PDA

View Full Version : Just thought of something - 2008 draft



edabbs44
08-15-2007, 04:05 PM
It doesn't look like KC will be signing their 2007 1st round pick (2nd overall). That means they will get the pick after the 2nd pick next season.

Wonderful...we suffer through the worst Cincy season in recent history and our reward might get diluted. Absolutely tremendous.

dougdirt
08-15-2007, 04:06 PM
You can thank Bud Selig for that. KC wants to sign their pick, but they won't pay over the suggested slot price set by MLB.

JaxRed
08-15-2007, 04:09 PM
Actually it's not diluted. One extra pick for first round, one extra first round talent

dougdirt
08-15-2007, 04:14 PM
Actually it's not diluted. One extra pick for first round, one extra first round talent
Not when its a HS kid going to college. He wont be draft eligible for 3 years.

edabbs44
08-15-2007, 04:15 PM
You can thank Bud Selig for that. KC wants to sign their pick, but they won't pay over the suggested slot price set by MLB.

Jim Callis had a good thought during his chat today...they spent $5 million on Reggie Sanders. They have no excuse. Everyone else is breaking slot, what is KC afraid of?

New Fever
08-15-2007, 04:16 PM
Jim Callis just said on his chat today, that the Royals would go for a signability pick next year at pick 2A. Because there would be no set slot to the pick and if they didn't sign the player next year they would not receive an additional pick the next year. So the guy they pick next year probably wouldn't even be a top 10 worthy pick.

TOBTTReds
08-15-2007, 04:21 PM
i think he signs anyway, and this is moot.

OesterPoster
08-15-2007, 04:59 PM
On a sidenote, did anyone catch the AFLAC All-Star game the other day? I only saw the last inning when Jack Armstrong (yes, the son of that Jack Armstrong) pitched the bottom of the 9th for the East's victory over the West. Supposedly the East scored 3 in the top of the 9th to take the lead, but I missed it.

JaxRed
08-15-2007, 05:53 PM
Not when its a HS kid going to college. He wont be draft eligible for 3 years.


Good point.... College would have been "push" but not HS.... (unless he goes JUCO)

dougdirt
08-16-2007, 02:33 AM
Mike Moustakas signed, so they will not be getting the 3rd pick next season unless they earn it.

Mario-Rijo
08-16-2007, 06:13 PM
Another thought along these lines is to keep an eye on the guys the Reds didn't get signed. Let's see where the likes of Stouffer and O'neill end up going in next years draft and to whom. It should be a nice little sub-plot to the draft.

GoReds33
08-16-2007, 06:21 PM
Mike Moustakas signed, so they will not be getting the 3rd pick next season unless they earn it."Earn it"??? So thats what they call losing now.:)

RedsManRick
08-16-2007, 06:49 PM
Pretty ridiculous that a team would rather sign a 5th starter for $40M but won't pony up an extra $2M for a potential ace or cleanup hitter. The whole draft system is screwed up. It's completely inefficient.

dougdirt
08-16-2007, 07:46 PM
Pretty ridiculous that a team would rather sign a 5th starter for $40M but won't pony up an extra $2M for a potential ace or cleanup hitter. The whole draft system is screwed up. It's completely inefficient.

Its not that they wont pony it up, its that a lot of teams were worried about upsetting the MLB offices who set the slot numbers. There really was nothing that MLB could do though other than be mad and maybe hold a grudge but apparently a lot of teams were scared to offer over slot money.

IslandRed
08-16-2007, 10:13 PM
Its not that they wont pony it up, its that a lot of teams were worried about upsetting the MLB offices who set the slot numbers. There really was nothing that MLB could do though other than be mad and maybe hold a grudge but apparently a lot of teams were scared to offer over slot money.

Yep. In the absence of a formally negotiated slotting system, MLB has some leverage -- there are plenty of ways the central office can make a club's life more difficult -- but only to a point. They can't outright prevent teams from going over slot lest it spawn Collusion, Episode Four.

GoReds33
08-16-2007, 10:29 PM
MLB is stupid with this slow garbage. If they want to keep the bonuses down they should just set the max for a team to spend. They can't just make suggestions. Thats stupid.

camisadelgolf
08-17-2007, 03:00 AM
MLB is stupid with this slow garbage. If they want to keep the bonuses down they should just set the max for a team to spend. They can't just make suggestions. Thats stupid.

I wouldn't have worded it so bluntly, but I agree with you.

dougdirt
08-17-2007, 03:09 AM
The best fix for the draft is to have slotted numbers that the players have to sign for, or they are not playing this year. That way teams will always take the best player available and the draft works. There is no reason Porcello should have fallen past the top 5, much less to 27th, but he did because of money and so instead of the worst teams getting the best talent, the better teams ended up getting the better talent. That defeats the purpose of a draft. Set slot numbers and have them set in stone. If you break the slot, you lose a 40 man roster slot for a year. I bet you won't see any teams breaking slot.

