IBC

We will begin the 2009 rookie draft on December 1st, which falls on a Tuesday this year. There will be no picking early or starting the draft early as that just seems to cause chaos. Again, the start date will be 12/1/2009.

So if Aroldis Chapman has not signed before 12/1/09 he not available for the draft?

And, in the future when we want to sign International players, we will now have to find out which month they were signed as opposed to just which year?

DBacks wrote:So if Aroldis Chapman has not signed before 12/1/09 he not available for the draft?

Dont worry JT, Aroldis will be available even if hes not signed

DBacks wrote:So if Aroldis Chapman has not signed before 12/1/09 he not available for the draft?

And, in the future when we want to sign International players, we will now have to find out which month they were signed as opposed to just which year?

I've broached this a few times in exco. We'll vote on it before the draft. This applies to Noel Arguelles as well.

Thanks Brett.

Tigers wrote:

DBacks wrote:So if Aroldis Chapman has not signed before 12/1/09 he not available for the draft?

And, in the future when we want to sign International players, we will now have to find out which month they were signed as opposed to just which year?

I've broached this a few times in exco. We'll vote on it before the draft. This applies to Noel Arguelles as well.

Isn't this already covered in the rules?


2. A player will be returned to the draft pool for the next season under the following conditions. If the player was drafted by an MLB team and does not sign a new contract before the next MLB draft (the 2007 MLB draft in the example above). If the player is a Cuban defector or is from another professional league such as Japan, Korea or Mexico and does not sign a contract with an MLB team by opening day (Opening Day of the 2007 season in the example above). If the does not fall under one of these two categories, he must have signed a contract with an MLB team prior to January first of that year (prior to January 1st of 2007 in the example above).

Basically, we can draft foreign professional league free agents like Chapman, anyone from Japan, Korea, etc, and the risk is if they don't sign with an MLB team by opening day you lose their rights.

I think you are confusing this rule with the 16 year old international signing period kids. If they aren't signed by the start of the draft then they go into the next season's draft. But international pro players that say they are coming to the MLB are free to be drafted in our drafts regardless of whether or not they have signed an MLB contract yet or not.

That is how we've done it in the past.

Mariners wrote:

Tigers wrote:

DBacks wrote:So if Aroldis Chapman has not signed before 12/1/09 he not available for the draft?

And, in the future when we want to sign International players, we will now have to find out which month they were signed as opposed to just which year?

I've broached this a few times in exco. We'll vote on it before the draft. This applies to Noel Arguelles as well.

Isn't this already covered in the rules?


2. A player will be returned to the draft pool for the next season under the following conditions. If the player was drafted by an MLB team and does not sign a new contract before the next MLB draft (the 2007 MLB draft in the example above). If the player is a Cuban defector or is from another professional league such as Japan, Korea or Mexico and does not sign a contract with an MLB team by opening day (Opening Day of the 2007 season in the example above). If the does not fall under one of these two categories, he must have signed a contract with an MLB team prior to January first of that year (prior to January 1st of 2007 in the example above).

Basically, we can draft foreign professional league free agents like Chapman, anyone from Japan, Korea, etc, and the risk is if they don't sign with an MLB team by opening day you lose their rights.

I think you are confusing this rule with the 16 year old international signing period kids. If they aren't signed by the start of the draft then they go into the next season's draft. But international pro players that say they are coming to the MLB are free to be drafted in our drafts regardless of whether or not they have signed an MLB contract yet or not.

That is how we've done it in the past.

I tend to disagree, and the reason is that the sort of player defecting in Cuba is more varied. Jose Contreras, sure, he falls under the defector label by the intent of that language. Chapman & Iglesias, eh, kind of. Arguelles? What about an 18 year old? What about a 17 year old? A 16 year old phenom? I don't see how it makes sense to treat a 16 or 17 year old Cuban like El Duque rather than Michael Ynoa. The idea, as I understood it, was that we wanted guys who would impact the major leagues in a fairly big way to have a full chance to get on a roster. Noel Arguelles doesn't figure to impact MLB this year, nor does Jose Iglesias.

