The Below AA Rule

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:33 pm

What are your guys thoughts on it in the trade review process? Do you like it? Do you hate it? Are you in the middle on it? Would like to see some feedback on this as it's often a point of contention in trades, specifically trades involving players for the prior years draft class.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:37 pm

Absolutely HATE it..

Have hated it since its inception.

And having served on the TRC in some form of capacity, it was a major sticking point on many deals some of us would have otherwise pass. Prime example being the Kevin Millwood for 3 prospects deal that was vetoed twice, all because of the AA mandate.

IMO, its an awful rule - because of the depth and quality of GM's now in this league - its harder than ever to find prospects. So you look at the lowest levels these days. And you can find some really good prospects there. But they have zero value due to this mandate. I'm not saying they should carry a ton of weight, but to negate all their value is foolish.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:42 pm

I think the trade review process in general is fine as is, though my tweaks would be:

A) add in the extra step to let the TRC "get it right," which I detailed in some earlier posts, and

B) do away with the "below AA" rule. I'm with those who don't think this is necessary. GMs on the TRC should be experienced enough and familiar enough with prospects that a rule like this is unnecessary. Attempting to place a blanket value of some kind on prospects based on level throws a wrench in what I think would otherwise be a pretty smooth process. Not only should most GMs in the league have some sense of the value of top prospects at this point, but even for those less interested in minor leaguers, there are so many resources available online that provide one ranking or another that it's not hard to get a general idea as to how to value a guy in trade.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:44 pm

It's harder to sign prospects sure, but that has nothing to do with trades.
It still remains exceptionally hard to evaluate the value on sub AA players. Just look at Joe Benson. John Sickels left him out of his top 20 for the Twins while Baseball America had him at #2 and BP had him at #11. He's one of the more extreme cases but it highlights why these players are so difficult to gauge as far as value.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:47 pm

I'd disagree that its hard to gauge.. Benson has a lot of upside, but he's not on very many people's radar.. that means he has some good things going for him, and some not so good things. Personaly, you'll never find Benson on my squad until he does something - but I can understand why someone might want to take a chance on him NOW, in the even he does turn those tools into something. Its a bit more subjective, so it should carry less weight. But it shouldn't be completely discounted either. We're 30 smart GM's. Seems pretty easy.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:49 pm

Right but how do you gauge Benson's value NOW? What is he worth for a guy in the MLB?

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:52 pm

RedSox wrote:It's harder to sign prospects sure, but that has nothing to do with trades.
It still remains exceptionally hard to evaluate the value on sub AA players. Just look at Joe Benson. John Sickels left him out of his top 20 for the Twins while Baseball America had him at #2 and BP had him at #11. He's one of the more extreme cases but it highlights why these players are so difficult to gauge as far as value.

But a trade veto shouldn't hinge on the value of a player like Benson. The only place I could see this being a problem would be in evaluating a deal where 5 Joe Bensons are being traded for a star player or something. That seems an unlikely scenario. For a trade to be vetoed, it should be ridiculously lopsided before even considering the values of the Joe Bensons of the world. We don't need to rely on one ranking or another. If a player at lower levels is all over different prospect boards, then he's A) probably not an elite prospect who could swing a deal one way or another or B) at the very least comparably less valuable than a prospect at the same level ranked more consistently on "top prospect" lists by various outlets. The actual # rank from list-to-list doesn't matter so much.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:58 pm

Pirates wrote:Right but how do you gauge Benson's value NOW? What is he worth for a guy in the MLB?

We don't even have to know that for trade veto purposes. We just have to know that he's not valuable enough alone to bring an All-Star caliber/solidly above average player.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:59 pm

I think BA, BP and Sickels would all agree his value is very hard to gauge. Sickels even said something to that effect and we all know what a Twins homer he is. The rule came about, as I recall, as a result of the uncertainty around these players and because the market in the IBC was extraordinarily unhealthy. Are these players not getting fair value now because of this rule? I don't think so. My own trade got vetoed last year as a direct result of this rule, did I think that was wrong? Not at all. I felt like I was getting a damn steal and I was ready with an alternate offer before it even went to the TRC.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:00 pm

I mean, I don't particularly like the rule but I can see why it was implemented. I don't disagree with you guys at all. In a simple one for one trade, what is the worth of somebody like that? A utility man? Pen arm? I don't see why not, since those are players that don't an impact in the grand scheme.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:04 pm

While I don't think the "below AA" rule is necessary, I also don't think removing it is urgent as I think it's effect is pretty limited.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:07 pm

Marlins wrote:While I don't think the "below AA" rule is necessary, I also don't think removing it is urgent as I think it's effect is pretty limited.

I agree, which is why i started the discussion. It's not urgent but it's something that could be addressed down the road.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:07 pm

And it's something everybody seems to bitch about as well so I figure why not.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:08 pm

Pirates wrote:I mean, I don't particularly like the rule but I can see why it was implemented. I don't disagree with you guys at all. In a simple one for one trade, what is the worth of somebody like that? A utility man? Pen arm? I don't see why not, since those are players that don't an impact in the grand scheme.

Right, but that's not what the IBC market was like at that time. We were seeing guys with less than half a season being dealt for solid starters. The rule pushed an unhealthy market down.
Is it repressing the market now? I certainly don't think so because the market has become healthier (due to the rule change). when's the last time a trade got vetoed with that rule being cited? Mine last year? The one that I didn't even expect to pass?
Some people will want to be able to trade whoever they want for whatever they can get, they want a completely free market. Well, that's not this league. We had that before and it created HUGE power balance problems, ones which we're still dealing with. In another thread, someone asked for some sort of established standards on how to evaluate trades. This is the closest we have to that.

