IBC

Would you like to see the AA rule disappear and let the members of the TRC and GMs value players on their own merit and not have some rule prevent trades that work out well for both teams ?

That has to be the most leading way to ever pose a question, you might as well have written it as:

Take it away because it's a stupid rule, or keep it even though there is no logical reason for it and only morons like it.

Royals wrote:That has to be the most leading way to ever pose a question, you might as well have written it as:

Take it away because it's a stupid rule, or keep it even though there is no logical reason for it and only morons like it.

Well, if you would like it kept please state so. Let us discuss in my blog!

Close vote so far...

I realize JP's question is leading, but I'm pretty sure everyone already had an opinion on the AA rule before reading it.

The thing that JP continues to fail to understand is that doing what's right and doing what's popular aren't always the same thing. JP is unwilling to make the unpopular decision, unwilling to enforce rules and unwilling to apply penalties. It doesn't matter if these are the right things to do or if they're good for the league as a whole. They're unpopular so he doesn't like to do them.

RedSox wrote:The thing that JP continues to fail to understand is that doing what's right and doing what's popular aren't always the same thing. JP is unwilling to make the unpopular decision, unwilling to enforce rules and unwilling to apply penalties. It doesn't matter if these are the right things to do or if they're good for the league as a whole. They're unpopular so he doesn't like to do them.

And that has to do with what? This is a discussion on the rule. Please state your position on the rule, otherwise please stay out of this thread.

Let's not get carried away folks. This is JP's BLOG. This is not official. This will never be anything official. It is his opinion and nothing more. And don't say some load of horse shit about how he's on the EXCO and can sway people. We're all adults here. Nobody is going to see that JP dislikes the AA rule and go, oh crap well JP hates it so now I hate it.

I have to say, from some of the comments I've seen I'm not sure everyone is viewing the AA rule the same.

Some seem to think the rule states that any player below AA has "NO Value", whereas, my understanding of the rule has always been the players below AA will be viewed with a "Discounted Value". You can still trade a top prospect who's below AA, and get value in return, you just have to discount the value of that player in realizing he's still a long way from the majors and has a significant hump, for lack of a better work, that he has to prove he can get past in AA.

When trades are being rejected where there is a lower level prospect being traded for a journeyman MLBer who has little value, I don't think those deals should be rejected based on the AA rule, unless there is some significant value the MLB player being traded has.

Maybe it is a case of this rule being interpreted a bit too literally. It just seems to me that some have gone off the deep end in respect to interpreting this rule.

The sub AA rule is unpopular, but it IS necessary. It pushed down an exorbitant prospect market and has kept it from becoming ridiculous again, as it inevitably will if the rule is changed. No one is getting shafted on deals because of it.
The TRC isn't terribly popular either, I'm sure plenty of GM's think that experienced GM's should be able to do whatever they like, doesn't matter if JB deals off Pujols for Lars Anderson, he's an established GM, he should be able to do what he wants. Doubly so since the most stacked team in the league is getting taken for ride in the deal.
The No-pick trading rule was unpopular as well, yet you yourself admitted recently that we probably need it back.
I'm sure expanding rosters again would be a popular idea too. It would also be ridiculous.
Rules aren't made to be popular, they're made to keep the game fair and even.

Mariners wrote:I have to say, from some of the comments I've seen I'm not sure everyone is viewing the AA rule the same.

Some seem to think the rule states that any player below AA has "NO Value", whereas, my understanding of the rule has always been the players below AA will be viewed with a "Discounted Value". You can still trade a top prospect who's below AA, and get value in return, you just have to discount the value of that player in realizing he's still a long way from the majors and has a significant hump, for lack of a better work, that he has to prove he can get past in AA.

When trades are being rejected where there is a lower level prospect being traded for a journeyman MLBer who has little value, I don't think those deals should be rejected based on the AA rule, unless there is some significant value the MLB player being traded has.

Maybe it is a case of this rule being interpreted a bit too literally. It just seems to me that some have gone off the deep end in respect to interpreting this rule.

13. As trading commodities, players with little or no experience at AA or higher will be viewed with lower value when traded for players at AA or higher owing to the high attrition rate as prospects move from the low minors to the high minors. (per leaguewide vote, 12/05, in exchange for looser trade standards involving established players).

Maybe there's a way to codify this a little better. Does anyone know what the failure rate is for prospects heading up to AA? I'm sure BP or someone must have it somewhere. If it's something like 60% then we can instruct the TRC to discount the value of sub-AA 60% and evaluate trades that way.

RedSox wrote:
13. As trading commodities, players with little or no experience at AA or higher will be viewed with lower value when traded for players at AA or higher owing to the high attrition rate as prospects move from the low minors to the high minors. (per leaguewide vote, 12/05, in exchange for looser trade standards involving established players).

Bolded part.....hence my comment. We aren't suppose to treat players below AA with "NO Value"......just "Lower Value".

Mariners wrote:I have to say, from some of the comments I've seen I'm not sure everyone is viewing the AA rule the same.

Some seem to think the rule states that any player below AA has "NO Value", whereas, my understanding of the rule has always been the players below AA will be viewed with a "Discounted Value". You can still trade a top prospect who's below AA, and get value in return, you just have to discount the value of that player in realizing he's still a long way from the majors and has a significant hump, for lack of a better work, that he has to prove he can get past in AA.

