Ask Baseball America By James Bailey
Download 1 Mb.
|
October 12, 2000We already have begun to see several questions on the free-agent compensation system, and even though we addressed this last year, here it is once more for those who may have come aboard since then. And we'll also add it to FAQ page, because this question definitely falls into the category of frequently asked. Can you explain how the free-agent process works? Some free agent losses result in two picks (one from the team and one supplemental), while other free agent losses result in different compensation. Steve Opperman Sheridan, Colo. Every offseason, the Elias Sports Bureau compiles rankings of all major league players, based on the previous two year's stats. The players are ranked by position, so first basemen aren’t compared to second basemen, etc. The players are then broken down into Type A, Type B and Type C (and the rest). Type A players are players rated in the top 30 percent of all players at their position. Type B players are players rated in the 31-50 percent bracket at their position. Type C players are players rated in the 51-60 percent bracket at their position. Because the players are only compared to others at their position, some players might be a Type B but seem to be not as good as some Type C players, etc., but that’s how the system works. When a team loses a free agent who is ranked in one of the three categories, they receive compensation as follows (if and only if they offered that player arbitration before he signed with his new team): Type A. Team losing player gets signing team’s first-round pick as well as a supplemental first-round pick. If the signing team is picking in the first half of the first round, they lose their second-rounder instead of their first-rounder. Type B. Team losing player gets signing team’s first-round pick. If the signing team is picking in the first half of the first round, they lose their second-rounder instead of their first-rounder. Type C. Team losing player gets a supplemental pick after the second round. If a team doesn't offer arbitration to their free agent, they get nothing when he signs with another team. This brings up the next question of why don't the teams always offer arbitration? The answer is, they often are afraid the player will accept it. It's a gamble some teams aren't willing to take, even if it seems likely the player is heading out of town. No Lance Berkman on the Top 20 rookies? I don't get it. Lee DeOrio Roslyn, Penn. There was some confusion on Berkman's eligibility this year. We included him in our preseason list, overlooking that he had too much service time in 1999, even though he had just 93 at-bats. I inferred from that, incorrectly, that he was eligible and that we used the same standard for our Rookie of the Year as we did for our Top 10 lists: Any players with fewer than 130 at-bats or 50 innings, regardless of service time, is eligible. I actually discussed this regarding Berkman a couple of months ago. But when we sat down to discuss our rookie list, I was informed that we used the same rules for our Rookie of the Year award as the major leagues, except for the fact that we only give one award, not one for each league. So the bottom line is Berkman wasn't eligible, or he would have factored in very high on the list. I know you guys are sick of defending your Top 20 lists, but Nate Rolison's a friend of mine and I'm curious why he didn't make the Pacific Coast League Top 20. He was selected as the PCL's rookie of the year, an honor I understand is linked more to performance than potential. In your Best Tools survey, he was selected as having the most power in the league. His walk-to-strikeout ratio is decent and improving every year, and he hit for a good average. All this on a 6-foot-6, 240-pound frame. What have you heard as to why he didn't make the Top 20 cut? Frank Nagurney Hattiesburg, Miss. Rolison, 23, hit a career-best .330 this season at Calgary, with 37 doubles and 23 home runs. He also drew 70 walks and 117 strikeouts, which is a solid ratio for a power hitter. He was certainly discussed when the PCL list was compiled, and in fact just missed the cut. Here's what Jim Callis, who wrote the PCL Top 20, had to say about Rolison: "Rolison just missed making the list and would have been somewhere between 21-23 if we had gone deeper. His best tool is his lefthanded power, as he's a line-drive hitter who can lift balls out of the park. He has started to pull more pitches, though he's still more of a doubles hitter than a homer guy. Twenty-three homers in the PCL isn't a lot for a first baseman, and a big league first baseman needs to hit 30 or more these days, or he's giving his team below-average production. He also draws a lot of walks despite