Dave Saltzer

On 2/6/2021 at 1:52 PM, Dtwncbad said:

How about just let two parties (player and team) negotiate a deal they both will agree to?

It’s pretty much none of my business.

Because there are many, many things that are already prohibited from being in baseball contracts (as I noted in the article, personal services and milestone achievements are a couple of recent clauses that have been banned). So, other things can be banned as well for the better interests of the game. Trades and other moves have been voided by the past as being against the better interests of baseball. So, this is a fair game to discuss.

As a fan of the game, who wants future generations to have a healthy game to enjoy as I did, I think it's fair to discuss and point out how certain practices are ruining the game.

On 2/6/2021 at 1:44 PM, Angelsjunky said:

Good stuff, Dave. I'm not sure what the solution is, whether your 60/40/20 rule or something else, but certainly something is rotten in Denmark.

I find myself somewhat mixed about the contract. On one hand, I agree with you: it is gross and damaging for baseball and small-to-mid-market teams. 

On the other hand, I do think there's validity to the perspective that if the system can be gamed, let them game it. As you say, we can't really blame Bauer or the Dodgers for playing the system, but it does point out how the system is exploitable by the "haves" (in this case, the Dodgers) in a way that hurts the "have nots" (smaller market teams). And thus we shouldn't expect them to stop doing such things until the system changes. 

As you said, not only is Bauer making more than several entire teams, the Dodgers payroll is more than the bottom five teams combined. We can say, "But it is capitalism! We shouldn't punish the wealthy teams just because Pittsburgh is a shit-hole city!" While that may hold a certain logic, who ends up suffering for it? All of us, the fans of baseball. The game becomes far less competitive, far more centralized around a few franchises.

I don't know how the NFL does it, but maybe MLB can take a lesson or two from them. While there are still better and worse franchises in football, the range is narrower, and there's far more upward mobility for franchises, no matter how crappy.

 

Thanks for the reply AJ. There definitely is something wrong in the state of Denmark. Supposedly, baseball has a commissioner to prevent bad things from happening. But, that is clearly not the case, and this current commissioner is a puppet. 

I very much agree that all fans suffer for it when there is such disparity. When it becomes a viable model for teams to intentionally lose, and for many teams the only model for a chance at a winning season, then changes really need to happen. What's ridiculous is that the players union is just as much against making the reforms as the owners are because they don't want to offend the top end of the sport. It's very foolish as it is clearly hurting more players than it benefits.....

I am very much in favor of both a hard floor and a hard ceiling on payroll. Owners that refuse to meet the floor should be forced out. More players would make more money, but a few players might not make as much money. More fans would be interested in the sport as more teams would be in it to win it every year, and the game would grow. Moves like this will shrink the fanbase long-term.

Look, I get the rivalry between San Diego and LA and for that, signing Bauer is good. However, it really sucks if you are a Giants, Diamondbacks, or Rockies fan. And, the question remains how long San Diego can afford to keep this team together to compete with the Dodgers. If they can't hold it together for too long, that division will be a one-trick pony.

Just now, Angelsjunky said:

He's got two takes (you and IP) in the article. 

I'd suggest we don't change the article until the deal is finalized.

Agreed . . . although it seems like some on the other thread would want us to do that just to jinx the deal!

Just now, Angelsjunky said:

That would be Erik Rivera.

Do we need some more takes on him, or does he have a couple already? I can't remember.

So who was our #31 that will now get bumped up into the prospect list? We should consider some updates on that player.....

45 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I know for me personally, the last 7 or 8 guys on my list were probably interchangeable with another 10-12 that didn't make the cut.  I could have listed 50 as there are still a handful of interesting players who could break into the top 30 pretty easily next year.  

And, this year's draft is going to be super deep.  All those guys who would have gone in the 6th round and beyond with an extra year to improve and hopefully open some eyes.  So a lot of the guys who might have normally gone earlier are going to get pushed down so I think we'll see this draft contribute quite a bit.  

One of the big take aways from doing this draft was that our system has a lot more talent than many realize. A cursory examination of our system doesn't show that because most of our talent is very ry young and didn't get to put their talent on display in a real season last year. 

