Wieters negotiations most likely dead

by Lt Melmo on Aug 15, 2007 10:18 PM EDT

http://baltimore.orioles.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070815&content_id=2150688&vkey=news_ bal&fext=.jsp&c_id=bal

"I don't think were real optimistic," said Orioles scouting director Joe Jordan, who felt that Wieters was the best college position player in the Draft. "We're so far apart on everything, and I'm the biggest optimist in the room."

MacPhail has, ahem, phailed his test in Baltimore. If he weren't in charge, the deal probably would've happened. I'm livid. I can't remember the last halfway competent front office this organization has had. The one bright spot is Joe Jordan, and his excellent scouting just gets thrown out of the window this year. Christ.

Tweet Comment 43 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Sad...

by Dfarth on Aug 15, 2007 10:12 PM EDT reply actions

very

I really don't know how you'd fix it though. I think you need a very harsh penalty for going over slot. If you get rid of the slot it wont change the problem imo. But saying if you go over slot you'll be severely penalized might work.

I drafted Parker, Russell, and Moustakas so far so i'm only 2 for 5.... And i almost took fields too

by JD Sussman on Aug 15, 2007 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions

Same Boat

I got Parker Moustakas and Dominguez...1/3.

On the topic of slotting, I believe that slotting should be strictly enforced but that the slot money should also be increased. MLB teams (except maybe the Tigers and Yankees) are undervaluing impact draft talent. The teams with the first couple of picks should get the top talents but have to pay them accordingly...

by Dfarth on Aug 15, 2007 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions

+1

Agree about the slot money, it was a ridiculous notion that any agent would accept 10% less than what the same pick received last year.

by Bowser on Aug 15, 2007 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Not for

Rays fans who hope he's there next year :)

On a serious note, this is stupid. He said before the draft he wanted Big Tex money (9.5 million). If that's what he's asking for, and you're offering a reported 5 million, a deal is obviously not going to get done. If the O's weren't prepared to pay for him, don't draft him.

by Tyler on Aug 15, 2007 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions

And it appears

I'm wrong. BA's draft blog is saying they're hearing the O's are offering a deal slightly less than Price's, but still at least close to 8 million. If he won't take that, then he's being unreasonable.

The Royals also upped their offer to 4 million reportedly, Boras is seeking 7 million.

by Tyler on Aug 15, 2007 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions

BTW

$7M for Moose...Wow!

by Dfarth on Aug 15, 2007 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions

yea

"The Royals reportedly have upped their offer to No. 2 overall pick Mike Moustakas from MLB's slot recommendation of $3.15 million to $4 million. Moustakas, advised by Scott Boras, appears to be seeking $7 million."

by JD Sussman on Aug 15, 2007 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Moose

Totally not worth it. They can sign TWO quality top ten guys next year for that same amount of money.

by BlueEyesAustin on Aug 15, 2007 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions

So

basically you're insinuating that Baltimore, along with every team not in a mega-market, should have passed on him because of what he wanted?

If that's the case, why even have a draft at all? How about every year we let the big markets take their turn trying to sign all the best players, then the rest of the teams can get the leftover players?

by Bowser on Aug 15, 2007 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions

That's not the case at all

But the Matt Wieters has the right to ask for however much money he wants. And the Orioles knew exactly what he was asking predraft and if they were not prepared to pay that, then the shouldn't have drafted him. It's a free market draft. This isn't the NBA or NFL where there is a set signing amount (I know the NFL isn't in stone, but each team only has so much they can spend on all of their picks combined).

The Orioles are not a small market team either and they have plenty of money to sign players if they so choose. The idea that a team can't afford a draft pick is beyond me. Now if BA is correct in what they wrote, then I blame Wieters because he's being unreasonable not accepting one of the 5 or 6 biggest bonuses in draft history. If an agent/player is asking for outragous sums of money (like 10 mill) and won't budge that's one thing, but if the market is set (by Price), and you're not willing to get in that ballpark, at that point I blame the team.

