A little late, but a new bargaining agreement draft question
by ScottAZ on Jan 6, 2012 10:40 AM EST
Email
PrintI know I'm a little late with this and someone else has probably asked/answered it a month ago, but what is preventing a team from saying to hell with the draft cap, ignore it completely, and just scoop up every high level player that drops below the 2nd round?
Take the Yankees for example: Every year they draft 28th-30th anyway, so what do they really lose in forfeiting the 1st and 2nd round picks if they make up for it by getting 5-6 1st round talents in other rounds throughout the draft? They can scoop up every player that other teams are afraid to draft because of the new cap and sign them to whatever they want. I bet this will especially affect two sport high school players that previously had to be bought out of their football commitments with 7 figure bonuses.
I mean, if I were Cashman I would gladly forfeit a Cito Culver in return to drafting and signing 5-6 Jameis Winston, Zach Lee, Amir Garrett, Senquez Golson, Brandon Jacobs types.
If other teams are worried that it will take too much too sign those types and don't want to waste a draft pick or deal with negotiations it would just seem smart for the Yanks, Red Sox who draft so low every year anyway
94 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nothing really
Although the Yankees haven’t been the ones to flex their muscles on draft talent.
I don’t know if the teams will want to piss Selig off like that, but mrkupe has put the idea forward that most teams will completely disregard the cap and spend what they like.
It will be very interesting to see how the draft plays out.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus
I hope we see a five team first round
So they can fix the terrible set-up they have now.
by cookiedabookie on Jan 6, 2012 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
As
long as the Pirates are one of those 5 teams!
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jan 7, 2012 4:27 AM EST up reply actions
That would mean that they haven't went over their allotted cap figure
You’d want the Pirates to be one of the 25 who had to forfeit their first rounder for thumbing their nose at Selig.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @ioffridus
They won't
need too. Their cap will be over 10 million. Doubt they will need to spend more than that at #8, even with two (potentially) comp picks.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jan 7, 2012 3:20 PM EST up reply actions
How do you figure?
The allotment for the 8th overall pick is only $2.9M. I don’t think there cap will be near that much.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @ioffridus
Cause
Frank Coonley said they would have that much or near it.
Now the source is Charlie Wilmoth over at BD. I have no reason to think he’d like or any reason to think FC would lie to him, but that’s up to you. Here’s the quote
P- I asked Frank Coonelly point-blank what the draft pool would be next year, when the Pirates pick eighth. He replied that, assuming the Pirates got two compensation picks (for Ryan Doumit and Derrek Lee), the Bucs would be around $10 million. I’m still not quite sure how the math works on that (I had thought it would be somewhat less), but if the Bucs are getting $10 million when they pick eighth, they can work with that. They can also spend five percent more than that without forfeiting draft picks, which means that assuming Coonelly is right, the draft pool would effectively be around $10.5 million.
and link
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jan 7, 2012 4:55 PM EST up reply actions
The whole point of the new system is to keep those guys from dropping
With the lack of leverage players now have, teams will take them in a spot commensurate with their talent level, offer in the neighborhood of slot (which will be ~50% higher than last years), and if the guy still decides to play in college the draft pick is is protected for an additional year compared to the past system.
Every real argument against the new system always starts with the assumption that there are going to be a significant number of guys who drop for signability reasons. I simply don’t see any reason to assume that will be the case. The big market teams may be more than willing to pay the 100% tax and give up multiple first rounders (though I don’t think they will be nearly as interested in doing so as you assume), but it only really matters if their is still talent available worth that sort of penalty. I just don’t see any reason to think that will be the case.
I see no reason why their asking price will lower
Their desire to go to school is not going to change simply because teams cannot pay them the 7 figure bonus they’re demanding to forgo college. It’s a numbers game where there will be significantly more strong commits than acceptable slot figures.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @ioffridus
You're assuming they currently get paid their exact asking price
I see absolutely no reason to make that assumption. The vast majority of these guys are simply using their leverage to get the maximum amount of money possible. I’m sure a lot of them would have been willing to sign for less if it really came down to it, especially with the realization now that the upside isn’t much better after college.
Basically, with the new system, only the kids who really do intend to go to college can play the signability game. You can’t just say, “well I really want to go to school, but if you pay me X amount of dollars I’ll sign,” because there is more money available the higher you go. Unless a kid is truly committed to going to college (in which case he’s unlikely to sign under any system), he is going to want to be drafted as high as possible and raising issues about wanting way more than slot will guarantee he won’t go high.