Someone asked where we'd rank our system. Right now, I'd say in the upper teens with a chance to move into the low teens with a good draft and some of the players developing as projected. 

9 hours ago, John Smith said:

Thanks guys, always enjoy reading about minor leagues prospects.

Where do you see Denzer Guzman listed?

Too early to tell for me. I'd like to talk with the people I know to get a better feel for where to rank him. 

Somebody must have liked him, though, to drop that kind of coin on him. Most likely we will rank him in a mid-season update. Let's just hope that there is a season for the Minor Leagues so that they can develop him and we can get a better idea of where he ranks. 

11 hours ago, Junkballer said:

Thanks for all the solid work guys.  Great read.

One thing I could use a little help with is the comments regarding Adells mental makeup as a strong point.  I have heard this elsewhere and while I do not have an opinion for or against it, I would like to hear something about why the contributors here feel comfortable with echoing the attribute.

Here's a link to an interview I did with him 2 years ago, when he was 18, I believe. Most 18 year Olds are hard to interview and barely give more than a one or two word response to a question. Compare his responses. 

He really is advanced for his age in terms of mental makeup. Yes, he looked a bit lost last year in some games, but I think most people would find the game getti g ahead of them playing in the majors with that pressure at any age, let alone his, especially with all that was happening last year. 

Let him get some time in AAA and he should be fine. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.angelswin.com/blogs/entry/2980-angels-of-prospect-jo-adell-talks-with-angelswincom/&ved=2ahUKEwiqnsjitqfuAhVxNX0KHUbvDe8QFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw31BL-Un9BgZjw-Xx3MMNc4&cshid=1611039814483

Time to start a new thread. And, it's time for us to form a new Top Prospect list. The only problem is with how slowly this offseason has gone, and with the potential for trades, it doesn't seem to make too much sense to make the list right at the moment.

On 12/31/2020 at 9:09 AM, Jeff Fletcher said:

(somehow I deleted the comment, but it was about the media and its opinion on steroids.)
 

I did a Twitter poll a few weeks ago about the steroid issue and the ratio of opinion among Twitter people was about the same as among HOF voters. 
 

I think the issue divides all groups (writers, fans, players, broadcasters, etc) in roughly the same proportion, so it would remain an issue no matter who voted. 
 

Also, in order to get a HOF vote a person has to spend 10 years as an active member of the BBWAA. So if you want to include anyone else, you need to find a similar threshold.

I think it’s more likely that they just let anyone vote online and have that count for a small percentage of the process. That eliminates the need to try to parse which bloggers should vote and which don’t. 
 

The BBWAA has already admitted many non-legacy writers from FanGraphs, Baseball Prospectus, etc.

Thanks for chiming in Jeff with some thoughtful replies.

First, this isn't a criticism of you or your voting habits. I do not think that you need to defend your vote to anyone but yourself. There are some voters out there whom I would question, but knowing the person you are, I'm sure you take the deep time and consideration to give it the seriousness of the vote that it deserves.

But, here is what I would point out. From what I can find online (I know, not always the most reliable source), in 2015, there were 549 votes for the HOF by members of the BBWAA. This year, it's down to 397 eligible voters. (If my numbers are off, and you have better information, please correct them). That's a 27.7% drop in just 5 years. 

Additionally, from what I've been told (and have seen online), several media outlets have created policies that their writers cannot vote for the HOF, even if eligible. Others have made it a negotiable item for their writers.

Either way, that is a rapid and sharp decline in voters. Worse yet, that trend seems to be continuing. At some point, it will be too few gatekeepers for the HOF. While I'm not privy to the membership of the BBWAA, I would be curious to see how it compares with that of fans in general.

I think that it would be wise for the BBWAA to come up with a way to expand its voting membership so as to maintain relevance while it still has a sufficient number of members who have the experience to develop the criteria for eligibility. I fully understand the need and requirements of 10 years of writing. As I said multiple times, there would need to be criteria established for any "blogger" to have voting privileges. I would rather see the BBWAA work towards that while there is a sufficient number of members who have experience in the old system (so as to create decent thresholds for the future) than to wait another 5-10 years and see another drop of 27%+.

