Bringing in "Ringers"

I liked swampboys reply because he is right. We often don't get all of the info needed and make assumptions.  What exactly was promised or not promised?

Assuming the OP's son plays HS baseball, I am going to assume the friends son does also. If this happened in travel ball before HS, I do believe that it is done but I get the frustration.

This happens in HS frequently, and I have no issue with it. My son has been a "ringer" and has had "ringers" on his teams. Example, when son was in his sophmore summer, when he went to USA tryouts, the manager brought in 2003's while my son was a 2004.  The scouts came over to watch the 2003's, many of these players drafted very early with much talent, and because of them they picked son to go to final tryouts in Houston that year. He didnt make the team but that event, a free plane ride to Houston and much exposure at 14 going on 15 followed him all through HS.

 

Sorry if this doesnt sound right, but folks need to get over the little league mentality. I want my player to play for a coach that is fair, but I also want him to play with someone who knows how to attract attention to all of the players, whether it be a college coach, or a MLB scout.

 JMO

My son's 17u season he was kind of a ringer. His season had ended and a team he had friends on was playing in the CABA WS. They needed a pitcher. The coach asked players to help him find one. They asked my son. He was supposed to go drive up to Cleveland on a friday oitch his one game and go home. He pitched his game and they won. The coach watched him shag flies and take some bp before the game. The coach asked him to stay for the tournament. He played every inning, in the outfield that weekend. The did pretty well, I cannot remember how far they went.

In the fall when going to try outs for a different team, we ran into this coach. It did not take long for this coach to ask him to join the team.

 

I am not surecwhat the other parents thought of this, I was not there. I am glad he did it. It opened an opportunity that he may not have had otherwise.

I would take issue if I was paying thousands for my son to be on a team that told him he would be showcased, then other players were brought in free of charge while my son sat.  

I agree with you RJM I do not want to pay for others to play, but the OP said it happened at the end of the season.

Actually the 2nd place team was probably smiling because the week was over.  Their coach, a former professional athlete made the week hell for those kids and any team that they played. He showed the worst of coaching kids using his size and demeanor to bully and intimidate his players, the other teams players and coaches and the umps.  I am glad my son never had to play for someone like that.  Sorry for the threadcrap, back to the OP's topic.

 

 

Those are two more "ifs" we can't answer--whether the parents paid thousands and whether these players are old enough to be showcased.

FWIW, in one of his other posts, the OP says his own kid is playing 14U.

Ok, I'll try to answer a few of the questions.

 

Players are 13 and 14 year olds.  Play both 13U/14U.  Does the age matter to your answer?  If so, why?

 

Player fees are in the $1,500+/- area.  Covers "training," tournaments, uniforms, etc. 

 

I think TPM misunderstood the OP.  The team brought the "ringers" on with about three weeks left in their season -- 10-15 games.  The "ringers" (3 or 4 kids) where on teams that finished earlier. 

 

After the season is complete, the team will hold open tryouts, at which time personnel changes may be made for the following season.

 

My friend will be finding another team.  They are counting the games down.  Mom already "quit."   

 

Good discussion so far.  Thanks.

It's exactly what occurred in the situation I first posted. Even at 14u a coach should be developing them for high school, not throwing players under the bus to chase a trophy. It's not the players fault the coach didn't recruit better before the season.

FYI my 14 year old is a "ringer" this week at PG. the team he is playing on was down to 10 players when they asked him to play.. While he will start a game, and he should, I cannot see him taking much field time unless needed.

Not the same thing. The coach is filling in not replacing players.

To me, this isnt the definition of a ringer.  If they are down players like this, I would think of him as a replacement player.  Especially if he is a pitcher.

Bringing in ringers on these teams that make you fork over 5-10K and they waltz in for free taking up playing time is wrong on all fronts. I wouldn't be suckered into it but if peeps don't mind putting up with it, then so be it and can see why they do it.  I can see if it's for one of these teams that you get invited to tryout for and if you make it, don't have to pay on these teams other than travel expenses and they bring players in and out is another thing,

What 14U team charges 5-10k?