Basically, this rule isn't doing any harm to the market as it is now. It did a lot of good in correcting it before and I'd rather see it kept on the books in order to prevent another similar extreme swing in market value.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:39 pm

I think the rule doesn't do what it intends.

Guys like Adenhart, Joba, etc that were recently A-Ballerr would not have netted the likes of Curt Schilling, by letter of the law.

To me, what the rule does is put the better scouting GM's at a disadvantage.

I agree there needs to be a benchmark, but a rule that handicaps what a GM can do doens't work, in my humble opinion.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:58 pm

I think the case in point problem is a guy like Jimmy Barthmaier. Look at his pre-2007 numbers, not a single numerical red flag, but then put him up against AA competition, which every real life MLB executive acknowledge is the test that separates the men from the boys, and one year later he's cut from his organization. I kinda enjoy John using the word scouting in his previous post, because we don't actually scout our prospects and the AA rule is an acknowledgment of that. We read second hand reports, which only have so much value, and often times guys are signed based on 3 or 4 sentences in a BA article. The AA rule was enacted because trades had become the equivalent of the Mystery Box on a game show, most prospects below High A are essentially a Mystery Box, they could be superstars or they could be absolutely nothing like on the Wheel of Fish in UHF.

Mariners · Post by **Mariners** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:05 pm

Athletics wrote:we don't actually scout our prospects..

Speak for yourself!

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:17 pm

Athletics wrote:I think the case in point problem is a guy like Jimmy Barthmaier. Look at his pre-2007 numbers, not a single numerical red flag, but then put him up against AA competition, which every real life MLB executive acknowledge is the test that separates the men from the boys, and one year later he's cut from his organization. I kinda enjoy John using the word scouting in his previous post, because we don't actually scout our prospects and the AA rule is an acknowledgment of that. We read second hand reports, which only have so much value, and often times guys are signed based on 3 or 4 sentences in a BA article. The AA rule was enacted because trades had become the equivalent of the Mystery Box on a game show, most prospects below High A are essentially a Mystery Box, they could be superstars or they could be absolutely nothing like on the Wheel of Fish in UHF.

I'm going down to FL in 2 weeks to take in a week of spring games. You better believe I'll be dealing for A-Ball guys that impress me.

Also, I used to go to about 20 Daytona Cubs games a summer when I lived there....I would think that's scouting to me.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:20 pm

That certainly counts, maybe I spoke too broadly, but I think that would be an exception rather than a rule.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:52 pm

Exception or not, I would be penalized under the current system because I was able to scout those players first hand.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:03 pm

Perhaps we should have an "I saw the guy" exception, I definitely think there is a big difference between trading for an A ball player you've been watching for a couple of years and someone whose stats you've been following.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:07 pm

Rockies wrote:Exception or not, I would be penalized under the current system because I was able to scout those players first hand.

That's a bit of an oversimplification I think. Again, I don't think the sub-AA rule is necessary, but the only thing the TC would "penalize" anyone for would be for accepting so much less than fair market value for a player or players that it created an unfair advantage for one team.

If you scout some low level players, and feel you have better information than others on the player such that you value him more highly, you can still probably acquire that player by "overpaying" according to IBC standards without making the sort of lopsided deal that the TC would have to veto, with or without the sub-AA rule. Besides, what good would your additional information be if you weren't able to turn it into an advantage for your team? The benefits of scouting a guy and determining you like him more than everyone else are wasted if you pay well above market value to acquire him.

The rule isn't much of a rule anyway, as all it does is say that the TC will view sub-AA guys as having "lower value" in deals for established guys. That's not too restrictive, since the individual TC member decides for himself exactly how much to "lower" their value, if at all. As Bren noted earlier, it was a reaction to requests for more insight as to how trades are evaluated, and at this point doesn't have a lot of teeth, imo.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:08 pm

Disagree. We're not professional scouts. Whatever I see, (not likely) But I could be completely wrong or a total tool. I dont think "having seen the guy" is a good idea for an exception to any rule, under any circumstance. That's just what I think though.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:09 pm

If it's not a rule, then what are we talking about?

It's one thing to have a set of guidelines that predicated on the leagues culture, but it's another thing to discount all players who have yet to reach AA.

There's plent of shitty guys at AA, that are way worse than guys at A-ball.

I think where I have the major problem is, I can deal my 2nd round pick, which is like gold to some people for Curt Schilling (just an example), but I can't deal the player I drafted with that pick if he's only in A-Ball.....The logic doesn't make sense to me. But if it's just a guideline for the TRC, and not an actual rule, then there's no problems with any of it.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:18 pm

Rockies wrote:If it's not a rule, then what are we talking about?

It's one thing to have a set of guidelines that predicated on the leagues culture, but it's another thing to discount all players who have yet to reach AA.

There's plent of shitty guys at AA, that are way worse than guys at A-ball.

I think where I have the major problem is, I can deal my 2nd round pick, which is like gold to some people for Curt Schilling (just an example), but I can't deal the player I drafted with that pick if he's only in A-Ball.....The logic doesn't make sense to me. But if it's just a guideline for the TRC, and not an actual rule, then there's no problems with any of it.

By it's wording it has to be just a guideline and not an actual rule, which is why I think that while it might be unnecessary, it's not particularly harmful.