striking out in bunches. "The negatives on Rolison are that he doesn't handle balls up in the strike zone and he struggles against lefthanders, who get him to chase pitches. Reviews of his defense are mixed, though defense isn't going to make up much of a first baseman's value. One manager likened him to Mark Johnson (the one with the Mets) with a better idea of hitting. Johnson is a career .234 hitter with 31 homers in 819 at-bats, so that's not a comparison that flatters Rolison." October 10, 2000 It's real early to speculate on the 2001 draft. We've seen a lot of questions about how the first five picks stack up, where certain players might go, etc. I'm reluctant to even bother answering those, because it's unlikely any projection now is going to prove accurate. We're still 3-5 months from the opening of the college and high school seasons, and plenty of top talents are going to emerge before next June. But people have worn me down with Mark Teixeira questions, so I'm finally giving in and taking a shot at them. First, a spelling lesson for you: T-E-I-X-E-I-R-A. I've seen the name spelled a dozen different ways, and of course there can only be one correct way. Just remember, "I before E, except in Teixeira." I was wondering if you think that the Twins will take Mark Teixeira with the first pick in next year's draft even though it will probably take a major league contract and a decent bonus to sign him. Or will they go for an economical choice? And should they take Teixeira, how soon would it take him to make an impact with Minnesota? Jay Rankin Burnsville, Minn. I personally don't think the Twins are going to go for Teixeira, Georgia Tech’s star third baseman. Consider the success they had in getting Adam Johnson, the No. 2 pick in this year's draft, to agree to a deal ahead of time after they couldn’t get the consensus top talent, Matt Harrington, to do the same the night before the draft. Also consider that they lost Aaron Heilman (supplemental first round) and Taggert Bozied (second round). I think that, and a small-market mentality all adds up to the Twins doing their darnedest to come to terms with someone before draft day next year. As the team with the No. 1 pick, they've got the ability to basically let a player pick them. Sure it's technically illegal, but predraft deals were prevalent this year, and I wouldn't expect that to change. Though Johnson had an outstanding debut, he was regarded at the time of the draft as a fallback pick. A guy who would be a solid pick and sign quickly, though he might not be the best player available. The Twins shied away from Xavier Nady, who was basically the 2000 version of Teixeira (though maybe a notch down on the talent scale), not once, but three times. They made three selections before Nady went to the Padres with the 49th pick. Now you could argue that they figured they had to pay out four early-round bonuses (they had an additional second-rounder courtesy of the Orioles signing Mike Trombley), and couldn't shoot the wad on one guy. But in the end, they only paid out two of those, with Johnson getting $2.5 million and righthander J.D. Durbin, the 54th overall pick, getting $722,500. Their previous M.O. doesn't lead you to believe this is a team that's about to break the bank to sign Teixeira, whether he's the consensus top choice or not. Since the Travis Lee debacle in 1996 (maybe the Twins just knew he wasn't going to turn out), Minnesota has signed its first pick in each of the last four years. I don't think they'll risk that streak by taking Teixeira. That leaves him for the Cubs, who have drafted as high as No. 3 in two of the past three drafts and now will be picking second. Both times they opted for a high school player (Corey Patterson in '98, Luis Montanez this year), though the consensus top college player was still available. You certainly can't fault them for that, as the moves have turned out well. Patterson is one of the top prospects in the game and Montanez was the No. 1 prospect in the Rookie-level Arizona League in his debut this season. But, consider that J.D. Drew and Nady/Joe Borchard were available, and you see that the Cubs seem to lean toward the high school talent when they have a shot at a top player. Unlike the Twins, their motivation hasn't been money, as they gave Patterson the largest bonus in the '98 draft at $3.7 million. (The Phillies gave Pat Burrell more in signing him to a major league deal, but just $3.15 million was bonus money.) Montanez got $2.75 million, which was one of the top bonuses of this year's class. If there’s a high school player who distinguishes himself as a top-quality pick, I think the Cubs might lean that way, given their recent history. But if not, I think they will step up to the plate and go for