As for your worries about 7 figure bonus demands, if the kid is truly a first round talent, then its a non-issue. He will go in the first round, where he belongs on talent, and he will be looking at 7 figures anyway in terms of his slot.
It's a sound assumption
The draftee is only negotiating with one team, so the bonus will tend to be close to – but obviously above – the value he puts on attending college. If there were more than one suitor, his price would reflect market value, but this is not the case. The team already had significant leverage.
I’m saying there will be significantly more 7 figure demanding players than there will be 7 figure slots (and this applies equally to the $500K demanding players). Only 30 players can be drafted in the first round.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @ioffridus
I don't think its a sound assumption at all
Not sure why you think the bonus will tend to be close to the value the kid puts on attending college. The bonus will be close to the maximum the kid and his adviser think they can convince the team to pay based on their leverage. Why would he settle for just the value he places on college when he believes that the team he’s negotiating with values him more highly than he values college? For many of these kids, college simply represents leverage and a backup plan, not something they actual value as being worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And of course their will be more 7 figure “demanding” players than there will be 7 figure slots. That doesn’t mean when push comes to shove that these kids will actually turn down a high 6 figure deal to attend college, knowing full well that they will have even less leverage the next time they get drafted.
I guess where we differ is in the amount of credence we give to these kids demands. You truly believe that most of them are telling the truth and they truly value college as much as they claim. I see the vast majority of these claims as simple posturing, instigated by the player’s adviser, in order to get the player the largest bonus offer they can. Now that kids know they almost certainly need to go high to get the payday they want, there will be much less actual posturing.
Because if they weren't truly committed to attending college
I believe that would be exposed pretty quickly during the negotiation. Any hardball tactic from the team and the player’s agent would have to cave.
Yes, I do believe that most of these players are sincere about their commitment to college, and that we will see a big influx of talent if teams stay within their bonus caps.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @ioffridus
Couple questions
How/why would that be exposed pretty quickly? The team has no way of knowing just how committed the player is and it makes more sense to err on the side of caution since they already think the player is worth more than they’re going to end up paying. The marginal value of each dollar they save isn’t worth nearly as much as the marginal value of each additional dollar to the player.
Why would the player’s agent cave? I’m not talking about kids who truly have no interest in going to college. I’m talking about kids who would prefer to get a life changing amount of money instead of going to college. Their agent has no reason to immediately cave if the team plays hardball. Perhaps he takes it down to the deadline in an attempt to get as much as possible, but at the end of the day the question is one of the value the team places on the player because they are the side that already has invested an asset in the process.
The team has more leverage
They are in the driver’s seat since they are the only team with the rights to negotiate with the player. They have other areas to spend their money so they can continually underbid and test the asking price.
The player’s agent won’t immediately cave, but he has more to lose since his client has little interest in actually attending college (under your scenario).
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @ioffridus
Teams have leverage to get the price down
I don’t think they have much leverage when it comes to not signing the guy since they already invested a draft pick in him (so at best the pick is unprotected next year under the old system), while the kid has the option of going to college and coming back out later. Add in the fact that they’re the only team with negotiating rights, so they’re going to end up underpaying him anyway, and it makes no sense for them not to sign him.
I never said the kid has little actual interest in attending school. Its simply an alternative to the preferred outcome of getting as much money as possible based on his current leverage.
BTW do you have access to a list of past slot recommendations
Or anything like that? I know they had some sort of list up on BA at some point, but I’m not a subscriber currently. I think this would make discussing these sorts of hypothetical scenarios a lot easier.
I don't want to release protected content, but I'll do this:
1st Round: $4M to $1.05M
1st Supp: $1.025M to $750K
2nd Round: $730K to $460K
3rd Round: $455K to $315K
3rd S & 4th Round: $310K to $197.5K
5th Round onward: $190K to $155 Max
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @ioffridus
Thanks
So with the ~50% bump in slot recommendations, we’re probably looking at 7 figure slots into the second round.
Who said they were doubling the slots. This is from PG:
Perfect Game has learned that the Commissioner’s Office has privately circulated the budget/slot numbers for the first 10 picks in the 2012 draft. They are as follows:
1. Houston Astros — $7.2M
2. Minnesota Twins - $6.2M $5.2M
3. Seattle Mariners -
4. Baltimore Orioles - $4.2M $3.5M
5. Kansas City Royals -
6. Chicago Cubs - $3.25M $3.0M
7. San Diego Padres -
8. Pittsburgh Pirates - $2.9M $2.8M
9. Miami Marlins -
10. Colorado Rockies — $2.7M
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @ioffridus
I didn't say doubling, I said a 50% increase, and its from BA
If the overall bonus pool is approximately $200 million as has been reported, up from MLB’s $133 million in slot recommendations in 2011
200 million is a 50% increase over 133 million. Obviously not every picks slot will change by that exact amount, but as a quick evaluation tool, I think it should work pretty well.