We have talked about distinguishing the kids from the "professionals" by whether the guy signs a major league deal, though I don't know that it had a ton of support.

If nothing else, we have to be a little more explicit with the language of the rule moving forward, so we will at least add some clarification.

Dayan Viciedo didn't sign a contract until December 12 (IIRC we started the draft 12/1 last year as well), and there was no doubt he was available as a 19 year old. Chapman, Arguelles, and Iglesias definitely fit that mold.

Athletics wrote:Dayan Viciedo didn't sign a contract until December 12 (IIRC we started the draft 12/1 last year as well), and there was no doubt he was available as a 19 year old. Chapman, Arguelles, and Iglesias definitely fit that mold.

Yeah, the issue to me isn't as much whether a guy will be eligible to be drafted, but when the deadline for a club to sign him so that you keep his rights.

Tigers wrote:

Athletics wrote:Dayan Viciedo didn't sign a contract until December 12 (IIRC we started the draft 12/1 last year as well), and there was no doubt he was available as a 19 year old. Chapman, Arguelles, and Iglesias definitely fit that mold.

Yeah, the issue to me isn't as much whether a guy will be eligible to be drafted, but when the deadline for a club to sign him so that you keep his rights.

That's fine if you disagree with the way its been done in the past, there is no reason the league can't discuss changing the rule if the ExCo thinks it needs to be changed.

It would be nice to have a league discussion about it if it is going to change before the draft this season, just so everyone knows what's going on. Since it sounds like it might end up being a formal rule change.

Mariners wrote:

Tigers wrote:

Athletics wrote:Dayan Viciedo didn't sign a contract until December 12 (IIRC we started the draft 12/1 last year as well), and there was no doubt he was available as a 19 year old. Chapman, Arguelles, and Iglesias definitely fit that mold.

Yeah, the issue to me isn't as much whether a guy will be eligible to be drafted, but when the deadline for a club to sign him so that you keep his rights.

That's fine if you disagree with the way its been done in the past, there is no reason the league can't discuss changing the rule if the ExCo thinks it needs to be changed.

It would be nice to have a league discussion about it if it is going to change before the draft this season, just so everyone knows what's going on. Since it sounds like it might end up being a formal rule change.

Talk away.

Tigers wrote:

Mariners wrote:

Tigers wrote: Yeah, the issue to me isn't as much whether a guy will be eligible to be drafted, but when the deadline for a club to sign him so that you keep his rights.

That's fine if you disagree with the way its been done in the past, there is no reason the league can't discuss changing the rule if the ExCo thinks it needs to be changed.

It would be nice to have a league discussion about it if it is going to change before the draft this season, just so everyone knows what's going on. Since it sounds like it might end up being a formal rule change.

Talk away.

I guess my question to you would be, based on what you've said above, what do you think the "correct" cutoff level should be? 16 years old? 17? 18? 20? Plus would you apply it only to Cubans or would it also apply to the Japanese high schoolers who have recently decided to start looking at the MLB?

Plus, how does the current rule really hurt youngers from Cuba? What the current rule does is make it a little more risky for GM's to sign young Cuban players who are a long ways from the majors. If you as a GM wants to risk signing a 16 year old Cuban "phenom" and he doesn't sign with an MLB team by opening day, then he goes back into the next years draft. The only person getting hurt is the GM who chose to take that risk. Its not hurting the league any, because the player doesn't become a FA the second he signs with an MLB team, he just goes into the next year's draft.

I guess the only real difference I see between how we are currently treating Central American 16 year olds and the young Cubans/Japanese, etc is that GM's are allowed to speculate a little on the Cubans and Japanese by drafting them before they sign an MLB contract. This hasn't been a big issue in the past because there really haven't been any 16 year old Cuban "phenoms" defecting. Maybe it is more of an issue now, but it doesn't seem like we are treating them all that differently than we currently treat the Central Americans.

I could probably be convinced its a bigger issue now, but I'm not sure it is really. If the Cuban's youngers really are phenom's, then I imagine MLB teams will probably scoop them up pretty quickly and most of them won't go beyond the opening day signing date. The whole "establishing residency somewhere thing" can take a little but more time, but these day's it seems like a few greased palms and guys get residency just about as fast as they can get an apartment in the US.

