http://grantland.com/the-triangle/trading-...er-loan-system/

 

Bill Barnwell of Grantland suggests a player loan system like soccer in Europe has. He uses Sale as his prime example of a player that could be loaned to another team instead of wasting the rest of his season. Interesting idea but I still don't think I'd trust another team with Sale even with the rules in place.

Edited July 14, 201510 yr by OmarComing25

Found this to be a really interesting article and great read. I do agree that it would at a ton of excitement and if done right, could actually be a scenario where the large market teams don't necessarily win as if the team holding the player had to still make the payment, it essentially means small market teams could get a well paid star for the stretch run (obviously at the cost of a prospect). When I initially read the article I thought it would be terrible, but concept of leaving / allowing just 1 player per team and I think it would be extremely interesting and would also enhance the drama of the deadline, etc.

 

I think this would be a fascinating.

It would be fascinating, but I think I'd hate to see it.

 

Chris Sale wins the World Series in Houston. Decided he likes it there. Demands a trade to Houston.

 

 

It would be fascinating, but I think I'd hate to see it.

 

Chris Sale wins the World Series in Houston. Decided he likes it there. Demands a trade to Houston.

 

Welcome to European soccer.

 

 

 

So who picks up the bill if a career altering injury happens?

I would absolutely hate this. Every playoff franchise would get a bunch of ringers every year, and it wouldn't even feel like it was the same franchise that actually got through the season in the first place.

 

I understand that trades for pending free agents are kind of halfway there already, but as a fan, I can at least consider the rental player a "part of my team."

I would absolutely hate this. Every playoff franchise would get a bunch of ringers every year, and it wouldn't even feel like it was the same franchise that actually got through the season in the first place.

 

I understand that trades for pending free agents are kind of halfway there already, but as a fan, I can at least consider the rental player a "part of my team."

 

Well the article suggested you can get one loan per year.

I would absolutely hate this. Every playoff franchise would get a bunch of ringers every year, and it wouldn't even feel like it was the same franchise that actually got through the season in the first place.

 

I understand that trades for pending free agents are kind of halfway there already, but as a fan, I can at least consider the rental player a "part of my team."

Well one thing to point out is, you would only be able to acquire 1 player on loan (so it isn't as if you could acquire a new roster...just one guy). I do agree, that it would mean numerous stars trade hands. It could also be extremely exciting. Maybe you add an extra wrinkle that you could only do it every other year (which would further dilute what changes hands).

 

The big wild card is what happens when an injury happens and well, lets be honest, they would happen. You also lose the ability to control the pitch counts, etc, of your player so they could run your pitcher into the ground and thus sets you back the following year. I would think this would be a major benefit for small market teams. While rebuilding, they might have a star player who they could leverage to gain more assets (and thus rebuild faster).

 

When I first read the title I thought I would totally hate it, but when I read the restrictions put in place and fact that money wasn't really going to be the factor, it became far more intriguing.

So who picks up the bill if a career altering injury happens?

The article sort of addressed that...poorly

 

"If Sale were to get injured, either team would have the option of canceling the loan agreement, with any/all players involved returning to their original clubs."

 

That is not a solution. Let's say we send Sale to Houston. They get five good starts out of him and he ends up getting hurt, so we send back the prospect? What?? I would be screaming bloody murder for about 100 reasons if this happened.

Well one thing to point out is, you would only be able to acquire 1 player on loan (so it isn't as if you could acquire a new roster...just one guy). I do agree, that it would mean numerous stars trade hands. It could also be extremely exciting. Maybe you add an extra wrinkle that you could only do it every other year (which would further dilute what changes hands).

 

The big wild card is what happens when an injury happens and well, lets be honest, they would happen. You also lose the ability to control the pitch counts, etc, of your player so they could run your pitcher into the ground and thus sets you back the following year. I would think this would be a major benefit for small market teams. While rebuilding, they might have a star player who they could leverage to gain more assets (and thus rebuild faster).

 

When I first read the title I thought I would totally hate it, but when I read the restrictions put in place and fact that money wasn't really going to be the factor, it became far more intriguing.

 

The restrictions make it intriguing, but this just seems like such a bad idea.

 

And I know FanGraphs has the Sox at 7.8% chance of making the playoffs, but what if Sale and Abreu lead them to the second WC spot? That's way more exciting.

