, root, for the home team."
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
MLB's Next Commissioner Is...
Bud Selig's reign atop the MLB universe is reportedly coming to a close in 2014. He has made similar claims before, so if you do not want to buy it this time either, I cannot blame you. For those of us who have dreamed of a Selig-less MLB, the question becomes, who will replace him? MLBTR put together a list of candidates last May, but I do not see the next commissioner on their list. My suggestion for the next commissioner of Major League Baseball is, Tony LaRussa. Tony brings instant credibility and a deep knowledge of the game to do more than merely stand in Selig's shadow and after 23 odd years (he became commissioner in 1992) that has become quite the shadow indeed.
As Sports Illustrated pointed in out in their recent Power Rankings, Selig has had the power to get just about anything he wants recently. Though I will mostly remember him for his well articulated decision to end the 2002 all-star game in a tie, Selig's reign has shown tremendous growth in players salaries, television revenue, and overall team value. The sport made an estimated $7.5 billion dollars in 2012, it is no wonder owners have kept him around for so long, despite his missteps and controversies. Recently, Selig has stepped up efforts to leave a lasting imprint including continued labor peace, renegotiating national television deals, more stringent drug testing, and expanded playoffs. We learned last week that there is now a push to modify the draft process to be worldwide rather than limited to players from USA, Canada, and Puerto Rico. With so many issues covered over the next few years, MLB has an opportunity to get a new face out front and begin to distance itself from Selig's flaws.
This provides a great opportunity for a commissioner with a fresh perspective to step in. Owners may embrace a changing of the guard, but they are likely seeking someone with strong ties to the game. Owners want someone who will help strengthen the value of a product that needs to be tweaked rather than rebranded. La Russa fits that bill. He has long been a part of the game, making his major league debut as a player in 1963 and got his first run as a manager with the Chicago White Sox in 1979. As a manager all he has done is win, currently third all time in wins, including 3 World Series titles. He is routinely praised for his tactical skills and in-game management. He is a four time Manager of the Year, winning it at least once with each team he coached. He is also credited with creating the modern bullpen. While he has rubbed some players the wrong way (notably Ozzie Smith and more recently JD Drew and Colby Rasmus), he is well regarded overall and has the respect of players and owners alike.
At 68, La Russa is unlikely to stick around as long as Selig which gives owners time to make some changes while seeing where the game is headed. After retiring following the 2011 World Series, La Russa has taken a position with MLB to continue to stay close to the game. He also carries a law degree which implies he is no dummy away from the game either. This is no small matter. While Selig has crossed off some big ticket issues, several large concerns still loom. The current local marketing structure (black out restrictions) is in the midst of legal challenges and will likely need to be addressed by the next commissioner. Revisions to instant replay are also under constant scrutiny and who better than a former manager to help navigate what will undoubtedly be troubled waters? More than likely he would also be in through the negotiation of the next CBA (set to expire after 2016) and could help continue the 20+ years of labor peace that has helped baseball continue its run of prosperity.
La Russa could also implement changes that Selig's handpicked successor would hesitate to address. Chief among those would be home field advantage for the World Series tied to the All-star game. Selig concocted this gem to cover himself for the aforementioned tie, but it has never sat well with fans. The game is an exhibition to showcase the games elite and should be honored as such. Make it a 10-inning max game (to protect pitchers, which is increasingly an issue) and let ties stand. Home field advantage in the World Series should be tied to another factor, be it overall team records or inter-league records or something else. La Russa has always moved to the beat of his own drum and I do not doubt he will make changes based more on the good of the game than the good of Selig's image.
Several other candidates exist, but they are far from ideal fits. Scott Boras, the noted agent would be a coup for the owners, but he also ranks as one of the most hated people in all of baseball. Couple that with the unlikelihood that he would leave his agency for the post and he is a tough fit. Joe Torre is another former manger who might fit the bill. However, he stepped away from managing before replay really took hold plus he just managed an unimpressive performance by Team USA in the WBC. His management and deference to outside influences indicates a yes man, unwilling to challenge any of Selig's decisions. George Bush, former Rangers owner and US president would be an out of the box option. He loves the sport and carries considerable clout. Controversial and outside the box, but if ownership feels they can control him, he may be a darkhorse candidate. Selig's handpicked successor (Rob Manfred is my guess) is another option, but this would protect Selig's pet projects and image more than anything. If the owners want change, they are better off going away from this path. There are plenty of others out there and I am open to your suggestions in the comments section.
