10 Ways To Spice Up The MLB Draft

Abolish slotting and even the playing field? Those kind of offset each other. If they could make the slotting system something teams have to follow then maybe the field would be even but other wise it’s never going to be in terms of small market teams signing elite players asking top dollar. Even if you allow the trading of picks or the rights to a player, the large market teams know the small market teams can’t afford or at least wont invest in them. Why trade up?

by jfish26101 on May 20, 2008 12:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

4 – Baseball needs Mel Kiper Jr.

NO!
NO!
NO!
NO!
NO!
NO!
NO!
NO!
NO!
NO!

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on May 20, 2008 1:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Hey Retro

Why don’t you give us your thoughts on Mel Kiper Jr.?

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on May 20, 2008 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Baseball DOES need someone

to be the face of draft analysis. Whether you like Kiper or not, the fact that people who aren’t even fans of football know you are talking about the NFL draft when you mention Kiper’s name is something MLB does not have.

For people who post here, the names John Sickels, Allan Simpson, Jim Callis, or Jonathan Mayo are recognizable. But to the average fan of baseball and moreover sports, they are unknowns. MLB would be well-served finding someone along those lines to bring attention to the draft and minor leagues

by NFA Brian on May 20, 2008 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, baseball needs someone. It may take a few years for that person to catch on, but in the long run it could help. Callis and Law are two of the first names that come to mind. ESPN covering the draft for the first time last year is a real good start.

Last year I went to the ESPN Sportszone in Chicago because Jim Callis was supposed to be there as an analyst they would go live to. We were pretty disappointed when he was not there.

by bl on May 20, 2008 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it also helps

that college football is much more popular than college and especially HS baseball. Most of the top talent in the NFL draft has been in the nation’s sights for at least a season, if not more…

by rglass44 on May 21, 2008 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Draft

The best way to “fix” the draft is to install a slotting system like football and basketball have. Eliminate top level talent dropping to the teams that can afford them instead of going to the teams that need them. The players union will never allow this and baseball will continue to lose ground to the NFL as the sport of choice for most sports fans.

I love baseball and it will always be my favorite sport. But not having a salary cap is killing the small market teams and it is getting more and more frustrating for me every year.

by bl on May 20, 2008 1:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

trading picks

would eliminate most of that problem. If Pedro Alvarez doesn’t want to go to Tampa or Pittsburgh they could trade the pick to the Yankees, Mets, etc, and in return get the Yankees 1st rounder, 2nd rounder and whatever other pick they could pry away from them.

I am just suprised that this hasn’t happened yet, because it just makes too much sense. Let the deep pocket teams deal with Boras and the Weiters type clients while they get two Jarrod Parker type draft players in return. Sounds win – win

by ScottAZ on May 20, 2008 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why would a team trade something of value to get the 5th pick when they know that player will still be there at 25 because Boras represents that player?

by bl on May 20, 2008 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

I always have a good laugh when someone suggests that allowing teams to trade draft picks will help to fix the flaws in the draft. Trading draft picks only makes sense if there’s a fixed slotting system. The rich teams would still be scooping up the elite talent which is the fundamental flaw of the draft. It’s about money instead of talent.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farnsworth: Start the ship, Leela. Let's just steal the damn radar dish and get back to our own time.
Fry: But- But won't that change history?
Farnsworth: Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa! Let's get the hell out of here already! Screw history!

Farnsworth: You mustn't interfere with the past! Don't do anything that affects anything. Unless it turns out you were supposed to do it. In which case, for the love of God don't not do it!
Fry: Got it.
Farnsworth: If for example you were to kill your grandfather, you'd cease to exist.
Fry: (gasps) But existing is basically all I do.

by parrot11 on May 20, 2008 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you think

that alvarez would last that long? no way that player slides all the way down to #28 or #29, irregardless of demands. You might see him slide a few slots (like Weiters and Waever in 2004) but not to the point where he’d fall almost completely out of the 1st round. If the Yankees/Mets/Red Sox want their guy, they would still have to trade to move up, whetehr its to the #1 pick or to the #7 pick

by ScottAZ on May 21, 2008 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are you assuming that there is only one team that wants him and can afford him? Let’s assume that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Cubs all want the same guy. Let’s further assume that Cubs pick 18th, the Yankees 23rd, and the Red Sox 30th (this probably differs from actuality, but this is an example). If the Yankees REALLY want the guy, are they really going to let him drop to the Cubs at 18? Are will they try to trade to a spot ahead of the Cubs? And once the Yankees trade ahead of the Cubs, will the Sox try to trade ahead of the Yankees?

