Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2012 17:59:00 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshy on Aug 27, 2012 9:20:16 GMT 10
I am not sure about other clubs, but we have had an unprecedented amount of inquiries from guys wanting to come and play in Australia.
With so much interest in our competition, I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts on whether BV should look at increasing the number of imports allowed to play at a club again?
|
|
|
|
Post by behindthedish on Aug 28, 2012 1:57:42 GMT 10
Better still. Tell the home grown 18/19 yr olds they are no longer required and they can play soccer instead.
Would prefer to see clubs stand on their own two feet, rather than "pretend" they are competitive.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldracer on Aug 28, 2012 12:34:09 GMT 10
I personally think one is enough but I don't really see the difference between another import or clubs bringing in players, the same 18/19 y'olds will still sit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2012 13:33:45 GMT 10
I personally think one is enough but I don't really see the difference between another import or clubs bringing in players, the same 18/19 y'olds will still sit Not so sure OR, if its left at 1 import and a club brings in local players from other clubs at least that potentially opens up a spot for kid at that other club ? Dont know about you guys but I find it hard to have a position on imports, they (potentialy) offer the game over here so much in the time they are here AND improve the standard of our game thus raising the standard overall BUT they take a spot away from a kid perhaps AND YET the real good kids get lost to us for while when they are grabbed OS anyway ? Perhaps 1 import per club is good 2 is too many ? |
|
|
|
Post by The Puma on Aug 28, 2012 13:44:08 GMT 10
We seem to be losing alot more kids to college now than we ever have. I don't think 2 would be a bad thing but I would like to cap it at 1 pitcher only.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshy on Aug 28, 2012 14:33:19 GMT 10
I've stated before, I think the use of imports, any number, should be left to the club to manage.
I think that their over use could be irrecoverably damage a club, but at the same time, if managed well, they can offer so much.
Generally, they are unemployed, or at least employed on a casual basis and don't have family out here. This allows them more time to devote to a club, certainly more than a full time employed father of three can.
If a contract is agreed whereby the player/s must fulfill a number of non-game obligations, their value can be immense and can add long term gain.
A case in point would be our import Kevin, who not only did an awesome job for Malvern and for the Aces, was OUTSTANDING in his management of one of our junior teams. Sure, he MAY have taken one spot away from a youngster, but he helped instill baseball passion and a love for the game in at least 9 more.
Personally, I think the use of imports is less damaging to a club than paying players, not that I am saying that happens....
|
|
|
|
Post by pirates on Aug 28, 2012 15:27:00 GMT 10
I think every club has different positions on this depending at which point of the development stage the club is at and yes it's an unfair advantage if a club could have more than one import. I also believe that the past rule where the import pitcher could only pitch every second week was a good one. That way he is not being over used and at the same time the other guys are being developed. Virtually every club has an import it seems, now it’s a disadvantage not to have one so it’s a vicious cycle and now you need2 guys to get an advantage. I can also say that the cost would certainly preclude most clubs which could mean the stronger clubs become more dominate with 2 imports.
If anyone has done the sums on having an import you quickly find out it takes a lot of fund raising to support one guy let alone two. It’s all the hidden costs that everyone forgets. Travel from LA then if the guy is inland you have internal flights, visa, accommodation, more if it’s not at a members home. Transport, food, fees, uniforms and functions just to name some of the items. Try a budget of around $9,000 to $12,000.
These players bring a whole new dimension to a club and if you get the right guy it is a great benefit to the club not just on the field for the seniors. One seems to be a good balance IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on Aug 28, 2012 16:24:53 GMT 10
Personally, I think to much consideration is made by the Clubs to have the import. The pressure that is placed on the Clubs to have ready made funds can stretch the budget a little. Unless there is a guareenteed flag at the end of the season, it is a very big gamble for what could be either a big return or a small return. Granted, imports have been around for years, but even going back to the late 60's early 70's, the only imports going around were the Yanks brought out on the Teacher exchange program. What the Clubs have got to ask themselves is, "what is the worth and who not getting development exposure". I am not against getting an import, it is just what the worth is to the Club.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buzz on Aug 28, 2012 20:50:02 GMT 10
We had Dominic Ramos last season, you can't put a price on the guy, he was outstanding on and off the field. Had time for everybody. He was here in Australia for the enjoyment of the game & boy, did it rub off on all of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by larry42 on Aug 29, 2012 12:10:34 GMT 10
Better still. Tell the home grown 18/19 yr olds they are no longer required and they can play soccer instead. Would prefer to see clubs stand on their own two feet, rather than "pretend" they are competitive. BTD - we've had imports out here for a while now but let's focus on say the last 5 years. Just to add to your arguement, can you name any 18/19 year old kids and their clubs who have missed out on the opprtunity because of the introduction of an import? I think every club is different in their needs for an import whether that be Melb addiding to their stocks for a tilt back at Div 1 last year (adding to Kent and Blackmore) or Port Melb trying to get over another one year hurdle for another year in Div 2 while they improve/try to improve playing stocks. |
|
|
|
Post by behindthedish on Aug 30, 2012 0:00:33 GMT 10
L42, Melb were on track to return to Div1 without their import due to the young pitching staff they had. They added "stock" predominantly for potency in the batter's box.
My argument is, I would rather see a close finals series (like Ess V Black last year) where both teams had no imports, rather than a lop sided affair when an import throws in the 1st game and keeps the contest tight, but not the second game, which becomes a farce due to lack of depth/game time of younger players.
Develop the youngsters and your club will prosper - not through forking out $$$ for imports to be competitive.
|
|
|
|
Post by larry42 on Aug 30, 2012 9:52:13 GMT 10
BTD, my question to you was to give your arguement weight by referring to those 17/18/19 year old kids who lose the opportunity to get their inngs in and develop because of an import. By your stance and previous posts we know that you are not a big fan of the import rule, and believe that clubs should work on their juniors coming through to become senior players. Maybe you or another Demon from last year could answer the question of whether Adam Rowe took inngs away and thwarted the development of one of Melb's youngsters, or if Blackmore took 80 at bats away from an 18 yr old hitter? Yes, i know MB is not an import but he's Aces calibre from another club so a similar scenario.
Develop your juniors and the club will prosper - yes spot on. But its my belief, and probably that of a few others, that a good import who makes others around him better, who can work with juniors of all ages, can do a massive amount for a club against the loss of however many inngs or at bats.
We arent talking about the ability to watch a good finals series here, by the way which was an absolute beauty between two very good sides, we are talking clubs in different playing/level positions looking to develop, stay in a Div to hold on to players, seeking a secondary coach, player with College experience to bring new teachings, or be temporarily competitive. Each club is in a different position and shouldn't be judged in the same boat.
Note: Blacky sent their import home during the year before they got to the finals series.
|
|
|
|
Post by leroy46 on Sept 1, 2012 21:52:26 GMT 10
Guys lets not forget the amount of hard work that local clubs and baseball victoria put into recruiting and coaching young kids from the t ball level all the way up to the division one level. I personally think the one import rule pitching one game out of two works perfectly, it improves the game because we have alot more elite baseballers playing at our top level and they work with the young kids to improve there baseball.
the point where baseball loses players is between 16 and 18, if these kids are getting oppurtunities then maybe they would keep playing this fantastic game. if you start letting clubs bring more than one import out to australia then that will increase the league standard but all the work that goes into promotion and coaching at any level is a waist of time because fringe players might then not get to play at the level they have dreamt of for their whole baseball career.
leroy
ps if someone had already posted the same opinion not repeting just didnt read it
|
|
