Master Index of Archived Threads


The Mets and the DR

Farmer Ted May 23 2007 11:21 AM

Listening to Gary Cohen last night during the game, he was very critical of MLB and the lack of a draft for international players. This came as he announced the Mets new $8 million facility in the Dominican to develop young players. Gary certainly wasn't playing comapny man on this one as he called out Mets and MLB brass for turning a blind eye to this practice.

Edgy DC May 23 2007 11:24 AM

To what practice?

Benjamin Grimm May 23 2007 11:38 AM

I guess the practice of signing undrafted Dominicans. It would be very foolish for any team to turn their back on the Dominican Republic. I also don't see how the lack of a draft harms young Dominican players. They actually get the right to bargain with multiple teams. Unless I'm overlooking something, the only parties harmed by the lack of a draft are teams that scout less aggressively.

Farmer Ted May 23 2007 11:50 AM

The teams with the "nicest" facilities in the DR have an advantage to recruit players at a young age and sign them when they're 16. Gary said ALL players should be subject to a draft and teams with money to develop this talent are avoiding a system which would give all teams the right to draft the best players.

Benjamin Grimm May 23 2007 12:06 PM

That's a valid opinion. But it doesn't make sense to condemn any team that's taking advantage of the current rules. If the Mets weren't trying to play a big role in the DR and the rest of Latin America, and Asia, I'd be annoyed at them for missing out on an opportunity. And I'd be more upset about the lack of a draft if I felt that the Dominican kids were being exploited. (I'm not saying they're not, but from what I currently know I don't think they are.)

metirish May 23 2007 12:14 PM

Mets aren't doing anything wrong,in fact they are investing in the DR,which can't be a bad thing.(yes they stand to gain from the investment,that's what it's about)

Frayed Knot May 23 2007 12:39 PM

Gary little speech Tuesday night wasn't anti-Met, he just couldn't understand why MLB hadn't got around to instituting an international draft a la NBA & NHL.

Rotblatt May 23 2007 12:41 PM

I don't think there's any question that we're exploiting the system to our advantage. However, I'd argue that the onus of fixing the system is on the MLB, not us. Would I like to see us be an advocate for an international draft? Sure, but until such a draft actually happens, I don't think we should give up the competitive edge that having baseball academies in the DR gives us. In other words, the process as it stands right now is unfair for teams with smaller budgets, but that's MLB's problem, not ours.

soupcan May 23 2007 12:44 PM

You've also gotta assume that if the Mets are investing in building baseball academies in the DR then they are of the opinion that an international draft ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

Edgy DC May 23 2007 01:04 PM

The only problem I have with the effective free agency of Dominican amateurs is that I'd like to see it expanded to include Americans, Canadians, and Puerto Ricans. We've been down this road. The main thing Gary Cohen should object to I guess is that there seems to be a different minimum signing age for foreign players. Does Cohen think the academies are exploitative?

Frayed Knot May 23 2007 01:11 PM

Most of the noise being made in favor of an international draft is done in the name of the weaker/poorer clubs. But the kicker is that those clubs don't neccesarily want the "help" and are often the ones against such a draft. What those teams see in outposts like the DR & Venezuela is the ability to be entrepenurial and proactive by beating the bushes in order to give themselves a shot at the next unknown gem, or at least a handful of good players with a chance to develop. Houston was big on this by being one of the first into Venezuela and mined a bunch of ballplayers no one else had seen like Bobby Abreu, Johan Santana, Richard Hidalgo and others -- (they just needed help knowing which ones to hold onto). Those teams know that they're at a disadvantage for the few big-ticket guys from the Carribean or Asia, but they're more or less OK with that in exchange for the freedom to scout the bushes for the rest of the talent. Look at it this way; No one would go turning over every rock for raw talent if they knew there was only a 1-in-30 shot at signing him, and there are those who think that including Puerto Rico in the draft (late '80s sometime) helped dry up the talent coming off that island for that very reason.