My first statement was based on the last report I had heard that they weren't willing to go over 5 million.

by Tyler on Aug 15, 2007 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions

That's exactly what you're insinuating

Wieters made his demand, so Baltimore should have paid up or passed on him, correct?

And frankly, I don't think the Price signing did anything; DP was far and away the best player in this draft. There was a tier of players after him, and I don't think the Price deal should have had any effect on what Wieters, Moose, etc did.

by Bowser on Aug 15, 2007 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes and no

Here's my position. MLB has made the draft a circus, but it is what it is. And what it is, is a free market draft where players can ask whatever they want and ML teams have to sift through it and decide how much to pay. Because it's a free market, Price sets the market because he was the clear #1 player. But guys like Porcello and Wieters could make the case that they were #2 and because of that should be paid like the 2nd best player. Porcello was. Wieters is asking for #1 money and way more than Price got and in that case, I say that's unreasonable. If the Orioles are offering what's reported, then I can't see how he won't sign. But if they're in the 5 million neighborhood, then that's not 'fair' to Wieters because the market has been set higher by Price and Porcello. It doesn't matter if you think they're not in Price's league, Price wasn't in Upton's league as a prospect and he got a deal very close to Upton's. It's all about that years market. It's different every year.

Listen, the system is broken. It's unfair and doesn't benefit anyone other than huge market teams who don't care about their share of the revenue sharing money. But it is what it is. And if I'm Matt Wieters or Rick Porcello, or David Price, I'm getting every penny I can. There is no way I sign for slot because I don't have to. I'd hire Boras and demand an outrageous contract and work down from there.

by Tyler on Aug 15, 2007 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Biggest slight

is to Orioles fans.

I hear the Killers lyrics 'cuz Andyyyy you're a starrrrr' playing somewhere in Baltimore right now.

by NewKidInTown on Aug 15, 2007 10:22 PM EDT reply actions

Boras is the sport killer

MLB should find a way to ban him from the game. Noticed that he can't find a client outside of baseball.

by Bravesin07 on Aug 15, 2007 10:24 PM EDT reply actions

Man

I can't disagree more. Boras isn't the problem. The problem is a horrible design by MLB. Boras is one of the result. Players don't have to sign him. They want to sign him because he gets them huge amounts of money.

by Dfarth on Aug 15, 2007 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree on that front but you don't hear

problems from players with other agents, it's just him.

by Bravesin07 on Aug 15, 2007 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions

well

thats because hes far and away the best at his job

by Rob Castellano on Aug 15, 2007 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Plus One

Out of the three major 3-letter sports leagues, MLB is by far the worst designed as far as competitiveness goes. This is true from their draft to their FA system to their playoffs. Well, maybe the NBA's got more playoff issues, but overall, MLB still wins.

This is contrast to the VERY well-constructed NFL.

Shame, really, considering how much I prefer baseball to the other two.

by mraver on Aug 15, 2007 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Well

#1 pick Russell by the Raiders says hello.

Something else that helps the NFL and now the NBA is that they have age restrictions that make athletes go to college for at least 1 year for the NBA and I believe 2 in the NFL.

by Havok1517 on Aug 15, 2007 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions

well that's because Al Davis is 100 years old

and runs his team like it was still 1970. Russell won't sign until midseason and won't play this year as the Raiders battle the Falcons for the 1st pick of the 2008 draft.

by Bravesin07 on Aug 15, 2007 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions

So the falcons are one of the worst teams in the

NFL

by NYYLover1000 on Aug 15, 2007 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Parker

any news on Jarrod Parker?

by AZDBACKS on Aug 15, 2007 10:38 PM EDT reply actions

signed

$2.1M

by GammonsIsGod on Aug 15, 2007 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Where

Are you seeing this...I can't confirm it...

by Dfarth on Aug 15, 2007 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions

source?

this is exciting if true

by AZDBACKS on Aug 15, 2007 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions

ESPN.Com

[url]http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2975910[/url]

by gunkdog on Aug 15, 2007 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Confirmation

from Baseball America.

by gunkdog on Aug 15, 2007 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions

O's sign Arrieta for $1.1 mill

that may help the Wieters negotiation...

by Bowser on Aug 15, 2007 10:48 PM EDT reply actions

As a Solution For Fixing the Draft...