Teixeira. They also have a crying need at third base that has existed since Ron Santo left. It's early to speculate on the draft, because a lot can change, but for three of the last four years, the player projected as the top college talent before the season was drafted in the top three picks (Drew No. 2 in '97, Burrell No. 1 in '98 and Eric Munson No. 3 in '99). This year's draft scrambled all of that with Nady going 49th. But I think it's a safe bet that Teixeira will be a very early pick. Of course, it's not clear whether he'll actually be the No. 1 player listed on our college Top 100 when that comes out at the end of the month. He does have some competition for that spot, chiefly from Southern California righthander Mark Prior. I won't go into more on that because I don't know more about the list. And even if I could learn more, I wouldn't want to spoil it. By the way, if the Cubs hadn't been able to sign Patterson in '98, he might be the one we'd be speculating on right now instead of Teixeira. And he'd be playing at Georgia Tech. Imagine Teixeira not even being the best player on his own team. That would be a heck of a squad. Offensively, how do you compare Mark Teixeira to Troy Glaus and Pat Burrell? Do you think he will be as big of a success as Glaus? Do you think Burrell will break out like Glaus next year? Which of the three do you think will be the most productive professional batsman over the next 10 years? Michael Marinaro Burrell posted numbers this year similar to what Glaus did last year in his first full season. Actually, Burrell's numbers, other than his strikeouts, were better than Glaus' '99 stats. Burrell posted a .359 on-base percentage and .463 slugging for a .822 OPS (on-base plus slugging). Glaus had a .331 on-base and a .450 slugging for a .781 OPS last year. So, if Burrell had a better first full year (I know, he had just 408 at-bats, but that's pretty full), can you project a better--or even as good--second year? I don't think you can, because I don't think you could have projected what Glaus did. In one year he jumped his OPS from .781 to 1.008. Glaus had a great season this year, and I think he surprised a lot of people. For as much attention as Darin Erstad got this year, you could make an argument--a good one--that he was only the second-best hitter on his team. Their on-base percentages were nearly identical, but Glaus outslugged Erstad by more than 60 points. I do think Burrell will improve a lot next season, but it's hard to project anyone boosting their OPS by 227 points in one season. Not that it's unprecedented. It's just hard to forecast. And I do think he'll catch Glaus, but it might take him a couple of years to get there. I see Teixeira making better contact than Burrell and Glaus, but it's hard to project him matching Glaus' power production, when the guy just broke the major league record for homers by a third baseman. But I think Teixeira could have as much actual power. He always has hit well with wood bats in the summer, so his power should translate to the pro game, like Burrell's and Glaus' did. Teixeira's advantage over the other two is that he's a switch-hitter. Burrell and Glaus are both righty swingers. If you are asking about the next 10 years, I'll go with Burrell, Glaus and Teixeira in that order, mainly because Teixeira probably doesn't have his first full big league season until 2003. If you want to rank the first 10 years of their big league careers, I might go with Teixeira, because I think he could hit for the best average of the three. Of course, there's not really a bum in that group and I'd be happy to have any of the three on my roster if I were a big league GM. It looks like Abraham Nunez, the Marlins outfielder obtained from the Diamondbacks in the Matt Mantei trade, has gone from one of the top outfield prospects in baseball to not even being mentioned in a top 20 list. I know he couldn't play in the field this year because of an arm injury, but is the injury so bad he won't recover full arm strength? As I recall, he was quite young to be playing Double-A ball this year and I don't understand how a subpar year at that age could so dramatically affect his status as a prospect. Walt Root Dana Point, Calif. You have to remember that the managers only rank players based on what they see, not what a player has done before. If a player can't play the field, he doesn't get the opportunity to show off an important facet of his game. Nunez didn't get that shot this year. I don't believe his injury is supposed to affect him long-term, but if he didn't have any chance to show off half of his game, a manager can't even have a basis for projection on his defensive abilities. Then throw in that he didn't really light it up with the bat, and it's hard for