Farmer Ted May 23 2007 01:18 PM

Mrs. Ted, when she heard this said, "why don't they dump that kind of money into Harlem to find their next big time ballpayers?" She's so astute at this shit. Which is another argument all together and one that was touched upon during the Jackie Robinson celebration ballyhoo recently. Why go to a Carribean Island? Well, laws that don't require formal education (although the academies will teach you English), year-round baseball devoid of Little League rules, etc. Yeah, there's some exploitation there dontcha think?

Benjamin Grimm May 23 2007 01:21 PM

There are more kids playing baseball in Latin America than there are in Harlem. I tend to agree with Edgy that I'd rather see the draft eliminated than expanded. It would be interesting to see what would happen if, as an experiement, players from Florida or California were exempt from the draft for a few years.

Edgy DC May 23 2007 01:28 PM

That's speculative. And hiring is always exploitative. The question is leverage the other way. What's worse: the family of a talented 16-year-old with the right to entertain multiple or that same family being forced to entertain only one, despite many others loving his talent? The reason they don't "dump that kind of money into Harlem" is because it literally is a dumping if they are artificially restricted from competing for the players they develop when draft time comes. MLB is developing collective domestic academies, but we're in a market economy here, and the kids aren't allowed to use their leverage in the marketplace and the teams are, and that's bad.

Johnny Dickshot May 23 2007 01:29 PM

The draft makes local development a waste of money. Why plow millions into baseball in Harlem when there's only a guarantee you have rights to 1 in 30 of them? Kids in the DR are more plentiful and most don't have the option to say, become a basketball or football player, or go to a college, so they sign for 3 bags of sugar and a chicken dinner, most of them.

Willets Point May 23 2007 01:32 PM

Isn't the theory behind the draft that it prevents rich teams from stockpiling lots of talent in the minors when those players may be good enough to actually be starting players on other teams? That is the kids' careers are hurt toiling in Dubuque waiting for Wally Slugger to twist his ankle in New York when they could be starting everyday for the Royals. I'm not really arguing for or against the draft, I just want to verify if you all think that example is an advantage for the players.

Benjamin Grimm May 23 2007 01:39 PM

Before the draft, I'm sure some players signed with teams based on there being a more clear path to the majors. If you're a catcher, do you want to sign with the team that has Mickey Cochrane, or the one that has Hank DeBerry?

Johnny Dickshot May 23 2007 01:41 PM

The draft is enormously unfair to players, even if the alternative, as it was run then, wasn't. It's true the rich teams were against the draft becaiuse it did blunt their might, but it was created not to be fair but to keep player leverage down and costs in line. Perhaps the draft should have come down with the reserve clause. Or if the players union included all pro ballplayers (which it certainly should, not just a subset of the profession's highest earners) things could change.

Edgy DC May 23 2007 01:42 PM

Willets Point wrote: Isn't the theory behind the draft that it prevents rich teams from stockpiling lots of talent in the minors when those players may be good enough to actually be starting players on other teams? That is the kids' careers are hurt toiling in Dubuque waiting for Wally Slugger to twist his ankle in New York when they could be starting everyday for the Royals. I'm not really arguing for or against the draft, I just want to verify if you all think that example is an advantage for the players. That's the theory that they use to sell it. I don't think it shakes out that way. The issue (cue tangent argument featuring Frayed Knot) is that the rich teams have exclusive rights to their rich resources.

Frayed Knot May 23 2007 02:32 PM

Willets Point wrote: Isn't the theory behind the draft that it prevents rich teams from stockpiling lots of talent in the minors when those players may be good enough to actually be starting players on other teams? That is the kids' careers are hurt toiling in Dubuque waiting for Wally Slugger to twist his ankle in New York when they could be starting everyday for the Royals. That's more like why things like 6-year minor legue FA-gency and the Rule 5 draft were put in; to prevent teams from holding onto players forever and rotting their careers away in the bushes if their chance never came. The draft was put in to keep the rich teams from getting a hold of most of the best players in the first place (and to hold down signing bonuses). Seeing as how the NFL & NBA draft have survived challenges to their much more restrictive drafts recently, I don't see the MLB draft going away anytime soon.