Slotted Drafts
by Slow Country on Jun 9, 2009 3:11 AM PDT
Email
Print
I have been reading about potentailly slotting the amount of money draft picks get here and here. I was wondering what you guys think about having the sort of draft system where each pick can get paid only so much money. I feel it evens out the playing field a bit as teams won't get Rick Porcello'ed. I think it is noteworthy that with a slotted system we would have zero chance of drafting Stephen Strasburg this year as Scott Boras would not be allowed to demand $50 million from the Nationals for him. However, since it seems to be the consensus that our 2nd overall pick will be Dustin Ackley who is also a Boras client, we should still be paying a hefty sum which in a slotted system would be less, theoretically. So tell me what you think.
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Correction
The current draft system is slotted and a new one would be called something else.
Thug Life
There's an edit button right next to email and print, right below your poll.
You should be able to edit anything about the diary except for the poll.
It's hard to convince people to let you eat them if you're an asshole. - Thingray
I think that this is a decent idea that would need to wait.
I don’t see it happening until there is a draft system in place for International FAs. If you can still pay a premium for the hottest Venezuelan or Korean out there, then it can (and should) be argued that the US players should have the same opportunity.
Also, it would be expected that if this were to come to pass, we’ll start losing a lot of talent to basketball and football, as the lack of salary cap and high signing bonuses have been one of our legs up on drafting athleticism away from other sports.
It's hard to convince people to let you eat them if you're an asshole. - Thingray
The answer to the draft problem is to make it like the NBA draft without the lottery and with more rounds
must apply to be eligible, rigid slots for rookie contracts
Well that would be more like the NBA draft, so yes
I think the biggest problem right now is the leverage the players have by not having to apply for the draft and being able to back out of negotiations if they don’t feel like they’re getting enough money. You just don’t see that in the NFL and NBA because where the hell else is a guy going to go play for a year?
Additionally, in the NBA, if a team fails to sign a draft pick, they own that players rights’ indefinitely until he signs with them or is traded, unlike the MLB draft where a player can just go get picked by a different team next year
Model it like the NHL draft.
They have experience dealing with internationals at young ages.
Of course the huge problem with this suggestion is who the fuck wants to slot 1,500 picks?
you can’t just make the slot go away after some point because teams will just wait for a guy to pass the tenth round or whatever and then offer him a $15M signing bonus
At a very quick point, it just becomes copy-paste.
You just say the highest bonus paid to anyone in rounds 20-25 is $25,000, 25-30: $20,000, etc
Yeah, I like that, it seems better than slotting individual picks
and keeps the lower round guys from getting completely screwed by a slotting system
Or eliminate the draft entirely and move to a pure free-agent system
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
by pdb on Jun 9, 2009 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions
That would completely change the face of baseball, destroy competetive balance, and thus would be stupid
by Graham MacAree on Jun 9, 2009 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Would it destroy competitive balance though?
I’m not convinced. Take Strasburg. As it stands now, he’ll be drafted by the Nats and then probably do three years there, and then get traded to (insert big name team here) for a bunch of lower-cost, yet talented, prospects when the Nats still suck in 2012. Meanwhile, one of the best pitching prospects in a generation or two is wasting his time and talent pitching for a team that perpetually goes nowhere.
Or, he decides next week that he doesn’t want to play for the Nats after all and re-enters the draft next year, having made it clear that he’ll only sign for a small number of elite teams. Or take Bryce Harper, who floated the idea of moving to Puerto Rico so as to not be covered by the MLB’s draft rules. Granted, his parents won’t let him, but what’s to stop a bunch of other top prospects with less altruistic parents from doing the same thing in future years?
How does any of that preserve competitive balance? I’m not convinced that there is a good solution to the problem, but I don’t buy the “change the face of baseball” argument as a deterrent for this any more than I do for eliminating umpires in favor of technological ball/strike calls – maybe in this case the face of baseball SHOULD be changed.
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
by pdb on Jun 9, 2009 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Puerto Rico, or the Dominican, I can't remember which
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
by pdb on Jun 9, 2009 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Has to be the Dominican, Puerto Rico is subject to U.S. draft rules
but it was my understanding that Harper just wants to play, which is why he’s considering the JUCO route more seriously.
Yes, you can circumvent the draft and get to play for whoever you like, but those cases are pretty rare
and most players don’t find it worth the hassle to try and get around the draft. If you go to a full free-market system, the disincentive of doing all the work to circumvent the draft goes away and suddenly teams with money like the Yankees can do whatever the hell they want.
And that's different from now....how?
This is my point, mostly – teams with money basically have all the cards in the deck right now anyway, so to me it’s a choice of either modifying the draft like you mention above, to where teams own a draftee’s rights for a set number of years after the draft, or abolish it entirely.
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
by pdb on Jun 9, 2009 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Club control goes away entirely.
The concept of cheap young players is crucial to the baseball economy as it allows teams in weak markets to at least be competetive. Take that away and we’re dominated by 8 or 9 teams, and the others have no shot of winning at all.