Nunez to draw a lot of support from league managers in a ranking like that. It doesn't necessarily indicate that he's no longer a highly regarded prospect, only that he didn't have the opportunity to show that this season. October 5, 2000 As you might expect, we see a lot of questions repeated here and in the general e-mails that are sent in by readers. We've taken a bunch of them and worked them into a Frequently Asked Questions page. I have to give a lot of the credit for this to Will Kimmey, who was our intern over the summer. He compiled the bulk of the questions. We'll be updating the FAQ page from time to time to include other questions, but for now we tried to cover the topics that we've seen repeatedly since we launched Baseball America Online last year. If you have a general question, you might check that page before writing us, because the answer could be right there for you. I hope everyone finds that page helpful. Now for some questions that aren't on the FAQ page, here's today's column ... I was looking over the Arizona Fall League Rosters and I was wondering when Darnell McDonald was moved to the Phillies? Was he a throw-in in another deal? Actually, I can't remember a Phillies/Orioles deadline deal, or why there would be one. I can't help but think this has got to be a better career move for McDonald considering the rate that Baltimore develops ... nevermind. Any light you could shed on the matter would be appreciated. J.B. Scottsdale, Ariz. We were perplexed by this as well. The information for the rosters came from majorleaguebaseball.com, the official site of the AFL. And they list McDonald as being on the roster as a Phillie. A phone call to the Phillies, however, cleared the matter up. McDonald is still an Orioles farmhand. The Phillies had an opening after outfielder Josue Perez was injured and they didn't have anyone they wanted to send to Arizona to fill it. So, another team had an opportunity to send an extra player, and the Orioles sent McDonald to play for Maryvale, even though the rest of their players in the AFL are on the Mesa roster. In your Top 20 Prospects list for the Appalachian League, you noted that league managers weren't impressed by Sean Boyd, the Cards' top pick and the 13th overall this year. This seems to be a pattern in the past two drafts for the Cards. The guys getting the million-dollar bonuses—Chance Caple, Nick Stocks, Chris Duncan and now Boyd—don't seem to have true first-round skills. (Blake Williams, drafted later in the first round this year, might be an exception; he had a 1.59 ERA in six starts for New Jersey.) The Cardinals seem to have had strong overall drafts the past two years. But what's the problem with these bonus babies? Lou Schuler It's really hard to label a high school kid as a disappointment just a few months after they've been drafted, and I wouldn't do that in Boyd's case. The managers I talked with were not impressed by his defense in center field, where he moved last spring after having trouble in the infield in high school. He's also got some adjustments to make at the plate, which is not unusual at all for a player in his first season. He was probably overdrafted, but all players progress at different rates and until a kid has an opportunity to attend instructional league and spring training and play a full season, it's premature to write him off. Duncan's had enough time to raise questions about him as a premium pick. After hitting .214 with six homers at Rookie-level Johnson City in 1999, he hit .256-8-57 at low Class A Peoria this year. He did cut down on his strikeout rate, fanning 111 times in 450 at-bats after striking out 62 times in 201 at-bats last year. At 6-foot-5, 210 pounds, he was billed as a power hitter when he was drafted, but that hasn't come through yet. Some people feel his swing is too long and that's the root of his problems. A supplemental first-rounder last year, he actually received a $900,000 bonus, so he's not technically in the million-dollar bonus club. At this point you have to wonder if it was money well spent, but he's still just 19 and I'm sure the Cardinals will be patient with him. I'm not ready to throw Caple and Stocks in the disappointment category, though it's true neither made his league's Top 20. Caple went 7-9, 4.39 in 22 starts at high Class A Potomac this year, striking out 97 and walking 34 in 125 innings. Stocks spent the year at low Class A Peoria, going 10-10, 3.78 in 150 innings. He allowed just 133 hits and 52 walks and struck out 118. Those aren't dominating numbers for either guy, but they're not bad, either. The Cardinals have said they were impressed by Stocks' makeup as well. Jim Callis wrote a column this spring about expectations for first-round picks and the reality of what