IBC

I've brought this up to JP previously, but Andrew's post reminds me, I think that we need to address Chapman as early as we can. I'm not a fan of the way we define international free agents by amateurs versus professional Japanese/Cuban players, and Chapman is a good example. Everyone worth a flip in Cuba is basically a professional, Chapman is apparently not ready for the majors, and in a lot of ways isn't any different from the 19 year olds from Korea who just graduated from HS and are regarded as amateurs.

Other leagues define it by whether an international player is given a major league deal or not, which I'd see as an improvement over our rule but not ideal.

At any rate, whether we adjust our definition or not, I think that the rule is ambiguous for Chapman, so if we're going to call him a major league/professional type, we need to be out in front of the situation, so that the decision doesn't look too subjective and reactive.

Oh, I forgot to mention my main illustration of why it's a problem.

Boston gave $8 million to a guy named Iglasias, who's 19 and clearly an A-ball player by reports. What differentiates Chapman from that guy, who I think most would consider as lumped in with Angel Villalona types, rather than Daisuke Matsuzaka types.

Definition meaning he should be in the draft? And by our current rules he wouldn't be? I'm confused by what point you're trying to make here.

No, definition meaning, when does he have to sign by to stick with the team that drafts him? We have two sets of rules, one deadline is 12/31, one is the start of the next season. And Chapman may well sign during that window.

Oh okay. I'm open on the topic, not sure I see anything really convincing one way or another.

Dodgers wrote:Oh okay. I'm open on the topic, not sure I see anything really convincing one way or another.

My main concern with it isn't whether we change our rule or not, but that we define what he is as early as we can. As I said, I think that our "rule" on this is ambiguous, and the ruling could seem arbitrary if we make it on, say, November 28. I know if I had the #2 pick (or #1 if Strasburg doesn't sign) and find out right before the draft that he has to sign in December for me to get him, I'd feel like I have a pretty good argument for him having a later signing date. And visa versa. I think that changing the rule would probably make it clearer, but whatever, I just think it needs to be dealt with before it becomes personal.

Seems like maybe we should take the "guesswork" out of this altogether by changing the rules to only have one date?

Dodgers wrote:Seems like maybe we should take the "guesswork" out of this altogether by changing the rules to only have one date?

That's one solution, and it would probably be my preference. The tough thing if we do that is that there would be periodic Japanese guys (Saito) who would sign in the spring but wouldn't be eligible for the season, and if you went the other way, it would be virtually impossible to track amateur signings.

Another thing that leagues do is determine it for Cubans, Japanese, etc. by whether they do major league deals. It's pretty arbitrary, I mean I could see Chapman going either way and we wouldn't know until he signs (which would probably be after he's picked), but it would at least be definitive.

I prefer the "one date" approach ...

As someone that doesn't go after international signings, I'll just go along with whatever y'all decide

Just a reminder that we need to settle this before the draft in case he doesn't sign until January. It's looking like he'll be a Yankee before then, but it would be a a pretty bad situation if we don't define him and he signs later.

Put him in the draft

Cardinals wrote:Put him in the draft

He's in the draft, but he's on the border between what we've previously defined as a December 31 deadline and a spring training deadline.

As is Noel Arguellas.

So these are the options that I see:

1. Leave the rule as it states currently and clarify that anyone from Cuba, regardless of age, and anyone who has played pro ball in Japan can be signed until the later date or can be drafted and retained.

2. Change the rule to state that all players who have not signed for the first time with an MLB club by December 31 can't be signed and their draft rights will not be retained. If we opt for this, do we want to move the draft date back to start on Jan 1 (if not this year, next year)?

3. Retain the current dates but use the type of contract (major league, minor league) to determine whether the player must sign by Dec 31 or the season.

4. Allow the league to vote on two or three of these options, knowing that a change would require 20 votes (and technically I think it would require five votes from us to go with #2 or #3) as the current exco rules read.

Any other options?

We just can't allow the draft to start with any ambiguity about Chapman's situation.

I like option one the best. It seems to be the easiest.

Yeah I agree, option 1 seems to be the easiest to communicate and enforce.

I think that Aaron has said that he would go along with the majority on this, so we just need Andrew and Jim to state whether they agree with JP and Shawn. I would probably go for one of the other two options, for the same reason that you guys opted for the first one, but my opinion is much stronger that we need to clarify/settle it before the draft than on which route we go. One other advantage on the first choice is that it wouldn't be a rule change, so procedurally we would only need a consensus of four people.

Option One sounds like the better of two options

Tigers wrote:So these are the options that I see:

1. Leave the rule as it states currently and clarify that anyone from Cuba, regardless of age, and anyone who has played pro ball in Japan can be signed until the later date or can be drafted and retained.

2. Change the rule to state that all players who have not signed for the first time with an MLB club by December 31 can't be signed and their draft rights will not be retained. If we opt for this, do we want to move the draft date back to start on Jan 1 (if not this year, next year)?

3. Retain the current dates but use the type of contract (major league, minor league) to determine whether the player must sign by Dec 31 or the season.

4. Allow the league to vote on two or three of these options, knowing that a change would require 20 votes (and technically I think it would require five votes from us to go with #2 or #3) as the current exco rules read.

Any other options?

We just can't allow the draft to start with any ambiguity about Chapman's situation.

I personally prefer option 3 but will go along with option 1 for at least this season as I agree that it is the easiest to communicate and enforce given how close we are to December 1 ...

Okay, I'm just going to announce that we decided to leave the rule as is with the clarification that anyone of any age who originates from Cuba has until the latter date to sign.