The rich teams might still be competing for the elite talent, but at least they’d be competing with each other (a benefit to the other teams) to get the talent.

by kosmo99 on May 21, 2008 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Earlier post

My earlier post was a response to bl’s post.

by kosmo99 on May 21, 2008 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It might work that way some years but I’m not so sure. If you have a talent like Upton, I could see a few teams going crazy trying to get the top pick but take this year’s draft. I don’t think the Yankes or Sox would be trying to out trade the other to move up. It isn’t like the NBA or NFL where you are DEFINITELY going to see the player on your team. Alvarez or Beckham might fizzle out in AA or AAA somewhere and never see a pro AB. Stories like Oden happen but even he has a shot to make an impact still. I just don’t think the market would be there like some think.

by jfish26101 on May 21, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

Agreed, it wouldn’t happen every year, and there’s definitely more development risk than the other sports (esp with the HS kids). Still, I think it would be pretty common for there to be a player that teams would trade up to get. Personally, I’d trade up to get Posey this year, especially if he was on the board after the first couple of picks.

Also, this wouldn’t just be trading up to get the stud players. Maybe Team A has pick 45, and there’s a player that team B really wants. Team B offers a quality relief pitcher for pick 45. Team A really needs another quality arm for their bullpen, so they’re happy to make the deal.

I’d like to see the teams have the flexibility to trade the picks, if they want. If the market doesn’t develop for a pick, they aren’t in any worse situation than they are today.

by kosmo99 on May 21, 2008 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just don’t see how it solves anything. Say it creates a market like you think it will, what do you trade to move up 10 picks? What is a player’s value that if he makes it is probably at least 2-3 years away and as many as 5. That is if he makes it. I’m just not sure what kind of leverage the Pirates would have if they put the #2 pick on the market.

Strict slotting is the best bet and it isn’t ikely to happen any time soon.

by jfish26101 on May 21, 2008 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ANY value that it creates is a net plus for the team, since they’re going to end up with the same player anyway. A+B is greater than A for any positive value of B. If A-Rod or Griffey were in this draft, you don’t think the big market team would fall all over themselves to trade up – even with them being a few years away from the majors? If that’s the case, then we have a massive difference of opinion. There may be no such thing as a sure thing, but some guys are much better bets, and teams would pay for the opportunity to take the risk. If there wasn’t a substantial difference in perceived value, why not simply draw names from a hat (yes, I’m kidding). If you compared ML success of historical #1 picks vs. #10s, I’m guessing the #1s, as a group, have had much more success, although no prospect is guaranteed to succeed. Clearly there is a reason why they went #1.

Here’s the real question: what’s the down side? If the market for the picks does develop, small market teams will benefit. If the market for picks doesn’t develop (which I personally think is unlikely) then we’re back at square one, and nobody is any worse off. So this is a no-risk plan with potential upside.

As for relative value, here is something NFL teams use. I’m not suggesting that it is a perfect model, just a jumping off point.

http://www.nfldraftblitz.com/pick_value_chart.htm

(shrug) Maybe we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this. The benefits seem pretty obvious to me.

by kosmo99 on May 21, 2008 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hockey

Not sure why I overlooked this earlier, but the NHL is a decent model for this. A lot of the picks are several years away from making an impact in the NHL, and picks are traded all the time.

by kosmo99 on May 21, 2008 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s the 2007 draft, for example:
http://www.nhl.com/nhl/app?service=page&page=DraftStats

The kids who played in the NHL last season will have 4 tabs on their individual pages – seasons stats, career stats, game by game log, and game by game log, video. All the other players are in the minors or college (NHL teams retain the rights to a player who is in college)

by kosmo99 on May 21, 2008 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is kind of true. Even the NHL has more athletes go directly to the highest level.

by bl on May 21, 2008 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But there's a relevant difference

Baseball is the only major pro sport that I know of (in N America) where someone does not need to declare for the draft and have to stay in past a deadline. Sports like the NBA when you past the deadline to withdraw your name for the draft, you are in the draft and there’s no backing out. If a team selects you, they own your rights (and it’s very difficult for them to lose it).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farnsworth: Start the ship, Leela. Let's just steal the damn radar dish and get back to our own time.
Fry: But- But won't that change history?
Farnsworth: Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa! Let's get the hell out of here already! Screw history!