Yes I read that too quickly
But still, the way the top 10 is trending, I don’t think the post first round slots will be much higher than they currently are.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @ioffridus
For example
1.10 went from $2M to $2.7M… that’s only a 35% increase.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @ioffridus
If early picks are increasing less than 50%
Later picks are going to have to increase by more than 50% to make up for it.
Well the first few slots are more than 50%
They just steeply fall off.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @ioffridus
They're going to have to come back up later
Just increasing the top 5 picks or so picks by more than 50% wouldn’t come close to making up for every other pick being at 35% or less. It makes a ton of sense to up them at the top because the old slots were absurdly low. That wasn’t so much the case as you moved further down in the first, so those got a smaller bump. My guess is as you move into the second and third you’ll get back to 50% and subsequent picks well probably get a bump over 50%.
later rounds are capped at 100,000
Most don’t go that high. Perhaps if you use 100,000 for each of those picks, this would account for the difference.
by cookiedabookie on Jan 6, 2012 10:38 PM EST up reply actions
There would be like ~20 million missing
So no I don’t think something with the late rounds would be nearly enough to make up the difference. I’m also not quite sure what you’re trying to say about them. Are they being raised to 100K? Were they previously at 100K? And we are talking about rounds 10 or earlier?
Money shouldn't be based on pick, but on round.
First rounders get three million, second rounders two, third rounders one, anything after the fifth round gets bus fare.
Any GM that gives a fourth rounder a million bucks is a moron.
if that were the case...
I could name numerous stars right now that would have opted for playing other sports because there is no way they would accept horseshit money for dropping out of the 4th round.
Starting with the man many consider the best all around player on the planet right now, Matt Kemp
Well there were no caps previously
Now there is a 100k cap on picks after round ten I believe. 30 rounds, 30 teams = 900 picks * $100k = $90 million
by cookiedabookie on Jan 7, 2012 1:46 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah I was just confused by what you said
The numbers I quoted are only for the first 10 rounds, though I guess there was no way of knowing that based on only what I quoted.
How about this?
In a weak draft year, wouldn’t some GM’s make it a point to pick hard-to-sign players in the first few rounds? If they can get them to sign, great. If they don’t sign the player, they will get a pick in the following years (probably stronger) draft.
Maybe
But in a weaker class, you’re much less likely to actually find hard-to-sign players, since those guys are just going to go near the top of the draft because there aren’t worthwhile alternatives and they’re likely to get more money in this weak class than they will in 3 years anyway.
Nobody's going to get 5-6 first round talents in later rounds, at least not intentionally.
If John Doe shortstop was taken in the fifth round, it’s stupid to give him first round money.
If he was good enough to go in the first round, he would have.
It makes no financial sense, for a high revenue team or low revenue team, to exceed the cap for a fourth rounder by 1000% and have him spend six years in the system and never get above AA.
If a fifth rounder becomes an All-Star, that’s an accident, you don’t pay for accidents before they happen.
Leverage
If John Doe is a high school player who thinks he’s good enough to be a first round pick in 3 years, he might go to college rather than sign for slot money in the third round. So teams may be leery of drafting guys who seem to have strong college commits.
Unless, as the OP noted, they simply decide to ignore the cap, draft Doe, and offer him enough money to entice him away from college.
No, you won’t get many early first-round talents that way, but you weren’t going to get them anyhow if you’re picking in the back half of the draft every year. But if you can load up on 5-6 extra 2nd/3rd round talents whom no one else will touch because they’re likely to go to college rather than sign for slot, that might well be worth the penalties that the CBA imposes.
And that’s especially true for the Yankees and other teams picking at the end of the draft. The Pirates probably won’t do this, because the #1 overall pick is worth more than a bunch of third rounders, but the Yankees can easily justify surrendering the #30 overall pick to add a bunch of third rounders. (And it’s also not at all clear how this interacts with FA compensation — what happens if the Yankees sigh a comp-eligible FA the year after they blew their draft cap — but that could be another incentive to ignore the rules entirely.)