If the discussion for this doesn't happen now, and the continued drop continues to happen, it may become too late to have the thoughtful discussion and process, and that would lead to a worse outcome. It would be better to plan for a change in advance.

As for your idea of allowing some bloggers to vote and have that vote count for a percentage, that would be an interesting starting point. It would be interesting to see if the BBWAA would be willing to run a trial for a few years where some bloggers could vote hypothetically for maybe 15-20% of the total (not in a real vote, but in a simulated vote--much like MLB trying out rules in the Minors or Independent Leagues to see how they play out). Has there been any discussion of the dwindling number of voters and possibly making some changes?

On 12/27/2020 at 8:54 AM, floplag said:

But does this do that?  Adding people whose expertise is limited to one team adds bias as well... but then again, perhaps thats already a problem as we all know most of the top writers were beat writers and followed specific teams as well at least early on so who knows maybe im over thinking it.
Regardless i think the MLB media, in whatever for it takes, needs to get over the hypocrisy of the steroid era and trying to compare everything to the great Yankee teams of history. 

If all the teams could vet and choose a set number of bloggers to represent their fanbases, this really wouldn't be a problem. If every one of those voting were just homers, and voted just for their players, they would cancel each other out. So, it wouldn't lead to non-deserving players getting into the HOF. If the numbers were relatively balanced for each team, along with some independent bloggers (such as those who write for analytical sites), then they wouldn't lead to any bias towards any team. I did not say that the 75% threshold should be dropped.

If the concern is that it would lead to an East Coast bias, or something similar, that seems a bit more difficult with free agency and increased player movement. Almost all of today's bloggers have grown up with free agency (whereas for the longest time, most BBWAA voting members did not), so, bloggers today are more willing to look at the player's on the field performance rather than team identity. More importantly, bloggers would be better able to recall which players they truly coveted in free agency and also the ones that they were grateful that their team avoided. Most of the voting members don't feel those pangs, but those pangs are part of what leads to a player's fame, and should be a factor for enshrinement in Cooperstown (or not).

Look at the endless threads and discussions on here about signing this player or that. I'm not so certain that the voting members of the BBWAA have the same sentiments about the Hot Stove and the potential player movement in it. The voting members look at the hot stove season as news to report. Bloggers look at it as a way to improve a franchise and focus on those players who are most likely to improve their franchise. That basically is "fame" which the present voting members of the BBWAA most likely don't factor as heavily.

Along those lines, for the longest time, the voting members of the BBWAA had their litmus tests and sacred numbers for enshrinement (such as 300 wins, 500 HRs, etc.). It wasn't until bloggers came along and really starting pushing a lot more of the modern analytics that got the voters to change some of their opinions. It was bloggers who were far more likely to support someone like Blyleven making it in to the HOF even though he didn't have the requisite 300 wins. And, it was bloggers who were pushing for Edgar Martinez to make it into the HOF before the voters got over the whole "he's just a DH and therefore not worthy" issue. 

The game of baseball is always changing. For a variety of reasons I believe that some bloggers (again, not all) are better able to recognize and adopt these newer trends and analysis to their thought process and writing. With careful vetting, these bloggers would bring a diversity of viewpoints that would encompass more of the fanbase's opinions. That would generate more discussion and interest in the sport and the HOF.

If for no other reason, as legacy media dies, the voting membership of the BBWAA will continue to shrink, until it achieves irrelevancy. At some point, the Hall of Fame will have to move on, so it would be best to start the discussion now while there are enough voting members of the BBWAA to develop a smooth transition. Otherwise, we will end up with very few voting members left, and in all likelihood, almost no one making it into Cooperstown as it will become more and more difficult to achieve that 75% threshold (and the biases of those few voting members will have a greater and greater impact on that 75% threshold). Do we really want the voting members of the BBWAA to become like the "veterans committee" in terms of the difficulty in voting players into the HOF?