Farnsworth: You mustn't interfere with the past! Don't do anything that affects anything. Unless it turns out you were supposed to do it. In which case, for the love of God don't not do it!
Fry: Got it.
Farnsworth: If for example you were to kill your grandfather, you'd cease to exist.
Fry: (gasps) But existing is basically all I do.

by parrot11 on May 22, 2008 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

:D

Obviously you feel strongly about it; go petition MLB. You are making this out to be some revolutionizing change and I think you are kidding yourself.

by jfish26101 on May 21, 2008 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

(shrug) and I think you are severely underestimating it. So we agree to disagree, I’m OK with that.

by kosmo99 on May 21, 2008 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

RE

not revolutionary, but more realistic than strict slotting in the boras age

by ScottAZ on May 23, 2008 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it isnt win/win

how do you know what they are trading for is worth pedro alvarez? trading away the 1st pick for 5 of another teams picks is just going to dilute the teams farm system talent.

by jsmall404 on May 20, 2008 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The point is that they wouldn’t get Alvarez anyway, due to signability. The key is simply to get more value than the guy they would eventually sign, once the signability concerns are taken into account.

In any case, it’s the GM’s job to get good value. If he think the team is better off keeping the pick, then they should keep it. If he thinks he can get better value trading it, he should trade it. But today, his hands are tied. He CAN’T trade the pick.

See the NHL example above. Clearly it is working for them.

by kosmo99 on May 21, 2008 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm a big

fan of the ‘trading draft picks’ suggestion. It would definitely make the trade market more interesting, also allowing the gm’s to be more creative with trade scenarios.

"Put some ice on it. After that, there's nothing a few beers won't take care of. " -Pink

by OrlandoAsFan on May 20, 2008 1:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

baseball's structure

especially the minor league system, doesn’t fit well with the media environment following the NFL draft. players don’t impact teams for years to come. aside from trading picks and draft right, i think the draft is in fairly good shape as is.

by ZeppelinDZ on May 20, 2008 2:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

oh,

and needs to be a worldwide draft, big money buying LA talent needs to go away, give all teams the same rights to players

by ZeppelinDZ on May 20, 2008 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

RE

I agree with most of the article but, people need to realize that the “poorer” teams could spend more money if they wanted to. The Twins are one of the lowest spending teams around and they have the richest owner is baseball for example. Alot of teams could add another 5 million to their draft if they wernt spending it on old pitchers (Pirates and Matt Morris).

It is isnt MLB’s fault teams are smart enough to figure out that 10 million dollars in their draft could turn their franchise around.

by jsmall404 on May 20, 2008 2:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You can say that about any business and it’s easy to sitting in your leather chair at home in front of your computer. I’m not disagreeing necesarily but asking the Pirates to pay 12-15 mill for a college bat or 8-10 for a HS bat is ridiculous. Where do you draw the line? You can’t just sit there and say well they could spend it if they wanted to. That sort of reasoning leads you to going bankrupt but fans don’t care. They just want to see a team on the field win, they don’t care about the business side. They do have other expenses and it isn’t like the Pirates for instance are making a whole lot in ticket sales. I’d go out on a limb and say they are one of the cheapest stadiums in the league to go to a ball game.

by jfish26101 on May 20, 2008 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem is having a contract like Morris fail for Pittsburgh is a killer to that team. On the other hand, the Yankees gave a ton of money to Carl Pavano, got nothing out of him, and still contended while paying him because they could afford to go spend more to make up for that error.

That is why I would love to see a salary cap. Instead of paying more to make up for your mistakes, the teams that succeed would be because they make the best decisions.