It happens a lot....especially at the younger levels.  When my son's friend's team would qualify for Disney at 10U - 12U they would pick up a kid or two...but would basically only use them as a pitcher (tourney could go 10 games) or to give a catcher a break (100 degrees is tough).  Never pulled in guys to replace starters...and as far as I know, never had any complaints.  We've brought in pitchers for a weekend every year that I can remember...but always either due to 1) a large number of potential games or 2)regulars couldn't throw for some reason.  I guess we were good enough that we didn't feel the need to bring in "ringers"....but I know some teams aren't like that.  I would hope that a coach would make his intentions clear at the start of the year.  If he doesn't, then replaces regulars late in the year, I would definitely walk at the end of the year.  Guys like that don't last long...and don't end up coaching quality players very long

It's frustrating at the younger age levels, even more so if the coaches bring on kids under false pretenses.  I'm glad your friend decided to change teams.   This same issue is the reason I found this board last year .  TPM, once you start adding up 13-16 out of town/state tournaments a year, 5k doesn't sound too far off, especially if you head to Disney.   

Buyer beware....Teams have reputations and when you spend the kind of money we all have spent on a team, it's a good idea to know a little about their practices.

 

Some people may think it's okay to do this if you win.  I do not.  But, that's why we chose the team we did.  If we had played on a team that brought in ringers at the end of the season or for a big tournament, my son may have been one to sit and watch and my hard earned dollars would have supplemented some other family whose kid I would not have been happy to pay for.  It was a sacrifice and hard as heck to pay for my own.  

 

When people ask at what age, I personally don't think it matters...it gets more important as the kids age because they are the ones who need and have paid for, played for, sacrificed for the exposure.  They deserve the chance in the big game and honestly, I'd rather watch us lose and do right by a team mate who had done the things I just mentioned then play on while our own kids watched/parents I had come to enjoy and respect stewed.

 

But back to the point, we are the consumers and ultimately as parents its our choice what type of team/coach our kids are playing for.  Good for your friend Golf for taking a stand and finding another team.  Nobody gets better on the bench, play where you will play while developing. 

Players lose their spots in the lineup, on the mound,  all of the time, to other teammates as well as those "ringers" the coach picks up.  Someone is always sitting on the bench.  If a parent is mad because their player sat while those pick ups played, obviously the player wasn't getting the job done.  Some of you fail to realize that this is HOW it works, better get your player used to it. And its about lots of hard work, not how much mom or dad paid so you could play.  JMO

 

I agree with buyer beware. More expensive isn't always better.

 

I think what many seem to not understand that the only time the word deserve comes into play, the higher you go up the ladder, is when you out play someone else, and it happens everyday on every HS, college, or milb field as well as travel ball teams.  How many folks come here often to complain that the coach really was bad and that their son didnt get the playing time he deserved?  Again, it happens all of the time.

 

Why do parents spend so much money on out of state tournaments per year before they even reach HS?  Is it a keep up with the joneses thing? Just curious.  As far as seeing better competition, I know of plenty who have seen better competition but still ended up not where they thought they might or should be.

 

Sorry, a good chuckle, parents are worried about a 2 dollar bottle of water but 5-10K a year on travel is a good thing?

 

 

I agree with pretty much everything Swampboy said on the first page.

 

There are other scenarios in which teams are put together on a basis that is not in-line with the "generally accepted" morality of the scenario. When I was in high school, I played a little bit for a team that was created and run by a former poster on this website. That team charged quite a lot of money for every event they attended and had a continually revolving roster. My issue was not the turnover, or the competition, but the fact that the roster was often so big. There were many instances when this person would bring in players (sometimes off of this website) and they, too, would sit the bench through a tournament, while writing the check to play.

 

If players are brought in under previously-communicated guidelines and for the betterment of both the program and the players involved, I don't have an issue with it - much like Swampboy illustrated. If players are brought in for the purpose of padding the pockets of the organization - without providing development or exposure to anyone on the team ("ringers" included), then that is a separate conversation. From my understanding, the issues discussed in the OP are different than those I experienced with the former poster from this website, and that leads me to agree with Swampboy's well-put sentiment.

 

Count me in the against this happening camp, unless it is to fill injury or more arms. I would go somewhere else next season.

 

The college/pro analogy doesn't wash.  Neither allows what is talked about here.

 

Typically, you sign up for a number of games/tournaments.  You ask your question and you decide it this is the organization you want to go with.