Here's what people are missing
Kids are no longer going to just say their strong college commits in an attempt to get more money out of a drafting team, because chances are it will fail. They will simply fall in the draft, leaving them with a smaller slot to start with, and generally get taken by a team unwilling to go significantly over slot who will make a take it or leave it offer and simply take the pick the next year if the kid decides to leave it. If you are seriously considering foregoing college, you want teams to pick you as high as possible, so you can get a better chance of actually receiving the money you want.
There’s just not going to be more than a few large overslot bonuses from now on. What you’re not seeing is that every draftee is going to demand to get paid at least slot. Since each team loses the amount of slot money from their overall bonus pool if they don’t sign a player, then the only way to build up slack to sign a big overslot bonus is to severely overdraft a player, or players, in other rounds and hope that you can convince them to sign for way underslot.
The way I see it, the only way that a team is going to draft and sign a highly-rated player who falls to them (for whatever reason) is if the team is willing to give up their first and 2nd round picks in the next year’s draft, or their 1st round picks in the next 2 drafts, plus some $$$ into the penalty pool. And drafting a 2-sport player won’t help, because the total amount of the bonus (even though it’s paid to the player over a 5 year period) is calculated against the teams slot pool in the year that he player is drafted.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
What does this have to do with what I just said?
My whole point is that there will be few large over slot bonuses because those guys won’t fall in the draft in the first place (plus they have less leverage to even make the demand). If they want to get paid, they need to go as high in the draft as possible.
While I don’t even think the slack thing will generally be an issue, its not nearly as hard to build up slack as you’re making it out to be. Simply draft college seniors higher than they would go otherwise. While they may have the leverage of saying the team loses the bonus if they don’t sign, it doesn’t compare to threat of the kid having to go the independent league route (for less money) in order to keep playing baseball.
don't agree
every year there are NUMEROUS 1st round talents that drop due to signability. Last year Austin Wilson was a concensus mid 1st round pick but he dropped to the 10th round because of the Stanford commit. Every year there are 2 sport athletes that drop due to the same reason (Senquez Golson this year).
Round in the draft has very little to do with talent and all to do with signability. That will not change. Zach Lee would be the starting QB for LSU under this current system
Zach Lee is one of the few this would truly effect
And that’s only because he was a QB prospect who could have legitimately had a shot at the NFL. For most everyone else, the money they’re going to get offered even with the slots is still more than their expected upfront money in another sport.
And, again, one of the primary reasons for the change is to get guys drafted in a position commensurate with their ability instead of having first rounders drop because they want too much money.
every year, or at least every other year
there is a Zach Lee.
This year his name is Jameis Winston is actually considered a better football prospect than Lee was. Lee was a 4 star recruit while Winston is a 5 star.
If I’m the Yankees or Red Sox, and after everyone else shies a way from the Winston/Lee types I take them in the 20th round and still pay them the 1st round money.
Who was the last one before Lee?
The majority of the baseball/football guys that do play QB aren’t pro-style prospects. Even Winston has questions about his accuracy, which could be an issue if eventually wants to play in the NFL.
You’re welcome to believe that about where those guys will get drafted. Personally, I don’t think teams are going to be willing to give up something like $10 million (~ double Lee’s because of the 100% “tax”) and 2 first round picks. Personally, I think guys like this will get drafted in an area where they fit talent wise and teams will likely just take a couple college seniors they can get to sign for a discount to free up the extra money they need. I just don’t see these kids falling like that unless they say before hand that they are going to school (and no one is going to say that unless they are basically certain since it guarantees a lesser slot).
Not just at QB
but make a quick rundown of the rivals top 100 football prospects and a good 20-25 of them play baseball.
One could list numerous MLB and minor league guys that were also 4-5 star football recruits. One could look at the NFL and see numerous guys that were also high level baseball prospects.
Every year there are 5-10 guys that go down to the wire with their football schollies, this year there will be more thna usual with guys like Winston, Alford, etc
Again how many were elite QBs?
Because other than them, there really isn’t a reason to choose football over baseball if you have similar talent in each. The money in football at other positions just isn’t worth the risk . Yes, I know there are a bunch of guys who use football as leverage, but all that’s going to happen is they will settle for less now because they have less leverage. Very few kids are actually going to turn down hundreds of thousands of dollars based on the belief that 4+ years later they could get a slightly larger amount in football.