The Selig era brought baseball to new heights and has set the game up for a successful and prosperous future. It also has presented some glaring issues that MLB would do well to distance itself from. La Russa provides a shrewd mind, been around the game for decades, garners general (and genuine) respect from everyone, and provides change from the Selig era. He is far from the only candidate, but his achievements offer a unique opportunity that the owners should embrace when the announce the next MLB Commissioner.
 |
| Selig at 2002 All-Star Game |
This provides a great opportunity for a commissioner with a fresh perspective to step in. Owners may embrace a changing of the guard, but they are likely seeking someone with strong ties to the game. Owners want someone who will help strengthen the value of a product that needs to be tweaked rather than rebranded. La Russa fits that bill. He has long been a part of the game, making his major league debut as a player in 1963 and got his first run as a manager with the Chicago White Sox in 1979. As a manager all he has done is win, currently third all time in wins, including 3 World Series titles. He is routinely praised for his tactical skills and in-game management. He is a four time Manager of the Year, winning it at least once with each team he coached. He is also credited with creating the modern bullpen. While he has rubbed some players the wrong way (notably Ozzie Smith and more recently JD Drew and Colby Rasmus), he is well regarded overall and has the respect of players and owners alike.
At 68, La Russa is unlikely to stick around as long as Selig which gives owners time to make some changes while seeing where the game is headed. After retiring following the 2011 World Series, La Russa has taken a position with MLB to continue to stay close to the game. He also carries a law degree which implies he is no dummy away from the game either. This is no small matter. While Selig has crossed off some big ticket issues, several large concerns still loom. The current local marketing structure (black out restrictions) is in the midst of legal challenges and will likely need to be addressed by the next commissioner. Revisions to instant replay are also under constant scrutiny and who better than a former manager to help navigate what will undoubtedly be troubled waters? More than likely he would also be in through the negotiation of the next CBA (set to expire after 2016) and could help continue the 20+ years of labor peace that has helped baseball continue its run of prosperity.
La Russa could also implement changes that Selig's handpicked successor would hesitate to address. Chief among those would be home field advantage for the World Series tied to the All-star game. Selig concocted this gem to cover himself for the aforementioned tie, but it has never sat well with fans. The game is an exhibition to showcase the games elite and should be honored as such. Make it a 10-inning max game (to protect pitchers, which is increasingly an issue) and let ties stand. Home field advantage in the World Series should be tied to another factor, be it overall team records or inter-league records or something else. La Russa has always moved to the beat of his own drum and I do not doubt he will make changes based more on the good of the game than the good of Selig's image.
Several other candidates exist, but they are far from ideal fits. Scott Boras, the noted agent would be a coup for the owners, but he also ranks as one of the most hated people in all of baseball. Couple that with the unlikelihood that he would leave his agency for the post and he is a tough fit. Joe Torre is another former manger who might fit the bill. However, he stepped away from managing before replay really took hold plus he just managed an unimpressive performance by Team USA in the WBC. His management and deference to outside influences indicates a yes man, unwilling to challenge any of Selig's decisions. George Bush, former Rangers owner and US president would be an out of the box option. He loves the sport and carries considerable clout. Controversial and outside the box, but if ownership feels they can control him, he may be a darkhorse candidate. Selig's handpicked successor (Rob Manfred is my guess) is another option, but this would protect Selig's pet projects and image more than anything. If the owners want change, they are better off going away from this path. There are plenty of others out there and I am open to your suggestions in the comments section.
The Selig era brought baseball to new heights and has set the game up for a successful and prosperous future. It also has presented some glaring issues that MLB would do well to distance itself from. La Russa provides a shrewd mind, been around the game for decades, garners general (and genuine) respect from everyone, and provides change from the Selig era. He is far from the only candidate, but his achievements offer a unique opportunity that the owners should embrace when the announce the next MLB Commissioner.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Don't Expect Indians to Welcome Lohse to the Tribe
As of today, only one player tied to draft compensation remains on the market, Kyle Lohse. Numerous websites have tried to link Lohse to the Indians, based on their already signing two players and adding Lohse would "only" cost them a fourth round selection. However, the potential cost under the new draft rules makes it potentially much more than just a fourth round pick and is the reason the Indians will not purse Lohse while he is tied to compensation.
First off, I understand why fans, writers, and experts want to put Lohse with the Indians. The Indians have improved their offense, but their current starting pitching is not very impressive. Lohse would be a welcome addition to the rotation, perhaps even as high as their number two pitcher. With a new manager and revamped offense, many consider Lohse to be a final piece to make the Indians legitimate contenders for a wild card spot this season. Unfortunately, the hopes of fans and the reality of the business make this union an impossibility.