 

For those that said this was ok -

 

Would it be ok if the coach had said "I got us 8 new fielders (instead of OPs 3 or 4), and some POs for the season ends.  None of you guys are going to see the field, but you can come watch the games since you are paying for us to play this tournament"?

 

Something similar to the OP happens everyday in pro ball. Perform, or don't play. Colleges have roster limitations and calendar endpoints by which to abide, but the philosophy is the same. Perform, or don't play. 

 

JH: 

"Under Major League Rule 40 (a), the pool of players eligible for the postseason consists of the 25 players on the active roster and any players on the disabled, bereavement, suspended or military lists before midnight ETon August 31."

 

Per OP, players whose seasons had ended were brought on at seasons end.  This sounds very much like the playoffs in MLB.  Those teams cannot trade, pickup, or add ringers.  So, even the Pros have limits on end of season additions.

There's always somebody on the bench, and it's always the coach's fault.

 

It surprises me how many people seem to think the fees parents pay to a travel program  buy them a deed to the shortstop position and the third spot in the batting order for the entire season.  

 

If the money you paid is guaranteeing your kid a spot in the lineup, then by definition you are playing daddy ball.  

 

If, on the other hand, you have affiliated with a competitive team, the fees bought an opportunity to compete.

 

If the player finds himself sitting on the bench the last three weeks of the season, it's an indication of what he did with that opportunity to compete.

 

It doesn't mean the coach is a jerk or a crook or a trophy-crazed hyper-competitive maniac.

 

As for those who say they'd go to another program the next year: yeah, that's pretty much the message the coach is sending.

 

 

I know the rules, thanks. There are thousands of professional baseball players that aren't in the Major Leagues. I've seen scenarios similar to the OP happen several times. It's pretty tough to argue that roster changes based on performance don't happen in the pros when that's the most profitable arena for the sport, and the profit is driven solely on performance. 

 

I'm not saying it's fair, but it's the way things work. Perform, or don't play. 

 

 

It's almost as if a coach telling a kid, "you aren't good enough," is detrimental to the kid. In fact, it's quite the opposite. 

 

This is not the way ringers work in the sense the OP is posting about.

 

The prototypical case analogous to the OP is an otherwise successful team that's advanced, or advancing, deep in some big tournament, Cooperstown, USSSA, PG, whatever. They then fly in some guy(s) who's not part of the normal roster to win the big game, benching perfectly capable regulars in the pursuit of a trophy/championship that has essentially no bearing on anyone's future. See the Bryce Harper example given above.

 

If everyone on the team is fine with it and informed ahead of time, I guess whatever floats your boat, but if an otherwise successful kid ends up riding the pine in the big game so some coach/organization can hang another plaque/banner on the wall, that's, frankly, horseshit at the levels of baseball we're talking about here and the parents paying for it (and the players who end up on the bench) have a valid beef.

What's actually going on in the prototypical case as described by the OP is more like the coach telling the kids you were good enough to get us to this point, but now I want to win a trophy, so this other guy's going to take your spot, but thanks for paying for a full season and working your butt off.

 

JacJac, 

 

The OP said nothing about advancing to higher level tournaments or deeper within the tournaments they were already signed up for, nothing about pursuit of trophies or championships and nothing about the performance levels of the players.  When asked about promises the coach made about roster size or playing time, the OP only referred to the "general understanding" on teams in his area, which suggests there were no promises made.  

 

So your imaginary prototypical scenario doesn't have much to do with this situation.

 

And one more thing:  keep your language clean on these boards.

1. Colleges can't add players from other colleges at end of season.

2. Pro's can't add players at end of the season.

3. They realize this is detrimental to baseball. Neither are really applicable to 14U baseball,anyway

 

4.Nobody said players were owed a spot in the lineup.  What people are saying is that  the lineup should be made from players who are actually on the team (just as the Pros and colleges do).

 

A couple of points for clarification/distinction. 

 

Certainly, a player can loose his spot in the lineup to a teammate at all levels.  No issue there.  Players can also be "called up" from within the organization as well (Think minors or JV players).  However, only in pro ball can a roster spot be filled by an "outsider" during the season -- usually via trade (and even then there may be contractual issues).  College and HS teams cannot "trade" players between themselves during the season.   