When trades are being rejected where there is a lower level prospect being traded for a journeyman MLBer who has little value, I don't think those deals should be rejected based on the AA rule, unless there is some significant value the MLB player being traded has.

Maybe it is a case of this rule being interpreted a bit too literally. It just seems to me that some have gone off the deep end in respect to interpreting this rule.

I do not disagree with this. It seems to me that the rule is taken in black and white which is ridiculous. If this is the case, the rule needs to go. It also takes away from the opinion of the TRC member who is a judge of value. This is telling the TRC member, regardless of whether its to have no value or discounted value, how to value a player. That is wrong IMO.

You don't get rid of a rule just because people aren't interpreting it correctly. You clarify it or you remind them THIS is the rule, not THAT.

RedSox wrote:You don't get rid of a rule just because people aren't intrepreting it correctly. You clarify it.

And why can't it be done with anyway? The league was fine for five years without it and it allowed GMs to build their teams as they see fit.

I do not disagree with this. It seems to me that the rule is taken in black and white which is ridiculous. If this is the case, the rule needs to go. It also takes away from the opinion of the TRC member who is a judge of value. This is telling the TRC member, regardless of whether its to have no value or discounted value, how to value a player. That is wrong IMO.

I agree, taking the rule as black or white, (ie. has value above AA ro no value below AA) is interpreting the rule incorrectly.

I also think the rule was needed when it was put in place, because prospects were being given way too much value in the league. Its one thing to value the top 50 prospects in the game, but prospect who had one good season in Low A were all of a sudden becoming huge commodities in the IBC and being traded for quality MLB regulars. Thus the direct of the rule was implemented in order to tell the TRC to "discount" the value of the lower level players to a reasonable level given the high attrition rates A ball prospects go through.

Anyways, I don't think the rule is bad when it is interpreted correctly. It just seems lately the interpretation has gotten a bit extreme.

Mariners wrote:

I do not disagree with this. It seems to me that the rule is taken in black and white which is ridiculous. If this is the case, the rule needs to go. It also takes away from the opinion of the TRC member who is a judge of value. This is telling the TRC member, regardless of whether its to have no value or discounted value, how to value a player. That is wrong IMO.

I agree, taking the rule as black or white, (ie. has value above AA ro no value below AA) is interpreting the rule incorrectly.

I also think the rule was needed when it was put in place, because prospects were being given way too much value in the league. Its one thing to value the top 50 prospects in the game, but prospect who had one good season in Low A were all of a sudden becoming huge commodities in the IBC and being traded for quality MLB regulars. Thus the direct of the rule was implemented in order to tell the TRC to "discount" the value of the lower level players to a reasonable level given the high attrition rates A ball prospects go through.

Anyways, I don't think the rule is bad when it is interpreted correctly. It just seems lately the interpretation has gotten a bit extreme.

I just think that a GM and the TRC should be capable of evaluating talent in their own minds at this point in the league. Rick Porcello is a sub-AA player and would be discounted. What exactly is he worth to somebody like Jake? A lot. And what if somebody wanted to acquire him, they would probably have to give up a good MLB player. Is that a bad deal? No. If it's somebody like Johan, yeah, then that's a bad deal. But it just tells GMs how to value players which is wrong.

Additionally, it completely is contradictory that draft picks can be dealt for MLB Players (something that Bren himself did) yet sub AA players can't be dealt freely.

It's hypocritical and needs to change.

The rule was put in place after four years because there was a problem with the trade market. This was something that everyone knew. It's easy to forget that now because with the rule in place, it hasn't become a problem again.

RedSox wrote:The rule was put in place after four years because there was a problem with the trade market. This was something that everyone knew. It's easy to forget that now because with the rule in place, it hasn't become a problem again.

Thats your opinion that the trade market was F'ed up.

Rick Porcello is a top prospect in anyone's evaluation. What about my man Antonio Bastardo (9-0 1.87 ERA in his full season debut last year in the SAL)? Those are some pretty sick numbers, should I be able to trade him for Milton Bradley?

Athletics wrote:Rick Porcello is a top prospect in anyone's evaluation. What about my man Antonio Bastardo (9-0 1.87 ERA in his full season debut last year in the SAL)? Those are some pretty sick numbers, should I be able to trade him for Milton Bradley?

Do you judge solely on numbers? nope. Not sure anybody does.

It's hypocritical and needs to change.

Just to make sure we are being consistent here, that is also just "an opinion".

Mariners wrote:

It's hypocritical and needs to change.

Just to make sure we are being consistent here, that is also just "an opinion".

It is hypocritical and I'm not sure how else it can be taken.

You cannot trade Juan Rivera for an A-ball prospect.

You can trade Juan Rivera for a mid range draft pick.


That's not hypocritical?

Pirates wrote:

Mariners wrote:

It's hypocritical and needs to change.

Just to make sure we are being consistent here, that is also just "an opinion".

It is hypocritical and I'm not sure how else it can be taken.

You cannot trade Juan Rivera for an A-ball prospect.

You can trade Juan Rivera for a mid range draft pick.


That's not hypocritical?

Yup, it is. And as you observed, the restriction on the draft pick trading should be returned, it's too hard to accurately gauge the value of those picks. Like I have been saying all along.