QB
let me research this a little, but this is just based off the top of my head:
Joe Mauer, Chris Weinke, Joe Borchard, Jared Mitchell (switched to WR), Michael Vick (drafted by Rockies out of high school), Quincy Carter, Brad Johnson, Donovan Tate, Russell Wilson, Matt Leinhart, Jacory Harris, Kenny Kelly, Todd Helton, Brandon Claussen, Drew Henson….
Some of these go back a ways but this is just off the top of my head. I bet given a few days I could find 20+ guys in the minors right now and 10+ guys playing college football right now
A lot of those guys don't really fit though
If they didn’t sign under the old system, they’re irrelevant because they’d be unaffected by the new system. Either way they’re going to college. Then you’ve got a couple that aren’t pro-style prospects, so again they don’t fit. Then you’ve got a Joe Mauer who would still get a ton of money under the new system. Even second rounders like Weinke and Carter would be looking at something in the neighborhood of a million under the new deal.
FYI, you’re completely wrong on Vick. He got drafted in the 30th round out of college even though he hadn’t played since 8th grade. It was a joke.
again, off top of my head
If you were expecting 100% accuracy you will have to let me research first. I’ll compile a list since the end of the DAF era.
A few I missed in the past 2 drafts include the QB at Clemson and the QB at Auburn.
I’ll reply to this thread in a few days and get you 30+ guys over the past 4-5 years very easily
Again they have to be guys who signed to play pro baseball
If they didn’t sign under the old system, the new system has absolutely no effect on them. That was my initial point. I never said there weren’t plenty of college football players that were baseball prospects in high school.
drafted
I say leave it at drafted since the point of this is pro baseball losing guys to college football under the new system. I’ll find college and pro guys that were drafted out of high school and had to make the choice between pro baseball and college football
They already lost those guys under the old system
The system changing has no effect on them. They’re not playing baseball regardless.
ok, 15 min of research...
all of these guys have been post DAF (2007). Some went to college, some went pro, some went to college and then played baseball after. All were QBs. Take from it what you will, but its pretty lengthy list and certainly not complete:
Dennis Dixon
Pat White
Brook Hart
Kyle Parker
Kyle Hendricks
Russell Wilson
Zach Lee
Jameis WInston (2012)
David Shinskie
Donovan Tate
Chad Jones
Jared Mitchell
D’Vontrey Richardson
Mike Glennan
Jake Locker
Bryn Renner
Bubba Starling
Anthony Alford (2012)
David Thompson (2012)
Perci garner
Mark Ginther
Brandon Weeden
Ross Wilson
Tyler Shreve
So going through your list
Dennis Dixon – went to college anyway
Pat White – went to college anyway
Brook Hart – according to bb-ref he wasn’t drafted out of HS and there is no record of him on rivals for football, so I can’t imagine he was much of a prospect
Kyle Parker – went to college
Kyle Hendricks – no record of him on rivals, didn’t play college football as far as I can tell
Russell Wilson – too short to be a high round draft pick as a QB and he went to college
Zach Lee – I gave you this one. He’s one of the few
Jameis Winston – Interesting test case
David Shinskie – 3 star recruit that signed with an FCS team
Donovan Tate – Not a pro-style QB at all. Was probably changing positions. Also drafted high enough where paying him won’t be an issue under the new system
Chad Jones – Went to college and moved to safety
Jared Mitchell – Went to college and moved to WR
D’Vontrey Richardson – Not a pro-style QB and went to college
Mike Glennan – Went to college
Jake Locker – Went to college
Bryn Renner – As far as I can tell he wasn’t drafted in baseball…PG has him outside the top 200 from his class
Bubba Starling – Not a pro-style QB and drafted high enough where it doesn’t matter anyway
Anthony Alford – Another interesting test case, though he’s a dual threat guy and relatively short for an NFL QB
David Thompson – 3 star QB with little real shot of an NFL career
Perci Garner – not even ranked by Rivals out of HS, though he does have a page. Also, doesn’t appear to have been drafted in baseball out of HS.
Mark Ginther – Page on Rivals, but no ranking
Brandon Weeden – Nothing on rivals, though 2002 is the first year they have, so I don’t know how complete it is
Ross Wilson – Went to college for baseball, basically a non prospect for football (unranked by Rivals), only reason people know he played football is that stupid show 2 a days.
Tyler Shreve – 3 star QB that went to college anyway
So that leaves us once again with only Zach Lee as a good example of a player that may make a different decision because of the new CBA. Like I said, its not going to effect nearly as many kids as you’re acting like it will.