In reviewing other articles, it appears everyone understands draft pick sacrificing under the new collective bargaining agreement. To recap: if a team wishes to sign a protected free agent they must sacrifice their top overall pick (top 10 protected). If they sign a second player, they lose their next draft pick, and on and on. However, the CBA also modified draft spending rules and this is why the Indians cannot afford signing Lohse.
Under the new model teams are given a pool tailored to their draft order to use as they will during the first 10 rounds. All picks 2-238 (to use 2012 numbers) are based as percentages of the number one slot bonus ($7.2 million in 2012). Team pools are set based upon the slot position for their picks, including compensation picks. Teams that go more than 5% above this total face harsh penalties including losing future draft picks. Players must be signed in order for that slot money to be used, so if the first overall pick for a team does not sign that money cannot be used to help sign. Last year the Pittsburgh Pirates failed to sign Mark Appel last year and were unable to use the $2.7 million to help sign other players in the draft. To see an excellent and brief team specific break down on this, click here.
With this in mind let us examine how this would play out for the Indians this draft. A few things to keep in mind: 1) I am using 2012 numbers since I have yet to see 2013 numbers and 2) I am using the current draft order from mlb.com.
This year the Indians have the 5th overall pick in the draft. This pick is protected so the first pick they gave up was their second round pick for signing Nick Swisher. They gave up their third round pick for signing Michael Bourn. They did not collect any compensation picks, nor did they receive competitive balance picks. They had 10 picks over the first 10 rounds. Currently they have 8 picks and could go as low as 7. Last season the Kansas City Royals drafted 5th overall and likewise had 10 picks. I am therefore using the Royals $7,537,000 as the base for the Indians. This number will change this year, but it works for this exercise.
Signing Swisher cost a second round pick, currently slotted for the Indians as the 44th overall ($1,165,800). Signing Bourn cost a third round pick, current slotted as the 79th overall ($639,700). This shrinks their pool to $5,731,500 for 8 players. Signing away their fourth round pick, currently slotted as the 109th overall, would reduce that amount a further $436,000. To sign all three players would take $2,241,500, or roughly 30%, out of their pool. This amounts to $305,250/player only considering picks 5-10. With such a fall between picks I am assuming the Indians and their top pick will agree on slot money, or right about there ($3,500,000). By keeping their 4th round pick that average jumps up to $323,929/player, just under what the 139th overall pick (5th round Indians pick) would cost ($327,100).
Note the Indians would draft in the first round and not draft again until round 5. To see the dangers of such a situation Bless you Boys put together odds on making it to the Show, which you can read here. In a nutshell 44% of players drafted between the first supplemental round through round 4 will make it, that number plummets to 21% for players drafted in rounds 5-10. This is why I see the first round pick not settling for less than slot money (and the Indians paying it) because it becomes him and who knows what turns up.
While later round gems exist, (see Albert Pujols, 13th round; or Brandon Maurer a top prospect with Seattle) losing out on three picks in the first four rounds essentially amounts to punting the draft. Not signing Lohse allows the Indians the freedom to gamble more on upside instead of taking a lower ceiling (aka safe) player. Essentially protecting the GM and the front office more than helping the team. For a farm system ranked in the lower 1/3 of the league the last thing they need is to sacrifice upside in the draft. An ace who may turn into an innings eater is a lot better than an innings eater turning into long-relief.
I applaud the Indians efforts to step up and be aggressive this offseason, but there is a fine line between winning today and succeeding both today and in the future. While signing Lohse makes sense from a fans perspective, sacrificing another draft pick and punting the 2013 draft is too steep a price for a workhorse on the wrong side of his prime.
Am I on the money or slinging slop? Feel free to chime in in the comments section below. You may need to click on "No Comments" to open up the comment box.
*As an update the 2013 draft bonus pool totals have been released. The Indians have 9 picks and a pool of $6,188,800 the 19th lowest despite having the 5th overall pick in the draft. You can see all teams break downs here
First off, I understand why fans, writers, and experts want to put Lohse with the Indians. The Indians have improved their offense, but their current starting pitching is not very impressive. Lohse would be a welcome addition to the rotation, perhaps even as high as their number two pitcher. With a new manager and revamped offense, many consider Lohse to be a final piece to make the Indians legitimate contenders for a wild card spot this season. Unfortunately, the hopes of fans and the reality of the business make this union an impossibility.