 

Also, don't forget, these "ringers" play for another team they are perfectly happy with.  They will return to that team for the following season.  Thus, it isn't building the team.  It is clearly an attempt to stack the roster to win those last few games/tournaments at the expense of the players who have put in the work since day 1.   

 

The OP made it pretty clear between the first post and his follow ups what the actual situation was, and what the standard was for player commitments at the level he was referring to, and there's a clear trophy-hunting implication given that the players involved are 13/14u.

 

Like OPs area, teams at that age in the Atlanta area are primarily developmental, and mostly built with the understanding that the players who sign up at the beginning are the team. Generally, those sorts of teams only add players in case of injury or, more rarely, players leaving. Occasionally they'll add POs for a longer tournament to cap off a season.  Bringing in replacements to finish a season and bench guys who've been there from the beginning isn't done, at least on well run teams.  FWIW, this is also the case at 15u Major for the organizations I've been involved with.

 

I do understand that there are teams essentially built out of these fly-in level players (more often at older age groups), and if everyone involved is on board with that, that's obviously fine.  That's clearly not the case described in the OP. People don't generally sign their kids up to play mercenary-ball before HS, and often not in HS. That the proliferation of baseball as a business is drifting down to these ages ought to be more disturbing to people than it appears is the case here, and I say that as the father of a son who's competing at the level where the "business" side does start to become at least somewhat appropriate.

Part of the reason for the disagreement here is the OP chose to characterize the late season additions as "ringers."

 

As the term is usually used and defined, a "ringer" is someone who belongs at a higher level of competition and is brought in, usually under an assumed name, to dominate a lower level of competition.

 

For example, in the 1970 movie M*A*S*H, Fred Williamson is a ringer, a former professional football player, who is brought in to the second half of a "friendly" football game among doctors to win a contest on which a lot of money had been wagered.

 

The term comes from "dead ringer," that is, someone who can be an imposter for a legitimate player.  When you bring in a "ringer," you are cheating.  

 

The meaning of the term is carelessly expanded to include adding any good player, even if the player is eligible and legal in all respects, to a team just before a match.

 

I maintain the position that any coach is entitled to improve his team in accordance with the rules of the contests, leagues, or tournaments he enters.

 

Improving your team by adding legal players is not, in and of itself, "bringing in ringers."

 

Yes, there are teams out there that employ over-the-top tactics to field teams that can win tournaments and garner worthless accolades.  

 

There was no suggestion in the OP that this sort of excess was going on here.  There was no mention at all of how well the team did with the addition of these new players.

 

The coach didn't bring in Bryce Harper.  He replaced some starters to "close out the season."  This isn't a big deal.

 

It's unfortunate the thread started with an imprecise use of a loaded term.

 

 

There was no implication of this in the OP. We can't forget something we don't know. My opinion on this topic is based on the facts that I've been given. Certainly, if there are extenuating circumstances, my stance would be reevaluated. But, given the information I have received, and the knowledge I have of the game across many levels, I stand by everything that has been posted. I am also, still, in agreement with Swampboy.

 

You're assuming it was an imprecise use of the term, and I think the further clarifications from OP indicate that it's more likely that it was a precise use of a loaded term.

 

At sub-HS ages (at least), I'd also disagree that it's strictly the coach's team. Recreational baseball (and I use the term broadly to include travel ball here) at the ages the OP clarified is primarily a cooperative affair between coach, parents, and players. As another poster suggested earlier, how would you feel if the coach had brought in 9 new players and cut the guys he started with? Or if he ran his team all year long using that methodology?  How long do you think such a team would remain viable at 13/14?

Are you sure the ringers are happy with there current team? They may be tgere for the oportunity to be seen by the new coach. I do not remember that being part of the post. Can we know the motivation of the ringers? 

You're responding to the OP, who's clarifying it now. If these kids were brought in to win a tournament, as he now suggests, at the expense of kids who've been there since day 1, are you still OK with it?

 

Yes.

 

The kids that have been there since day 1 play under rules of the league, and rules do not disallow the coach from this action. The players (and, as an extension, the parents) should be aware of these rules. They could perform better.

 

A coach telling a player that he isn't performing well enough should be a beneficial lesson for the player. A motivation. A spot on a team does not entitle a player to anything more than a chance. The coach is abiding by the rules of the league/tournament in which the team plays and if a player doesn't like it, then the player shouldn't play for that team. Or, get better.