So, at the end of the day would your proposed change be to not allow Cuban/Japanese/Korean/Chinese youngers below a certain age to be drafted until they sign an official MLB/minor league contract or to just allow a longer period before you lose their draft rights?

I can see some sense to treating them the same way we do the other Central American 16 year olds and not allow anyone to draft them if they aren't signed if they are below the age of 17 or something, but I'm not sure I agree with an arguement that we should give GM's a longer signing grace period, after they took the risk of speculating on them.

I've always been confused on the rules in this league.

I remember a couple of years ago, Pat created and signed Saito in March, I believe. He was a 0-Saito guy the whole year....I tried to draft Saito the following offseason, thinking he was draft eligible since he wasn't signed prior to January 1 of that year...I was wrong, and couldn't draft him. I stopped trying to figure it out after that.

Mets wrote:I've always been confused on the rules in this league.

I remember a couple of years ago, Pat created and signed Saito in March, I believe. He was a 0-Saito guy the whole year....I tried to draft Saito the following offseason, thinking he was draft eligible since he wasn't signed prior to January 1 of that year...I was wrong, and couldn't draft him. I stopped trying to figure it out after that.

Maybe I'm interpreting the part about them going back into the following year's draft incorrectly and they do just become "free agents" after opening day. It is worth discussing and clarifying.

In Saito's case, if he was signed before opening day, I would think he should have been a -07 (or whatever draft that year was) player and was still eligible to be signed/drafted because we hadn't reached opening day yet. If he had been signed in April (after opening day) then my interpretation would be that he would go into the next season's IBC draft. In March his draft rights were still available to everyone just like they were during that year's draft, its just that nobody apparently chose to risk drafting him.

According to Baseball-Refernce.com, Saito signed:

February 7, 2006: Signed as a Free Agent with the Los Angeles Dodgers

He was created by the blue jays on:
Transactions
Team Action Date
BlueJays Sign and Create Mar 27, 8:20 pm (2006)

So essentially, he signed a major leauge contract, and was signed by the Blue Jays a month later.

I complained he should have been exposed to the following years draft, and I was subsequently told to shut the hell up.

Mets wrote:According to Baseball-Refernce.com, Saito signed:

February 7, 2006: Signed as a Free Agent with the Los Angeles Dodgers

He was created by the blue jays on:
Transactions
Team Action Date
BlueJays Sign and Create Mar 27, 8:20 pm (2006)

So essentially, he signed a major leauge contract, and was signed by the Blue Jays a month later.

I complained he should have been exposed to the following years draft, and I was subsequently told to shut the hell up.

I agree with this POV. I don't have a big hang-up about it either way, but I don't see what the big tragedy is if a guy plays in the major leagues and is not eligible in IBC, and I like clean rules, like, anyone who signs with a team in MLB in 2009 is eligible to be drafted or subsequently signed in 2010. The biggest downside to me is that you're still having to take a bit of a risk on a Chapman since we start the draft in December, but in the future we could always start drafting in January again, and as the rules are now, you have a similar risk with the professional types all of the way through the draft. You also have situations where guys that we don't really know about are signed and publicized, and the guy on the clock later in a draft gets a steal.

Would it be possible to change the draft picks on everyone's roster into the actual draft pick #? I think last year once the season ended the picks were changed to 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. The way it is not is jsut a bit confusing with all the teams changing location and trying to match it up to the records.

I agree with Nils on the pick numbers.

The rules state that Japanese and Cuban players have until Opening Day to sign with a team which is why John was told to shut the hell up and read the rules.

As it stands, every player is subject to the draft, which is as it should be. The rules can be a little confusing since they've been revised and added to over 8 years. IMO, the eligibility rule should be Jan 1 to Dec 31 for all players, no exceptions and the draft start date should be set to January 1, not december 1.

Padres wrote:I agree with Nils on the pick numbers.

The rules state that Japanese and Cuban players have until Opening Day to sign with a team which is why John was told to shut the hell up and read the rules.