Triples
08-17-2007, 10:01 AM
Couldn't agee more. I'd take it another step and have the slot numbers be set in stone all the way through the draft with some of ridiculous millions spent on unproven first rounds spread down to the lower round draft picks. Its unbelievable that a first rounder gets 2-4 million and 10th rounder is lucky to get $50k. The odds are not 40-80 times greater they will succeeds so why pay they them 40-80 times more in a signing bonus. Only in professional sports does this insanity exist.


The best fix for the draft is to have slotted numbers that the players have to sign for, or they are not playing this year. That way teams will always take the best player available and the draft works. There is no reason Porcello should have fallen past the top 5, much less to 27th, but he did because of money and so instead of the worst teams getting the best talent, the better teams ended up getting the better talent. That defeats the purpose of a draft. Set slot numbers and have them set in stone. If you break the slot, you lose a 40 man roster slot for a year. I bet you won't see any teams breaking slot.

Gallen5862
08-17-2007, 11:15 AM
It looks like the Royals and Orioles both signed their first round picks. They were the 2nd and 5th overall picks.

RedsManRick
08-17-2007, 12:12 PM
FWIW, if a team fails to sign a player chosen with a compensatory pick, that team gets no compensation.

Read another way, if a team has a high compensatory pick, they have virtually no leverage, and thus are likely to pick a player below slot, whom they can be sure will sign.

The below is from Rany Jazyerli @ BP.


At this point, if Major League Baseball had enforced their slotting recommendations by threatening violators with being exiled to Siberia, I think Scott Boras would be coming to the podium today to announce that the Detroit Tigers had agreed to move their franchise to Novosibirsk.

In theory, as a result of the changes in the draft process this year, teams ought to have considerably more leverage than they have in the past. In theory. The creation of a firm August 15th deadline eliminates the ability of draftees to drag out the negotiations (by attending Junior College or playing in the independent leagues) until just a week before the following draft. More importantly, the new rules which gives teams that do not sign their first rounders a compensation pick in virtually the same slot next year, gives teams a considerably more palatable option than in the past, when they would only get a compensation pick at the end of the supplemental round.

There is a principle in negotiations known as BATNA – short for Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. Basically, this refers to your fallback plan in case a negotiation breaks down. In previous years, the BATNA for a team negotiating with its first-round pick would be the compensation pick at the end of the supplemental round the following year. As the BATNA would typically be a lesser player than the first round pick, a team’s leverage was not very high. If the alternative to signing, say, Brien Taylor was to get the 50th overall pick the following year…well, that’s why the Yankees ponied up the big bucks to sign him.

The change in compensation rules for this year dramatically improves the BATNA for teams. If the Devil Rays don’t sign David Price, they get the #2 overall pick next year. Given that Price would be back in the draft himself, you could make the argument that the Devil Rays’ BATNA is equivalent in value to Price. They can play hardball with him, knowing that if he doesn’t sign, they can replace him with equal value next year. The same goes with the Royals, who if they don’t sign #2 overall pick Mike Moustakas will have the #3 or #4 (if Price also doesn’t sign) pick next year; and the Cubs, who will have the #4, #5, or #6 pick next year if Josh Vitters doesn’t sign.

But here’s the catch, and here’s why Scott Boras is such a brilliant negotiator: the value of the BATNA drops the deeper into the draft you go. If a top talent like, say, Rick Porcello – a consensus Top-5 draft pick on talent alone – were to drop deep into the first round, the BATNA of whichever team drafted him would not be a comparable player. Meanwhile, no matter where Porcello is drafted, his BATNA – to go to college – doesn’t change at all.

The Detroit Tigers could not resist when Porcello fell to them with the 27th overall pick. And with the deadline approaching, they apparently could not resist giving Porcello almost everything he was asking for. And for good reason: the Tigers’ BATNA was pick 27A next season, and the odds that a player of Porcello’s caliber will fall that deep into the draft again are slim to none. The Tigers don’t appear likely to be drafting at the top of their first round on their own accord anytime soon, so from their standpoint, this might be their last opportunity to nab a premier player in the draft for a very long time.

This is classic game theory: a rule change that should give teams more leverage in general – because they have a better BATNA than before – gives a specific team in a specific circumstance (a team that drafts a top talent late in the first round) less leverage specifically. And we know it only takes one outlier to drive up values for the market as a whole. For proof, just look at Scott Boras’ work every winter.