Question
why are you limiting this to solely quarterbacks? If we included 4/5 star rivals recruits it would give us a clearer picture.
Is there a reason you want this limited to just QBs?
A couple reasons
1. It is easier to project QBs than other positions. The majority of highly paid QBs were highly ranked recruits. Its much more of a toss up at other positions where athleticism can mask deficiencies in football skills.
2. They’re far and away the highest paid players in football. Not just the elite guys, but any long term starter is going to get paid millions upon millions of dollars. The added upside for a QB makes going to college more attractive.
3. The injury risk for QBs isn’t nearly as high as it is at other positions. Not only are they less exposed to possible injuries, but an injury that causes them to lose some athleticism isn’t nearly as damaging as an injury to a skill position player whose livelihood is primarily based on their athleticism. This also allows for longer careers as well, of course leading to more money earned.
I will research
I’d be willing to bet that Rivals Top 100 QBs don’t graduate any higher to the NFL than top 100 RBs or OL
We weren't talking about just making the league
Let’s look at guys who went in the first round
From 2005-2008, 28% of QBs ranked in the top 100 have ended up going in the first round of the NFL draft. 15% of RBs ranked in the top 100 ended up going in the first round. Just 12% of WRs ranked in the top 100 ended up going in the first. This is giving the benefit of the doubt to any borderline RB and WR that are still in college and have any sort of a shot at the first round.
interesting numbers
but here’s why you need to expand beyond the 1st round:
With the new NFL labor agreement the alotment for the 7th (and final) round is $382,000.
Before a MLB team could draft a kid in the 20th round, throw $300,000 grand at him, and basically hedge the kid’s bet on making the NFL. With the new restrictions on signing players for more than $100,000 after the 10th round, I bet you see more top 100 rivals kids rolling the dice and think “even if I’m just a 7th round NFL pick I’ll get triple what I’ll get for baseball”.
I don't think you know kids very well
As it does the vast majority of the time now, it will continue to come down to what sport they prefer. If a guy prefers football, then he’s probably going to play football in college (like most of the 2 sport guys you named above), while possibly keeping his options open by also playing baseball there. These kids generally aren’t going to be bought out for a couple 100K anyway.
If he’s indifferent, than there is still more than enough money if he’s good enough at baseball, and not an elite QB prospect, to convince him to play baseball. If a kid can get paid now, chances are he’s not going to turn that money down so that he might be able to make a little more ~4-5 years down the road. Especially with the risks involved (a ton of top 100 skill position guys end up going undrafted in football) and the pounding your body takes playing football.
If a guy loves baseball, he’s going to happily accept what he can get and get his pro career started so he can (hopefully) get to the show quicker.
LOL, clown
I coach a high school football and baseball, a baseball club team, and recruit for a junior college.
You must be an old man that has lost his grasp on what kids do/think if that is what you believe.
Further, just based off what you rationalize, you obviously have ZERO contact with African Americans and black youth, which ultimately will see a decline under this new system
I'm 26, so there's your first mistake
I played football in college and I too coach young athletes, though I do so privately in a 1 on 1 setting. The issue with your position is that it completely contradicts the reality of the past system. There simply weren’t that many kids getting huge overslot deals to sign them away from football. Again and again, you’ve made claims and I’ve proven them to be incorrect. If you really think the new system will affect these kids, you need some sort of evidence to refute what I’ve shown you.
If kids only care about the money, they’re still going to sign for 6 figures regardless, even if its not quite as much as before. If they love one of the sports, they’re going to go with that sport. If they’re uncertain, the financials of the new CBA are extremely unlikely to affect their decision, considering NFL just cut draft bonuses by a similar percentage.
Let's put it this way
When pushed for examples, you named a bunch of guys who decided to play college football anyway under the old system. If you’ve got numerous examples of guys who were actually elite football prospects who signed well over slot, I’m more than willing to check the list out and reevaluate my position.
Legitimate shot at NFL
Hard to say & the odds are probably against it. I mean Lee was hardly a Top 10 overall pro-style QB recruit (if that, depending on the service) in a fairly underwhelming year & it’s not as if he was anything akin to a lock to eventually be an early round prospect in football especially at a run first SEC program. Literally anything can happen to a recruit no matter how heralded once they arrive at school, as I’m sure you know. Higher ranked guys like Jake Heaps, Robert Bolden & Philip Sims have already changed schools, thought about it &/or struggled to find playing time, etc. Even Tyler Bray, who has been pretty good, looks like a far cry from a sure thing future millionaire to me.