...can anyone find a fault with making players declare for the draft? I've wondered that for years, figuring that there must be a good reason why it isn't done that way in baseball, but I haven't been able to figure it out on my own.

Wouldn't that end all of this nonsense about guys like Weiters being able to steer themselves towards the rich teams? (I agree with Bowser's take, by the way.) If a player declares (either out of high school, as a junior, from CC, whatever), his eligibility's shot, and he's in the draft, wherever he may be selected. As part of the declaration paperwork, make it so that any independent league action isn't exempt from making the player ineligible to re-enter the draft next year, meaning a player either comes to terms, sits out from all live baseball for a year and re-enters, or joins Matt Harrington at Best Buy.

As part of it, the teams agree to tender the player a contract worth that slot by a certain date, meaning the player does have some guarantee a team won't severely lowball him.

There's got to be a glaring hole in this system since I never hear it proposed (though it's very close to the other sports' way of doing it). Anybody able to point out what I'm missing?

by brawnyhombre on Aug 15, 2007 10:54 PM EDT reply actions

agreed

it really is that simple. The Only glaring hole is getting the players and big market teams to agree to it.

by kaisertown on Aug 16, 2007 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions

Boras

Boras and other agents aren't sport killers. If MLB executives would just tow the line that Selig has given them this would go away in 2-3 years at the most.

Baseball owners and executives have been given all the leverage in the world.

The union fully supports the slot system. MLB is allowing teams with guys who don't sign compensation picks.

The bottom line is that MLB teams don't have to deliver huge contracts.

Interestingly enough there are 2 ways to fix this problem. The first is to institute some kind of forced slotting. (Very problematic and difficult) The second and more likely is to finally allow the trading of draft picks. This allows poorer teams to leverage their draft positions by creating a competitive market for their picks.

by RMF on Aug 15, 2007 11:00 PM EDT reply actions

trading picks would be great

for example the royals with their 2nd pick don't want to overpay for a guy can trade that pick for a MLB ready player or a pretty good prospect and another pick a supplemental pick or something like that.

by Bravesin07 on Aug 15, 2007 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions

This is torturous

sign him!!!

by NewKidInTown on Aug 15, 2007 11:13 PM EDT reply actions

So...

we will know who is signed right at 12:00?

by adschofield on Aug 15, 2007 11:18 PM EDT reply actions

Whoops

Will we know who is signed right at 12:00

by adschofield on Aug 15, 2007 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Maybe

But I believe its 12:00 EST so Kansas City needs to sign Moose by 10:59 their time.

by Havok1517 on Aug 15, 2007 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions

so

Seattle would have to sign by noon their time? ;)

by pedrophile on Aug 16, 2007 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions

Not Draft Related

Or MiLB related...but Ubaldo Jimenez is starting to make me think he may realize some of his potential...so far tonight:

5.1IP 1H 0ER 2BB 8K

by Dfarth on Aug 15, 2007 11:44 PM EDT reply actions

When is...

Vitters going to sign...I know he wants to wait until the last second, but damn, he's cutting it awful close.

by adschofield on Aug 15, 2007 11:54 PM EDT reply actions

Cubs Confident Vitters Will Sign

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-070815cubsbrite,1,1124696.story?coll =cs-cubs-headlines

by knightgalt on Aug 16, 2007 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions

Wieters, Boras

Q1) It's one thing for a pitcher (Hochevar) or a position player (JD Drew) to defer a year or two, turning down a very lucrative contract. But catchers have shorter life spans behind the plate. Don't you think Wieters, even acknowledging that eventually he's move to 1st, would want to get to the show as soon as possible?

Q2) Has anybody made a list of players Boras has represented who've turned down contracts and ended up regretting it? Obviously i'm being rhetorical, but we can't disregard the fact that sometimes 18-year-olds don't always know what to do, and often listen to bad advice.

by waka25 on Aug 16, 2007 12:01 AM EDT reply actions