In reviewing other articles, it appears everyone understands draft pick sacrificing under the new collective bargaining agreement. To recap: if a team wishes to sign a protected free agent they must sacrifice their top overall pick (top 10 protected). If they sign a second player, they lose their next draft pick, and on and on. However, the CBA also modified draft spending rules and this is why the Indians cannot afford signing Lohse.
Under the new model teams are given a pool tailored to their draft order to use as they will during the first 10 rounds. All picks 2-238 (to use 2012 numbers) are based as percentages of the number one slot bonus ($7.2 million in 2012). Team pools are set based upon the slot position for their picks, including compensation picks. Teams that go more than 5% above this total face harsh penalties including losing future draft picks. Players must be signed in order for that slot money to be used, so if the first overall pick for a team does not sign that money cannot be used to help sign. Last year the Pittsburgh Pirates failed to sign Mark Appel last year and were unable to use the $2.7 million to help sign other players in the draft. To see an excellent and brief team specific break down on this, click here.
With this in mind let us examine how this would play out for the Indians this draft. A few things to keep in mind: 1) I am using 2012 numbers since I have yet to see 2013 numbers and 2) I am using the current draft order from mlb.com.
This year the Indians have the 5th overall pick in the draft. This pick is protected so the first pick they gave up was their second round pick for signing Nick Swisher. They gave up their third round pick for signing Michael Bourn. They did not collect any compensation picks, nor did they receive competitive balance picks. They had 10 picks over the first 10 rounds. Currently they have 8 picks and could go as low as 7. Last season the Kansas City Royals drafted 5th overall and likewise had 10 picks. I am therefore using the Royals $7,537,000 as the base for the Indians. This number will change this year, but it works for this exercise.
Signing Swisher cost a second round pick, currently slotted for the Indians as the 44th overall ($1,165,800). Signing Bourn cost a third round pick, current slotted as the 79th overall ($639,700). This shrinks their pool to $5,731,500 for 8 players. Signing away their fourth round pick, currently slotted as the 109th overall, would reduce that amount a further $436,000. To sign all three players would take $2,241,500, or roughly 30%, out of their pool. This amounts to $305,250/player only considering picks 5-10. With such a fall between picks I am assuming the Indians and their top pick will agree on slot money, or right about there ($3,500,000). By keeping their 4th round pick that average jumps up to $323,929/player, just under what the 139th overall pick (5th round Indians pick) would cost ($327,100).
Note the Indians would draft in the first round and not draft again until round 5. To see the dangers of such a situation Bless you Boys put together odds on making it to the Show, which you can read here. In a nutshell 44% of players drafted between the first supplemental round through round 4 will make it, that number plummets to 21% for players drafted in rounds 5-10. This is why I see the first round pick not settling for less than slot money (and the Indians paying it) because it becomes him and who knows what turns up.
While later round gems exist, (see Albert Pujols, 13th round; or Brandon Maurer a top prospect with Seattle) losing out on three picks in the first four rounds essentially amounts to punting the draft. Not signing Lohse allows the Indians the freedom to gamble more on upside instead of taking a lower ceiling (aka safe) player. Essentially protecting the GM and the front office more than helping the team. For a farm system ranked in the lower 1/3 of the league the last thing they need is to sacrifice upside in the draft. An ace who may turn into an innings eater is a lot better than an innings eater turning into long-relief.
I applaud the Indians efforts to step up and be aggressive this offseason, but there is a fine line between winning today and succeeding both today and in the future. While signing Lohse makes sense from a fans perspective, sacrificing another draft pick and punting the 2013 draft is too steep a price for a workhorse on the wrong side of his prime.
Am I on the money or slinging slop? Feel free to chime in in the comments section below. You may need to click on "No Comments" to open up the comment box.
*As an update the 2013 draft bonus pool totals have been released. The Indians have 9 picks and a pool of $6,188,800 the 19th lowest despite having the 5th overall pick in the draft. You can see all teams break downs here
Friday, February 22, 2013
College Basketball a Season to Celebrate
The 2012-2013 college basketball season has been one of entertainment and joy for fans. Generally, I am largely resigned to catching a few games and waiting until, well, about now to start paying attention. This season has done a much better job of not only catching, but keeping my attention. Lo and behold March is right around the corner for those who may have missed it, here are a few highlights to catch you up.