 

I also feel like we'd see "White Flag" trades every year as stars start to demand being put on loan.

Well the article suggested you can get one loan per year.

 

 

Well one thing to point out is, you would only be able to acquire 1 player on loan (so it isn't as if you could acquire a new roster...just one guy). I do agree, that it would mean numerous stars trade hands. It could also be extremely exciting. Maybe you add an extra wrinkle that you could only do it every other year (which would further dilute what changes hands).

 

The big wild card is what happens when an injury happens and well, lets be honest, they would happen. You also lose the ability to control the pitch counts, etc, of your player so they could run your pitcher into the ground and thus sets you back the following year. I would think this would be a major benefit for small market teams. While rebuilding, they might have a star player who they could leverage to gain more assets (and thus rebuild faster).

 

When I first read the title I thought I would totally hate it, but when I read the restrictions put in place and fact that money wasn't really going to be the factor, it became far more intriguing.

 

Yeah, I just don't see the issue with just trading for the guy, though. I don't know. I don't like the "feel" of it, I guess.

I don't like the "feel" of it, I guess.

There are a lot of potential conflicts of interest. I don't think we should be taking ideas from soccer anyway, soccer is dumb.

 

No. Sox would just screw it up.

I'm intrigued. What if you could only loan to the other league?

I'm intrigued. What if you could only loan to the other league?

 

Well for starters, I think most teams will disallow their loan players from playing against them. Most teams will probably never loan to a division rival.

Well for starters, I think most teams will disallow their loan players from playing against them. Most teams will probably never loan to a division rival.

What if you loaned a player to the NL, then went on a run and ended up playing one of your own guys in the playoffs. Crazy possibilities. I realize this is absurd but I think baseball should, to some extent, think outside the box and if player movement at deadline really is going to be minimized (due to addition of wild card team) then I think something else to spark the craze, would be worth while, without majorly shifting the landscape.

 

If you followed Bmags and only allowed it to a team in another league and then adjusted the rules so that loans could only occur during month of July (no early loaning) and then just ensure that interleague play was done earlier in the year, you could essentially ensure that unless you made the series, you would never face a "loaned" player and if you did, it would just be another intriguing story line.

Deadspin responded to this article

 

http://deadspin.com/what-is-the-value-of-a...game-1717963147

Deadspin responded to this article

 

http://deadspin.com/what-is-the-value-of-a...game-1717963147

 

Do you agree with that? Seems like mandatory deadspin contrarianism, in that they believe in something only in that it allows them to take the opposite stance of an espn article.

Do you agree with that? Seems like mandatory deadspin contrarianism, in that they believe in something only in that it allows them to take the opposite stance of an espn article.

 

It is standard, but I think a loan system in the MLB would carry a lot more impact and raise a lot more problems than the loan system in the Soccer leagues. I would be furious if Sale blew out his arm and all the sox got were some prospects for their troubles.

It is standard, but I think a loan system in the MLB would carry a lot more impact and raise a lot more problems than the loan system in the Soccer leagues. I would be furious if Sale blew out his arm and all the sox got were some prospects for their troubles.

 

Yeah, I just think the "is there no value to watching games" is pedantic. Zach Lowe is clearly making that reference in regard to finding superstar talent. His whole column addresses "is this worth it?" by evaluating both teams.

He does bring up a good point. Even if we never make it to the playoffs while Sale is a member of the White Sox, he does bring a certain sort of value to the fans by giving us the opportunity to follow his career every 5th day and watch him pitch. If he ends up breaking some team records, wins a Cy Young or two, and gets his number retired, I would consider that to be providing a lot of benefit to me as a fan, even if the games he pitched were "meaningless" in the grand scheme of things.

One thing that the soccer loan addresses that makes no sense in MLB (except maybe for a brandon belt situation), is there is a need in soccer to give younger players a shot playing as a starter in a top league rather than being on the bench. That isn't really a helpful scenario in MLB.

Donald Fehr is screaming in his grave

Edited July 16, 201510 yr by Joshua Strong

Donald Fehr is screaming in his grave

 

Or he is screaming from his home, because he is isnt in his grave just yet

Why in the world would the White Sox want to "loan" Chris Sale or any other player to another team for them to abuse?

 

Its the human equivalent of a rental car. Would anyone really ever want to buy a used rental car?