The irony is that, had Porcello been drafted by the Royals or the Cubs or some other team at the top of the draft, he would have been less likely to get the $7-million-plus contract he was asking for, because those teams would have had a better BATNA; they would have been compensated with a higher draft pick in 2008 if they had failed to come to terms, and so they could have held firm with a lesser offer. In other words, the farther Porcello fell in the draft, the more money he was likely to earn. And by announcing to teams ahead of the draft that Porcello really wanted to go to college and would only sign for Josh Beckett money (inflation-adjusted), Boras helped his client fall deep into the draft. Which was exactly what he wanted.

Also note that Porcello hasn’t officially come to terms yet, but that didn’t keep the baseball world from learning the news that Porcello was getting a record-breaking contract. With a little more than 24 hours until the deadline, news of Porcello’s signing only increased the pressure on teams at the top of the draft to sign their players, while increasing those players’ market value. Two of those players, Moustakas and Vitters Matt Wieters, are Boras clients.

It’s Scott Boras’ world. And we’re all just living in it.

IslandRed
08-17-2007, 12:33 PM
MLB is stupid with this slow garbage. If they want to keep the bonuses down they should just set the max for a team to spend. They can't just make suggestions. Thats stupid.

MLB can't do it unilaterally unless they want the MLBPA to clean their clock in court (again). The draft is part of the CBA.

dougdirt
08-17-2007, 12:52 PM
MLB can't do it unilaterally unless they want the MLBPA to clean their clock in court (again). The draft is part of the CBA.

which boggles my mind, because 99% of the players sign minor league contracts from the draft. Also, the players are not a part of the MLBPA until they sign a contract with the MLBPA and you don't have to do that (see Bonds, Barry). I just don't get how the MLBPA has any say on the draft when non of the players are a part of their union.

IslandRed
08-17-2007, 01:55 PM
which boggles my mind, because 99% of the players sign minor league contracts from the draft. Also, the players are not a part of the MLBPA until they sign a contract with the MLBPA and you don't have to do that (see Bonds, Barry). I just don't get how the MLBPA has any say on the draft when non of the players are a part of their union.

The same way a teacher's union negotiates contracts on behalf of all teachers, even the ones that don't belong. I don't claim to understand all of labor law by a long shot, but it's about a "recognized bargaining authority" or somesuch. The same deal applies in other sports, too -- the NFL's rookie cap and NBA's rookie wage scale had to be collectively bargained.

And anyway, I don't think it's even possible to have a player draft in this day and age without it being collectively bargained. The very concept of a draft is rife with anti-trust concerns. When I graduated from college, the pool of my potential employers wouldn't have been legally permitted to get together and decide which one I had to go work for.

dougdirt
08-17-2007, 01:58 PM
The same way a teacher's union negotiates contracts on behalf of all teachers, even the ones that don't belong. I don't claim to understand all of labor law by a long shot, but it's about "recognized bargaining agents" or somesuch. The same deal applies in other sports, too -- the NFL's rookie cap and NBA's rookie wage scale had to be collectively bargained.

And anyway, I don't think it's even possible to have a player draft in this day and age without it being collectively bargained. The very concept of a draft is rife with anti-trust concerns. When I graduated from college, the pool of my potential employers wouldn't have been legally permitted to get together and decide which one I had to go work for.

Well the difference with the NBA and NFL drafts is that those players sign contracts to play with the actual teams. They aren't signing NFL Europe contracts or NBADL contracts. 99.9% of the players drafted and signed are signing minor league contracts.

IslandRed
08-17-2007, 02:14 PM
Well the difference with the NBA and NFL drafts is that those players sign contracts to play with the actual teams. They aren't signing NFL Europe contracts or NBADL contracts. 99.9% of the players drafted and signed are signing minor league contracts.

The "minor league" contract gives them a lower status and less lucrative terms, but the contract is still signed with the Cincinnati Reds, binds the player to the Reds organization, and tells the player he will play where the Reds send him. Todd Frazier (for example) was not drafted and signed by the Billings Mustangs, he was drafted and signed by the Cincinnati Reds, and legally, that puts it on the same level.

dougdirt
08-17-2007, 02:26 PM
The "minor league" contract gives them a lower status and less lucrative terms, but the contract is still signed with the Cincinnati Reds, binds the player to the Reds organization, and tells the player he will play where the Reds send him. Todd Frazier (for example) was not drafted and signed by the Billings Mustangs, he was drafted and signed by the Cincinnati Reds, and legally, that puts it on the same level.

I get that, but does the MLBPA represent the minor league players? If they want to fight a suspension, does the MLBPA come to their defense? I guess that would be a better question.