Of course, free agency prices would plummet too.
by Graham MacAree on Jun 9, 2009 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions
I really, honestly don't mean to sound snarky here
Take that away and we’re dominated by 8 or 9 teams, and the others have no shot of winning at all.
Isn’t that kind of where MLB is? Granted, the last few of the 8 or 9 rotate around a bit, but there’s always that core group of NYY/BOS/LAA etc that are in that elite group. My unfettered free agency thought might make it continue, but I’m not sure it makes it much worse than it is now.
With free agency instead of a draft, you could still retain control of players – make the minimum contract length 5 years or something, and that still allows for club control.
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
by pdb on Jun 9, 2009 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Look at WS/playoff participants over the past decade.
MLB has one of the best competitive balances of any major sport in the world. Sure, some teams are always competitive, but most teams have a legitimate shot at contention each year. That’s because of the draft.
by Graham MacAree on Jun 9, 2009 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions
I'd be fine with just one change: guaranteed slots
by Graham MacAree on Jun 9, 2009 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions
If you do that and add control of rights to a drafted player I'd be OK with it too
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
by pdb on Jun 9, 2009 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Uh... we got Felix via free market principles.
He’s an IFA
I should clarify
I only meant free agency as it related to undrafted players. Players under contract would be subject to the current rules as regards existing contracts.
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
by pdb on Jun 9, 2009 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Hello, MLBPA!
The players’ union would justifiably flip their shit at any attempt to alter the terms of their contract to shaft those already in the union (e.g. Felix) on the behalf of those who are not yet members.
By the way, your free agent idea is a monstrosity that would destroy baseball as we know it.
I don't know how to stop.
I don't think I made myself entirely clear there
Free agency and contracts as they currently exist only apply to players that are currently under contract, right? High school and college players aren’t under a professional contract, so there’s no reason they should be subject to the rules for contracted players – until the moment they sign a contract, at which time they become party to MLBPA’s current agreement and its rules.
All I’m saying is, instead of a draft, players sign a contract with a team of their choosing based on their particular wants/needs. That’s the only bit that would change.
By the way, your free agent idea is a monstrosity that would destroy baseball as we know it.
isn’t hyperbole fun?
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
Wrong.
Legally speaking, FA and contracts as they currently exist apply both to players in the union as well as any amateurs who might seek to enter into the union. These kids’ rights are crystal clear (which is to say FA can never happen absent the union signing on) and they’re fucked.
What is that you say? High school and college players aren’t part of the union, so how can they be bound by their rules? Because the MLBPA fucking says so, and do you have a problem with that, son? Which is to say, courts will almost always respect a union’s collective bargaining agreement, especially when it’s backstopped by MLB’s quasi-unique antitrust exemption. This is a basic tenet of labor law; understand that MLB’s ability to regulate entry into the league by governing how amateurs can make themselves available to teams is fairly analogous to the sorts of “closed shop” rules that trade unions include in CBAs all the time.
It might sound ridiculous and unfair — and maybe it is — but it’s the law, it’s been ratified by the courts and Congress, and it’s not changing anytime soon except by mutual agreement of MLB and MLBPA. Which is to say that it ain’t changing at all.
I don't know how to stop.
To follow-up, there are actually really good policy reasons (aside from the naked self-interest of current union members) why it shouldn't change.
The primary one — the competitive balance one — is the main reason.
I don't know how to stop.
It really isn't that much of hyperbole though
abandoning the draft in favor of a free agent free for all would ruin baseball parity and all you need to do is look to international soccer to see that.
One of the biggest reasons the draft came into being in 1965 was
because the Yankees and Dodgers were buying up all the top talent and leaving the scraps for everyone else. They also used to have almost twice the number of minor league teams if I remember correctly.
At one point some thought the Yankees AAA team was better than half of the Major League teams out there. I do not want to return to that.
What we have now may not be balanced, but it is far more balanced than it used to be.
A slotted system serves only to transfer wealth from the players to the owners.
If you want fairness without stealing the biggest payday most of these guys will ever see, let the teams trade draft picks.
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
I'm not sure how much the trading of picks would help
Say you were Washington, and you simply did not have the funds to sign Strasburg this year. You wouldn’t come out and say this publicly, of course, but if I’m a team like Seattle what reason do I have to give a ton of value to move up in the draft when there’s a good chance that player won’t be taken due to signability concerns anyway?
Point is, it puts draft picks onto a quasi-free market
and there’s just no way that doesn’t make it better for the teams that hold them.
If my team were to pick #1 and had a gutted farm system
and another team less in need of depth and more in need of a high-upside type player were to offer a high first rounder, late first rounder and either supplemental or second round pick, I’d be thrilled. You could rebuild your system in one day the way we’re hoping the Mariners will do while still getting a shot at a very good player in the first.
I just don’t see the reasoning for not allowing it. I’ve heard the arguments but there’s no way the negatives outweigh the positives.
by Aaron Campeau on Jun 9, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Same thing as the NFL draft where a team picking first will play chicken with the team after them
forcing them to give up value to move up just one spot in the draft
by seattlebruin on Jun 9, 2009 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