On 12/27/2020 at 6:39 AM, Inside Pitch said:

I'm neither a yes or no, the game is constantly changing and so is how it's covered..... 

That said, I can't think of a single current "blogger" who's opinions merit consideration for inclusion in the vote other than some of the guys writing for sites devoted to statistical analysis or those who eventually graduated to actual media outlets (Sarris, Fagerstrom, Keri, Pertiello). The best example of a blog writer who went on to bigger things may be Aaron Gleeman, who blogged about the Twins and who started/created The Hardball Times before moving on to NBC, Baseball Prospectus, and is currently at The Athletic.  Everyone's favorite prospect punching bag Keith Law is another.  It's harder to point to the analytical guys writing for sites like FGs and BBP, since they keep getting hired by MLB teams (Cameron, Sullivan, Bendix)...  Thing is those guys all proved they had the chops to look at players objectively and showed a deeper understanding of the game and of the players who truly stood out from the rest... and that (IMO), is the biggest issue. The vast majority of bloggers are homers and the thought of guys like that being gatekeepers for the HOF is frightening.

Bill James' excellent "What Happened to the Hall of Fame? Baseball, Cooperstown, and the Politics of Glory" goes a long ways towards highlighting the issues with potentially extending the vote to bloggers IMHO.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I can think of several bloggers who would fit this profile. Many baseball books have been written by people with blogs/podcasts (I guess I'd be using the term "blogger" a bit loosely to encompass a more wide range of people). As I said earlier, the people working for MLBTradeRumors would easily be qualified to vote. And, for reasons that I'll post below, I think even some dedicated team sites could be and should be allowed to vote. 

The goal should be to expand the thinking and to generate more interest in the sport. As I said in the article, it is the Hall of Fame, and to that end, it should be represent the interests and thoughts of the fans who go there. Bloggers, even some team site bloggers, would be in the best position to represent those interests.

Again, I'm not talking about the vast majority of bloggers, but, with some vetting and criteria, it would be easy to weed out those who lack the depth of knowledge and analytical abilities to be voting. But, then again, looking at the voting totals of the BBWAA (particularly those who did not get 100 percent of the vote), it's not like the BBWAA can claim that all of their voting members have the knowledge and analytical abilities to always get it right either.

7 minutes ago, floplag said:

Extending the voting body isnt as important as setting some criteria and taking personal butthurt out of it in my view.
Im not opposed to it per say, but lets be real about who bloggers follow.. Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox... teams with large rabid followings to get the clicks and responses they need for content.  Im not sure I would consider many of them really that knowledgeable of the game as a whole, just whatever their audience wants to discuss. 
The MLB media needs o get over a lot of things.. whu spurned them, who wasnt the nicest guy, frankly even the steroid era, since most of them were complicit in that whole thing then threw the players under the bus when the shit hit the fan. 
Once all of these things are addressed, then expand the voting pool where it makes sense.
Sidenote, its time to put Rose in there... but im sure thats an other debate.  

There'd have to be a way to balance it out for all teams so that all teams are represented. Teams should be allowed to vet and recognize the bloggers that they know and trust, and teams should get equal numbers to represent them. And, there would need to be some generic positions as well, for those writers at MLBTradeRumors.com and some other sites as well.

If the voting membership were expanded, it would lead to more writing as more people would want to participate. And, that would lead to more interest in the sport. That would be a good thing for baseball.

I don't see many of the voting members of the BBWAA getting over their issues as easily as you suggest. The better solution would be to expand the voting and open it up more to a greater diversity of opinions.

44 minutes ago, Revad said:

Nice argument. I think that some bloggers should be able to vote.

Thanks. As I said, the eligibility requirements would need to be flushed out. But, think about the writers are MLBTradeRumors.com. How many hundreds of thousands of fans read their material. They will never get to vote for the Hall of Fame, and yet, fans consider them "experts" on the game.

Many legacy media sites have essentially "bloggers" writing commentary about teams and the sport. So, again, they will never get a vote even though they are writing constantly about it. 