As it stands, every player is subject to the draft, which is as it should be. The rules can be a little confusing since they've been revised and added to over 8 years. IMO, the eligibility rule should be Jan 1 to Dec 31 for all players, no exceptions and the draft start date should be set to January 1, not december 1.

He was also told to shut the hell up for a few other reasons.

OOPSS wasn't fully operational at the time. I signed Saito on March 4th. The draft ended on February 3rd. The rules at the time gave a window of opportunity to sign players one month after the season ended. My interpretation of one month being 30 days, February is a short month.

No GM questions the signing until July. I think Jagger brought it up to initiate a discussion about changing the rule on eligibility to a firm date (sign before opening day?). We had a couple of long e-mail threads, a discussion thread, a web poll and finally a decision by the commish (Bren, no exec committee).

On top of all that Dan Vacek tried to draft him in the third round of the 2006 draft in the winter of 06-07, that started another lengthy discussion thread.

It'd been discussed, dragged out, debated and put to bed by the time John joined.

Not really, I joined at the beginning of the 2006 season.

At the time, the rule was definitely unique to any of the other leagues that I had experience with.

A player either had to sign by a predefined date, or he went in the pool for the following year....which is why I tried to draft him (not Vacek).

Regardless of the precedent on that situation, I'd like to see a situation that gives everyone an equal playing field....something draft a guy and retain his rights until maybe opening day, if he doesn't sign by then, he either A) goes back in the draft pool for next season, or B) gets placed on waivers.

In addition, if a player goes undrafted, but becomes MLB eligible after the draft, he should be subject to some sort of waivers. My biggest concern would the potential advantage a GM would have to being at the computer at the right time if he can just sign a player cleanly after they ink a MLB contract.

Again, anybody that good someone would take a flier on in the draft. There is no secret about Arguelles or Chapman, we all know who they are, expect them to sign, and have a sense of where they go in this draft. Does anyone have Chapman or Arguelles any lower on their draft boards because they haven't signed yet? For that matter, is there any Japanese player of significance that any of us aren't aware of? We all read MLB Trade Rumors, this isn't a league where only Brett, Jag, and JB are paying attention to the Dominicans anymore. Even since the Saito incident in 2006 the league has gotten a lot more on top of this stuff.

Mets wrote: Regardless of the precedent on that situation, I'd like to see a situation that gives everyone an equal playing field....something draft a guy and retain his rights until maybe opening day, if he doesn't sign by then, he either A) goes back in the draft pool for next season, or B) gets placed on waivers.

Either of these options seems reasonable but I prefer the put him back in the pool for the following year one.

Mets wrote: In addition, if a player goes undrafted, but becomes MLB eligible after the draft, he should be subject to some sort of waivers. My biggest concern would the potential advantage a GM would have to being at the computer at the right time if he can just sign a player cleanly after they ink a MLB contract.

I don't see the need for this. If a GM does the research and follows the guy and he signs and he then signs him so be it. If there is any hint the player will become available any GM could have drafted him. Then if he was drafted and signs late he would be part of the first situation.

John, a rule being unique to one league or another is no excuse for being completely and totally ignorant of the rule, thus the comments along the lines of, "Shut the hell up and read the rules." This has to be the biggest 'sand in the vagina' debate the league has ever seen, a GM still whining three years later about a completely legal signing that occurred before he even joined. Borrow a douchebag from your mom and flush that shit out.

How was the playing field NOT level? Saito was eligible during the draft, he was known to be considering coming over, and no one took him. And no one bothered to sign him until almost a MONTH after he signed. It's not like Saito signed a super-secret contract that only Pat was informed of. You were wrong then, you are still wrong now and your continued crying just makes you sound like a whiny bitch.

Oh, and Happy Birthday John. Hopefully this will be the year we stop hearing "In other leagues I'm in..."

Glad to see you haven't matured yet Bren.

I really don't give a shit what the rules are. I quit reading them because they were written in a style that was less than clear to me. I would be happy to help reword some of them so they read a little more black and white.

Any of my comments aren't meant to read Me vs. IBC. I truely care about the betterment of the league, and if that involves questioning some of the rules, so be it.

PS...I threw that 'in other leagues' comment in there just for you Bren.