 

I know all that may sound harsh, but baseball is pretty harsh sometimes. I don't mean to be harsh, I'm just being realistic.

 

 

 

I find this attitude, especially at the 13/14u level, mind-boggling.

 

You're aware that it's pretty routine for teams at this age level to wrap up their season with a "destination" tournament, right? So, hypothetically there's a team that has a kid who's good enough to be the starting SS, paid a 4-figure sum to be on the team, kid worked hard all year and had a great season, and his family booked a vacation around the season ending tournament. Coach then decides to bring in a replacement for the kid for this final tournament, and tells him he'll be the backup for that tournament, and you expect both the kid and parent to be OK with that? What if you're the parent in this hypothetical, and you're the one paying the bills?

 

As a parent, I want the best for my kid. If the coach's judgment indicates that my son's skillset is not worthy of starting at the end of the year, I probably wouldn't be please to hear that because that means that my kid is not at the level he wishes to be. But I would accept the reality for what it is. It's a harsh truth, I understand that. But it's the truth. Whatever changes that would need to be made - whether that be an improvement or a change in teams - would be discussed. But a parent assuming a kid "deserves" something because they're paying is a problem. It's not the coach's responsibility to ensure that a family's vacation goes smoothly, nor is it the coach's responsibility to do anything beyond what the scope of the league rules and/or previously discussed team rules dictate. I'm not, at all, saying that the OP insinuated this. It's just my opinion from instances I've come across.

 

I wouldn't be paying thousands of dollars for 14u in the first place, but that's a topic for another day.

 

I think every situation is different. A lot has to do with how and why the team was put together.  In most cases the player picked up is a pitcher or two.  This, in fact, could be so the coach doesn't have to abuse his pitchers.  It could be because the coach can pick up a big prospect that will draw lots of attention from scouts and college recruiters.  This giving others on the team much more exposure.

 

If the team is formed to simply find out who will pay to be on the team and those players are told they will play all the time, then that is what should happen.  Those kind of teams should not get involved in highly competitive week long tournaments. They simply don't have a big enough roster.

 

in most any situation where a pick up player is used, someone needs to sit.  In most, not all, cases this would be the weakest player. Baseball at the very highest level is not a pay and you play thing.  The rosters are large in order to compete and someone has to be on the bench.  The team plays a lot of games.  Those on the bench are talented.  They play when the coach decides they will play.  When they get that chance they need to take advantage of it.  

 

So I think there are different ways to look at picking up players.  It all depends on what the expectations are from day 1.  But what do you if you have a chance of picking up a potential first round draft pick?  What happens if you leave it up to the team?  What if 14 of the 15 players on the team vote in favor of picking up this player.  Should the one voting against it get his way because he paid to play?  You're the coach and understand that several of your players will have a great opportunity because that kid is going to pack in the scouts and recruiters.  Or do you think about who paid to play?

 

Guess I can see a good reason to go either way.  Then again I would never tell anyone they play all the time if they have paid. And I would never have allowed my kids to sign up for a team like that. Playing time is one thing and everyone should play, but coaches sometimes do what is best for the group, rather than the individual.

 

My youngest son when he was 13 went to a National Tournament with a team.  I paid the same as everyone else.  He ended up playing one inning.  At first I was pissed, but they went to compete and he was the least talented player on the team.  And he told me he had a blast. Did it harm him? 9 years later he was making his debut in the Major Leagues.  Guess it must not have hurt his development all that much. But who knows, maybe he would have been better had they let him play every game at that 13u tournament.

 

I will admit, if my son were the odd man out because of the team picking up a ringer, I would be mad.  But I wouldn't expect everyone else to be mad about it.  And I wouldn't want him on a team that decided playing time and positions based on nothing other than paying a fee.  I know it happens though and in that case no player should be replaced.

I don't think we're going to be able to meet in the middle on this one. Sub-HS baseball (and the majority of HS level travel ball) shouldn't even be about winning as a primary goal. The idea that 13/14 year olds are just replaceable pieces on some coach's roster to be cut or benched when a better option comes along is so far from what youth baseball should be about at any level that I'm not even sure how to address this discussion at this point.