I don’t think the rule chnage is that big a deal for prospects like Lee & Bubba Starling who were first rounders. The monies might be different, but the incentive to set themselves up financially sooner (& more certainly) will still be there.
Maybe Lee isn't the best example
But there just really aren’t that many 4 and 5 star pro-style QBs who are that good at baseball.
As for Bray, if he continues to develop over the next 2 years, he’s got a good shot at going #1 overall. He was looking real good this year before going down with that injury.
Bray
True, he might be the ‘clubhouse leader’ as far as the 2014 Draft goes in terms of Qbs, but I would still say a lot can happen in two years. He sort of reminds me of former ASU QB Andrew Walter who ended up being a third rounder if memory serves, but was almost certainly talented enough to go higher.
" Last year Austin Wilson was a concensus mid 1st round pick but he dropped to the 10th round because of the Stanford commit."
So then he gets paid tenth round money.
then you missed the entire point of my post...
the question is why would this prohibit a team like the Yankees/Red Sox from still paying him like a 1st rounder
Again...
The purpose of the draft is to add as much elite talent to your organization as possible. Why would a team like the Yanks/Red Sox let a salary cap get in the way of that.
And before you try to say only elite talent goes in the 1st round, the two greatest players on the planet went in the 6th and 13th rounds. if the Dodgers hasn’t stepped up and paid a big bonus Matt Kemp would have played basketball at Oklahoma.
I guess in your estimation Matt Kemp is not elite because he didn’t get popped in the 1st round
He wasn't at the time of the draft.
If he was good enough to go in the first round, he would have.
It’s dumb to give four million dollars to a sixth rounder.
There’s no defending that.
If he turns out to be an MVP, then good for you, but the chances are much, much higher he will bust and you’ll be out four million dollars.
If you’re a GM and you went over slot on late round picks, you wouldn’t have a job very long…odds are against you big time.
well
obviously this is something MLB franchises can afford or they wouldn’t spend the money. The fact that the record for most bonus money spent on a draft belongs to the Pirates, Nationals and Royals and not the Yankees/Red Sox shows that teams can afford to spend this money on the draft.
Spending $4 mill on 6TH rounder is a huge gamble, but it should be up to each individual organization to make that call. Thats why very educated and very well paid people make those calls.
Because the Pirates, Nationals and Royals know guys like
Pujols won’t go to them via free agency, so they have to rely on the draft to hopefully compete.
Players use school as a ploy to drop in the draft because they would rather play for the Yankees than the Royals, and know the Yanks have the money and don’t care about spending it.
KC or another bottom feeder won’t risk the pick not because they can’t afford to sign the kid, but because they can’t afford not to.
Again you're making a pretty big assumption
There really isn’t a guarantee that those guys will continue to fall as far in the new system. If they don’t fall nearly as often, then you’re looking at paying a 100% tax and giving up bringing in 2 other first round prospects just to get some of the few who do fall.
The CBA isn't designed from paying your first rounder
it’s to keep you from overpaying your fifth rounder.
It forces teams to be smarter with their money.
Josh Bell sent a letter to each team saying he would go to school and asking to not be picked.
That action alone should have cost him money, but the Pirates caved and paid him anyway.
Now, when stuff like that happens, teams will have to make better decisions, and players will, too.
Would there be anything wrong
with having a draft system like hockey where teams retain a drafted players rights even if they attend college? This would ensure that players would be drafted based on talent level and not signability. HS players would have the same choice to go to the minors or go to college. One incentive for teams to get players into the minors instead of college would be if they signed and went to the minors, they would get their full bonus right away (like they currently do) or they only get say 5-10% if they go to college ($100,000-$200,000 for a $2 million signing bonus) and the rest is not guaranteed. They would get the rest of the bonus when they decide to turn pro and join the minors. Teams would not be required to pay the rest of the bonus in the event of an injury (the same risk you take going to college) but would have to pay even if the player’s performance declined, but were injury free (the same risk they take now if players stall out in the minors)
I’m not sure if this has been discussed in the past, but it seems to make some sense to me
Yes! It would screw over the player even more than the current system!
There are some big differences between the NHL and MLB that make this type of systems more harmful to the players:
- NHL draftees are much closer to providing value at the highest level than MLB draftees. Even the elite MLB prospects must spend time in the minors to develop their tools into skills. The elite NHL draftees step into the NHL immediately.