first-rounders become. He concluded that one in six first-rounders becomes an all-star caliber player, while one in three of them never make it to the big leagues at all. I have a feeling the Cardinals will be right about average for their first-round haul of 1999-2000 when we look back on things a few years down the road. I have a situational question. Runners on first and second with less than two out. The ball is hit to the shortstop and the runner on second is intentionally hit to prevent the double play. Is he successful? Jason Cress He is successful in angering his own manager. The rule book states: "If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out." October 3, 2000 The season is over, and I have a confession to make to all the Red Sox fans out there: We were wrong. We set off quite a maelstrom in Red Sox Nation this spring when we released our major and minor league talent rankings. Some Sox fans were quite upset that we had stacked Boston up as the seventh best team in terms of major league talent. They wrote me and told me so themselves. And now I'd like to apologize. We blew it. We really thought the Sox would make the playoffs. We didn't realize there were 10 teams out there that would finish with better records. Sorry about that. We'll try to be more accurate next year. Look at the bright side. At least you don't have to wait so long until the Duke picks in next year's draft. Speaking of which, let's take a look at the 2001 draft order. Could you shed some light on the tiebreaker methodology used to determine a team's draft position when teams share final won-loss records? For example, this year, the Cubs and Phillies tied for the worst record in the major leagues. Who will have the first pick in the upcoming amateur draft? (As a lifelong Cubs fan, I find myself once again grasping the straws of hope from the rubble of a collapsed season.) David Sweet New Haven, Conn. The Cubs are the winners in the losers' bracket. They will pick ahead of the Phillies, because they were worse in 1999. When two teams in a league finish with the same record, the team that picked earlier the previous season picks earlier again. I guess the logic is they must really need the help more than the other team. I think it should be the other way around to balance things out a little. But it's yet another thing MLB didn't consult with me on. Still, the Cubs won't pick first overall, even though they tied for the worst record in the game. The selections alternate from league to league, with the American League going first in odd-numbered years and teams drafting in reverse order of their 2000 finish. This year the Marlins, an NL team, picked first. 1. Twins 16. Marlins 2. Cubs 17. Red Sox 3. Devil Rays 18. Rockies 4. Phillies 19. Yankees 5. Rangers 20. Reds 6. Expos 21. Indians 7. Orioles 22. Diamondbacks 8. Pirates 23. Mariners 9. Royals 24. Dodgers 10. Astros 25. Athletics 11. Tigers 26. Mets 12. Brewers 27. White Sox 13. Angels 28. Cardinals 14. Padres 29. Braves 15. Blue Jays 30. Giants The order in the second half of the first round (picks 16-30) could change after teams sign free agents in the offseason and have to give up draft picks as compensation. Free-agent signings also could create supplemental picks after the first and second rounds and compensation picks in the second and third rounds.
Stockton, Calif. Oakland wound up keeping both of its California League teams, which is what it preferred. So they are still in Visalia and Modesto. This was made possible by the Astros signing up with two low Class A teams, Lexington and Michigan. The realignment was only done to allow the teams that wanted one team at each Class A level to have one. But if there are teams that prefer two at one level and none at the other, that's their choice. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but to each his own. How can you guys not place Lew Ford on your Minor League All-Star Team? The guy led all of minor league baseball with 122 runs scored, was only caught stealing twice in 58 attempts and was in the top of the league in all hitting categories not including homers. Directory: mlb mlb -> By Ken Gurnick mlb -> Los angeles dodgers clips mlb -> 2010 – What’s the name of the umpire whose errant call cost the Tigers’ Armando Galarraga a perfect game in 2010? (Jim Joyce) gabp mlb -> Wednesday, September 23, 2015 headlines: Verrett stumbles in the fifth as Mets lose to Braves 6-2 mlb -> All-Star History In what city was the first All-Game played? (Chicago, 1933) Baseball & Pop Culture mlb -> Los angeles dodgers clips mlb -> Los angeles dodgers clips mlb -> Los angeles dodgers clips mlb -> The Impact of Television Revenue on Major League Baseball mlb -> Los angeles dodgers clips Download 1 Mb. Share with your friends:
|