Gallen5862
08-17-2007, 04:04 PM
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/draft/?p=228



Post-Deadline Winners And Losers

Posted Aug. 16, 2007 10:55 am by John Manuel
Filed under: Draft Dope, Signings

One man’s assessment of the winners and losers as the first annual Draft Deadline Day Madness is behind us:

WINNERS

Thaaaa Yankees: No John Sterling call necessary. The Yankees did what many clubs feared they might do: Flex their financial muscle in the draft and sign whoever they want, for whatever they want to pay. The Yankees spent more than $7.4 million in bonuses to sign their picks in the first 10 rounds, with even more committed to first-round pick Andrew Brackman in the form of a major league contract.
That said, giving so much money to Brackman may not work out. But the Yankees are unique in that they can absorb such mistakes with little consequence. Remember Cuban defector Andy Morales ($4.5 million), or Japanese pitcher Kats Maeda ($1.5 million)? Neither do the Yankees.

Tigers: The Tigers don’t quite have the Yankees’ financial muscle–who does?–but they aren’t afraid to spend in the draft. It has already paid dividends in the form of Justin Verlander and Andrew Miller, with Cameron Maybin on the way. That 2011 rotation of Bonderman-Verlander-Miller-Rick Porcello could look pretty dominant.

Scott Boras Corp.: The draft may have been held in Orlando this year, but the road to getting the top talent went through Newport Beach, Calif., home base of Boras Corp. Not every client got the top-end contract he was seeking, but no one controlled the days leading up to the deadline more than Boras.

The Royals and Orioles signed the Boras clients they wanted, and didn’t pay $17 million for them . . . but they still spent $10 million for Mike Moustakas and Matt Wieters. And then there’s the Andrew Brackman contract, which could end up paying him more than $13 million–to a pitcher who’s having Tommy John surgery and has never thrown more than 78 innings in a season. Speaking of which . . .

Andrew Brackman: How exactly did a player with his resume–elbow injury, overrated basketball skills, fewer than 150 career college innings, and post-surgery pro debut of late ‘08 or 2009–get a major league contract with a $3.35 million bonus, guarantee of $4.55 million, possible contract of eight figures? He’s probably the biggest winner of the whole draft.

Orioles & Royals: Minutes from getting extra first-round picks in next year’s draft, these clubs were rewarded for holding the line. They both still paid dearly for their first-rounders, but they got deals done without giving up major league deals, and they can both say they weren’t pushovers for Boras.

LOSERS

Astros & Angels: Houston had no first- or second-round pick, then failed to sign its third- and fourth-round picks. Say hello to Collin DeLome, Astros fans, your top draft pick, a solid but not spectacular player. A thin farm system gets little help. The Angels, always willing to take a gamble in the draft, came away empty-handed this year on Matt Harvey, their highest-ceiling pick, in the third round, and didn’t sign hard-throwing Utah prep lefty Tanner Robles (14th round).

Joshua Fields & Kyle Russell: Fields, a righthander who was the second-round pick of the Braves, hasn’t recaptured the magic of his 2006 summer on the Cape but will head back to Georgia for his senior season. Russell, a fourth-round pick of the Cardinals, is a Texas outfielder who at least has the advantage of heading into his junior season, but he’ll be hard-pressed to do better than the Longhorns-record 28 homers he hit this spring.

Commissioner’s Office: The new draft rules, which included a signing deadline and improved compensation for unsigned picks in the first two rounds, were designed to drive down bonuses, and bonus recommendations were down 10 percent this year. We’re still sorting through all the numbers in the first 10 rounds, but with the flurry of late signings that were above the recommended slot, despite the new rules and all of MLB’s posturing and memos . . . the average first-round bonus went up.

Stanford: The Cardinal still has young talent coming back next year, but Jack McGeary might have batted third and been the ace (or No. 2 behind righthander Jeff Inman) to try to lead the program back to prominence. Instead, he gets $1.8 million from the Nationals, a record for a sixth-round pick, and still gets to go to Stanford for three academic quarters a year. McGeary’s deal is amazing, but a blow to coach Mark Marquess’ program.





This entry was posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 at 10:55 am by John Manuel and is filed under Draft Dope, Signings. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site

camisadelgolf
08-17-2007, 04:56 PM
Matt Harvey was my first selection in the mock draft. If I were in baseball, I'd kill to get him on my team. That Andrew Brackman contract was one of the craziest things I've ever seen. Here's how I'd describe it:

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/47/89/23498947.jpg

IslandRed
08-17-2007, 05:08 PM
I get that, but does the MLBPA represent the minor league players? If they want to fight a suspension, does the MLBPA come to their defense? I guess that would be a better question.

That's a good question. The relationship between the majors and the minors is complex in a lot of ways. I don't believe the MLBPA directly represents minor leaguers in the traditional way. But the MLBPA is definitely involved in negotiating the terms of the reserve system, and the reserve system reaches all the way through the minor leagues to the draft itself, so that's their stake.

bucksfan2
08-17-2007, 05:37 PM
I would be willing to bet that most MLB players don't particularly care for the amount of money spent on draft picks. The more money spent on draft picks the less money spent on acutal major leaguers. IMO if the MLBPA and Commish's office got together they could do something about the drafting process.