I believe that there could be and should be some ways to vet some bloggers (again to separate the idiots with keyboards from those who have more writing experience and analysis) to represent teams and the fans. Leaving the vote to just those members of the BBWAA no longer makes as much sense as it did in 1936. The world has changed a bit from then.

49 minutes ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

Everybody who ever played for the Yankees would automatically make it in.

I wouldn't be so certain of that. With the threshold for admittance still remaining at 75%, my bet is that they wouldn't get in at a higher rate, but players from other teams would get a better chance of admission. 

Thanks for writing this Robert. I always look forward to and enjoy reading your articles.

On 9/7/2020 at 1:41 PM, Angel Oracle said:

Playing 1B, 2B, and 3B is beneficial.   Hasn’t he also played some corner OF?

Yes he has, but he is better defensively in the infield. Putting him in the outfield might not be as bad as Thaiss at 2B, but, it wouldn't be the best either.

Definitely a good kid and a bright spot in our organization. So much of our talent is so young, like William, that our system will become much better as they mature. 

You can see in the video that William has a lot more projectable power and should pick up a couple of MPHs on his FB. With improved control, he has the potential to be a great threat on both sides of the game. 

2 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Yeah. They have considered it. I am not sure why it’s never happened. I agree it would be nice. 
 

Its not like it would be that much cheaper though to just get sports. It’s pretty cheap now. 

Yep. It's just a way to sell more subscriptions. Not that I don't like other writers at the OC Register, it's just, I'd definitely pay for your work. So, they should sell what people want to buy. Or, at least do a limited promo for just the baseball season and the occasional offseason articles that you do. 

Anyways, keep up the good work this season! 

@Jeff Fletcher I hope that this goes well for you. Next year, they should come up with a baseball/sports content package. I wouldn't necessarily want everything from the OC Register, but would buy a package for your content. Have they considered that?

Done. Well worth it to help keep Jeff going for the content. 

In response to several questions:

Where would they play? I believe Arizona is open for business and we have more than enough fields to handle that many players. We may need to put them up somewhere, but again, I did factor in a budget for doing that.

Why so many players? Well, in order to really develop, they need not only drills, but in game experience. To gain that, they need to scrimmage, so, with that many players, they could sign and develop two teams of HS players and two teams of college players to scrimmage and get in-game experience. That would be an extreme number, because they could mix in the Minor Leaguers drafted in the last year or two to continue to develop them. Since not all clubs are going to do this, we would need enough players to have enough for full scrimmages to give as much in-game like experience as we can.

What budget has been cut? The scouts and player development people who have been let go. As someone else pointed out, the whole point of doing this is to have the scouts who have the relationships to get players to sign. The money ($20l) won't be enough to get players to sign necessarily. But, the relationships and the commitment to develop the players this year would go a LONG way to convincing plenty of players to sign. As pointed out, there will be a logjam of players next year, making the draft class much larger (and driving down the potential for a high bonus), so having the connections and the commitment to develop this summer, we could probably convince more players to sign with us. 

While I know that won't happen, it's what I would do if I were running the team.

In addition. To the other pitchers mentioned, I'd be happy with Crochet. 

Here's the thing. If Arte hadn't cut the scouting budget, and instead went big on it, we would be in a much better position to identify those who would sign and would bring value. And, if he he went big on committing to pay and develop minor leaguers this summer, he would be in a better position to attract and sign those players.

I know that we aren't going to do this, and that he did cut the budget, and I think that we will pay a big price for that down the road. There is talent and opportunity here, and I see us missing out on it. 

Thanks ALF. I disagree. I think many players who might go in the later rounds might realize that they will get squeezed over the next few years, and if we committed to not just drafting, but then developing them, might take that opportunity. Most teams won't do much to develop their players until the fall at best. That's going to leave a lot of players falling behind. It's not just about signing the players, it's the commitment to finding a state that is open and developing our players that is what would make the difference. We will need to sign plenty of players to develop those who will make it, but, if we did, that would pay dividends for years to come.

I know that we aren't going to do this, and, I find that rather frustrating as a fan.