- NHL entry contracts are 2 or 3 years, which run even while the player is in the minors. The MLB team has SIGNIFICANTLY more years of control over their prospect.
- There are other competitive leagues for the NHL prospect to play in so the team cannot completely screw him over
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @ioffridus
It's mindboggling to me that some people think amateurs should actually have negotiating rights.
You’ve done nothing in your life.
When he signed, Strasburg was the fourth highest paid player in the Nationals organization, and the ink hadn’t dried on his contract yet.
That is so bleeping stupid it’s unfathomable.
“Here you go, college boy, two million, take it or leave it.”
“You can take it and become a professional baseball player, or you can turn it down and become Matt Harrington..your choice.”
“Either way, I don’t give a crap, because either I have you or the second pick in next year’s draft, who likely will either be better or smarter than you.”
“Peace out.”
I profoundly disagree
First, you are not paying for past performance (“done nothing in your life”), you are paying for future production.
Second, the MLB team gets the player rights for at least 6 major league seasons, which includes the right to pay far less than market value. And in many cases, when the player does become a free agent, if he lasts that long, he will past the espected of his earning powr.
When you figure that teams can go as long as 4 years before adding a player to the 40 man, 3 option years after they have been, and then 6 years a big leaguer, that’s as much as 13 years of control over the player.
Finally, purely from the view of equity, why shouldn’t the player have negotiating rights? Why should the team have almost unlimited power over him (in the absence of negotiating rights)? The alternative to the draft would be to have all amateurs be free agents, free to sign fro the highest price – and if you think the bonuses currently are “so bleeping it’s unfathomable”, I guarantee that Strasburg and other top talents would easily make a ton more as free agent amateurs.
by MjwW on Jan 6, 2012 11:08 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Less than ten percent of all drafted players ever make the major leagues.
Keeping that in mind, please explain “market value.”
Market value would be what they would receive should they not be limited to one bidding team. With one potential employer, they are going to get whatever it takes to buyout the college commitment and nothing more as the price is artificially depressed by the draft mechanism. It’s a boon for the owners and the MLBPA happily uses amatuers as bargaining chips since they are not yet members of the union.
Yes, draft prospects bust often. So what? Those that actualize their talent give the team millions upon millions of dollars worth of surplus value during their first 6 years in the majors. You’re paying for that potential reward.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @ioffridus
by Jeff Reese on Jan 7, 2012 1:19 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
"they are going to get whatever it takes to buyout the college commitment and nothing more"
Come on, this clearly isn’t true. Going to college was worth 9.9 million to Harper? Going back for his senior year was worth 15 million to Strasburg?
The college commitment necessarily includes the threat of re-entering the draft
If they felt their talent warranted such a bonus and were going to go to college (or Japan as was the ridiculous rumor on Strasburg at the time) if their demands weren’t met, that is consistent with what I said.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @ioffridus
I guess that's one way of looking at it
Just not sure why you would choose to phrase it that way. Why not simply look at it as the maximum they believe the team is willing to pay? In truth its neither of these values, but somewhere in the middle of the two.
Your basic assumption seems to be that all draft picks wouldn’t sign if the offer was for any less money than what they receive. I just don’t see any proof that that assumption is valid.
I think it just tends to be near the bottom of the spectrum
And that’s based on the power that the team’s had. I’m very interested to see how the new CBA plays out over the next few years.
Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @ioffridus
Harper's contract is worth $9.9 million overall, but his "bonus"
was $6.25 million, which was fifty percent over the $4 million recommended slot.
In the same draft, Washington gave AJ Cole $2 million as the first pick of the fourth round, which was about 900% over the recommended slot of $258K, a ridiculous amount which has now been compounded by the fact Cole just got traded.
This is what the new CBA will do, it doesn’t eliminate the top talent from getting paid, it helps keep lesser talent from being overpaid.
Or if you really think Cole is worth that much
You simply draft him early enough to pay him that amount
900% over slot
Which really mean nothing, since slot is just a number made up by the commissioner’s office which has no economic justification
Exactly
Cole was seen as a late first round talent. He was paid 150%-200% of slot compared to where he would have been drafted purely on talent, which isn’t outrageous considering he was a high school pick with as much leverage as a player can get.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jan 7, 2012 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly
If he was good enough to be drafted higher, he would have been.
None of the other 29 teams bit on him either.
The threat of a high schooler going to college is an empty one, because they are committing to three years, unless they transfer out to a JC.
As good as the new CBA is, I think the best part is it takes away the need for guys like Boras, because he no longer has any power.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