The Fall of Traditional Teams
Kentucky, North Carolina, and Duke are traditional powers and if the field of 68 was set today only one of them, Duke, would be in the NCAA tournament. Growing up a Utah Ute fan in the mid-90's it was gut-wrenching to see the Utes face Kentucky in the tournament. Three times they faced each other and three times Kentucky won. Most notably the 1998 National Championship game. Watching Kentucky fill up the loss column always bring me joy. This is allowing other teams a chance to shine, even if it is just for a year. Notably among these are Miami Hurricanes, Florida Gators and the reestablishment of Indiana Hoosiers as a top team. Temporary or a trend, I enjoy watching traditional powerhouses getting beat up and solid teams being showcased.
Who is #1
A national champion is not crowned in November, or even in February, but the number one team in the country can be crowned each week. This season, that crown has been more of a curse than a blessing. Five different teams have held the (AP) ranking and in January the title changed hands each week. Indiana started the year ranked number one and is currently back on top. Seeing the top teams struggle and fall is fun from afar and clearly fans enjoy storming the court. Hopefully we will see the top team fall a few more times, if only to tune in later that week to watch them fall.
College Athletes Succeeding
Stay with me on this one. Ever since the NBA put in place the 1-year rule the college game has focused heavily on the top freshmen in the game. That culminated last year with the all-freshmen starting five of Kentucky not only won the national title, but all five went pro and were drafted. This trend is not going away, but there is something refreshing about looking at the current top teams. Indiana is led by Cody Zeller (Sophomore), Miami is as high as it has ever been and are doing it under former George Mason coach Jim Larranaga, and Gonzaga Bulldogs being led by red-shirt junior Kelly Olynyk. Players on these teams have at least gone to a few college classes and learned to play a team game as none of them are 1-and-done schools. Olynyk has gone from being a fringe college player to a fringe lottery pick by sitting out a year and dedicated himself to the game Mark Few's system. No doubt teams are trying to identify players willing to red-shirt a season, really learn a system and maximize their college experience.
March is nearly upon us and all the joy to date could be squashed by traditional powerhouses. However, it is nice here in late February to sit back, enjoying what the season and has given us and dream a short dream that it will continue to inspire and surprise.
What has been your favorite moment of the college basketball season so far? Let me know in the comments.
The Fall of Traditional Teams
Kentucky, North Carolina, and Duke are traditional powers and if the field of 68 was set today only one of them, Duke, would be in the NCAA tournament. Growing up a Utah Ute fan in the mid-90's it was gut-wrenching to see the Utes face Kentucky in the tournament. Three times they faced each other and three times Kentucky won. Most notably the 1998 National Championship game. Watching Kentucky fill up the loss column always bring me joy. This is allowing other teams a chance to shine, even if it is just for a year. Notably among these are Miami Hurricanes, Florida Gators and the reestablishment of Indiana Hoosiers as a top team. Temporary or a trend, I enjoy watching traditional powerhouses getting beat up and solid teams being showcased.
Who is #1
A national champion is not crowned in November, or even in February, but the number one team in the country can be crowned each week. This season, that crown has been more of a curse than a blessing. Five different teams have held the (AP) ranking and in January the title changed hands each week. Indiana started the year ranked number one and is currently back on top. Seeing the top teams struggle and fall is fun from afar and clearly fans enjoy storming the court. Hopefully we will see the top team fall a few more times, if only to tune in later that week to watch them fall.
College Athletes Succeeding
Stay with me on this one. Ever since the NBA put in place the 1-year rule the college game has focused heavily on the top freshmen in the game. That culminated last year with the all-freshmen starting five of Kentucky not only won the national title, but all five went pro and were drafted. This trend is not going away, but there is something refreshing about looking at the current top teams. Indiana is led by Cody Zeller (Sophomore), Miami is as high as it has ever been and are doing it under former George Mason coach Jim Larranaga, and Gonzaga Bulldogs being led by red-shirt junior Kelly Olynyk. Players on these teams have at least gone to a few college classes and learned to play a team game as none of them are 1-and-done schools. Olynyk has gone from being a fringe college player to a fringe lottery pick by sitting out a year and dedicated himself to the game Mark Few's system. No doubt teams are trying to identify players willing to red-shirt a season, really learn a system and maximize their college experience.
March is nearly upon us and all the joy to date could be squashed by traditional powerhouses. However, it is nice here in late February to sit back, enjoying what the season and has given us and dream a short dream that it will continue to inspire and surprise.
What has been your favorite moment of the college basketball season so far? Let me know in the comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)