The fact that Minnesota’s owner is a cheap ass has nothing to do with the fact that the Yankees and Red Sox are basically buying playoff births every year.

by bl on May 20, 2008 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well he isn’t completely wrong. Their needs to be some rules involved with RS. Some have suggested there needs to be a salary floor as well as a cap. The issue is pretty complicated. Everyone would love for their owner to be able to drop 150-200 mill on their team but that just isn’t realistic. I like the NFL’s model of RS but I’m not sure how that would work in baseball.

by jfish26101 on May 20, 2008 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Meant to add

Most of the “poorer” teams get revenue sharing money. Usually the lowest revenue producing team gets 10-20 million I think. If owners actually used that money on the draft that would be fine. But, they pocket the money.

by jsmall404 on May 20, 2008 3:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

$10M would easily cover an entire draft. And that even allows them to grab a guys or two who slide on signability.

by NFA Brian on May 20, 2008 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A young Peter Gammons

There’s one out there somewhere. I’ve always enjoyed him and his insight. While I agree, and it seems the author does too, Mel Kiper is a bit annoying at times, but he has put his face and name on the NFL draft. He lives and breathes for draft day!

That’s what MLB needs. It wouldn’t be that hard to pull off. I’d love to see some clips of Hicks, Alvarez and such. To have a guy rattled off a bunch of stats the way Kiper can.

It’s just needs a voice.

by batonball on May 20, 2008 3:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Noooo

nooo nooo nooo

We don’t need “spice’ in our draft.

No way.

And trading picks is unnessecary.

Better coverage of college baseball would be nice but I would hope the coverage would focus on college ball as its own sport (like NCAA football or basketball) and not just as a a draft feeder.

And how the heck would you do a scouting combine before the draft?
All of the draft eligible players are in the middle of seasons. If you really want a “combine” you can just look at the info from the showcases HS players go to
And I’d rather see guys in a game than in a workout.

by nms on May 20, 2008 4:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Spicing it up

We’ve been dancing around the real proposal here, so I’ll just come out and say it:
Tommy Lasorda in a bikini holding up round cards.
I will absolutely, definitely watch it then.

by waka25 on May 20, 2008 4:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Easy

They should emulate the NFL slotting system and trading policy. This has been mentioned already, but it’s the correct and obvious response and it bears repeating.

Alas, the union will never let these changes happen, but it’s nice to dream.

I’ll note that I’m a Red Sox fan and these changes would hurt my team severely, as the Sox take advantage of the system like no other team. It would be good for the game, though.

by SmokeyJoeWood on May 20, 2008 4:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

It’s the richer franchises that take advantage of the current draft rules, or lack thereof.

On numerous occasions in recent years prospects who would have been selected higher, if they didn’t have an agent named Boras, have ended up with teams who have the money to pay them. It’s certainly not a draft totally based on talent, is also comes down to money. Watch were the Boras client go this season in real life and in our mock.

It’s current settings aren’t fair to the smaller market teams or to it’s fans.

by batonball on May 20, 2008 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trading picks

I’d love to see trading of picks. I’m really not sure what the downside is. If the Rays (for example) were to take the 10th best player because the top 9 guys were signability concerns (again, this is merely an hyopthetical situation), would this really be in the best interests of the team? Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense for them to trade down to #10, draft the same guy, and get some bonus picks (or cash, prospects, etc) in return? I’m really not sure what the inability to trade picks is supposed to accomplish, aside from allowing big market teams to get great players late in the draft.

by kosmo99 on May 21, 2008 1:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

What it's supposed to do

is make the embarrassing, pathetic, idiotic strategy of refusing to take the best player because you’re too cheap look embarrassing, pathetic and idiotic.

The NHL, NFL and NBA do not function as comparisons because they have salary caps. MLB does not. All of the NHL teams are basically on identical footing financially. Everyone basically drafts the guy they think is the best player when they pick.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 22, 2008 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

” ... Everyone basically drafts the guy they think is the best player when they pick.”

Um, no, they don’t. Quite often, they trade the pick.

by kosmo99 on May 23, 2008 2:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Franchise players

When a franchise player is available (i.e. Lindros, Lemieux, Crosby, Ovechkin, Lecalvier) you never see that pick traded in the NHL. Sure teams trade picks in drafts where the talent pool is rather even, but teams are not afraid of Boras style contract demands due to the restrictions on rookie salaries.

Personally, I have zero problem with Boras as he is just working within the rules of MLB. If my son was a top prospect than I would sign him up with Boras as he usually gets the best available deal for his clients.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on May 24, 2008 1:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs