Tony Sanchez and Trading Draft Picks

by aap212 on Jun 10, 2025 12:32 PM EDT Comment 59 comments

As I've read the various reactions to Pittsburgh taking Tony Sanchez, even since it was just a rumor, there are two things that stand out: 1) People think it was an over-draft, likely due to signability, and that he would have been available ten to fifteen picks later, and 2) The Pirates, even if signability helped, seemed to fall in love with the kid. With that said, I think this is another angle to the argument in favor of allowing the trading of draft picks.

If the guy you really want in your organization isn't a good value where you're picking, you should be able to trade down, just like the Browns did repeatedly in this year's NFL draft. How many teams would have loved to pick fourth to guarantee they could get, say, Zack Wheeler? The Pirates probably could have picked up an extra pick somewhere in the first few rounds. It works the other way, too. If the A's had gotten wind that the Astros wanted Castro and not Smoak last year, you don't think they would have found a way to swap picks with Houston?

I think people are so paranoid about the Yankees, etc., monopolizing the high-end talent that they've denied teams the right to value the actual picks.

I know I'm not breaking new ground or anything here, but I'd love to see some intelligent debate about the trading of draft picks. Thoughts?

3 recs | Comment 59 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Read More: Tony Sanchez (C - ), Pittsburgh Pirates

Comments

Trading of draft picks

I think could only happen when combined with
a) a salary cap like in every other sport

b) a hard slot system like in the NBA

Otherwise, you have every agent dictating where their player goes. If Strasburg wants to go to San Diego Boras just makes it happen. If Harper wants to go to the Yankees, Boras just tells every team that he wants $100 million, and forces a trade to the Yankees.

by Galt on Jun 10, 2025 12:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That's pretty much my thoughts...

…the system is proving itself to be a failure, and in many ways, its just a more structured free agency period, where draft position is probably less than half the battle when it comes to getting the top talent.

If MLB does change the system, the international free agency process will need to be changed, too. I’m not sure what the pros or cons of making the Rule IV draft for all players, national or international, or if it’d be better to have like two separate drafts.

by jseiner on Jun 10, 2025 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

B

There definitely needs to be something like the whole NBA system in place honestly. Hard slot on draft spots, make the kids declare for the draft(HS senior or college juniors) and lose eligibility if they do so, teams retain their rights(no Indy ball to get re-drafted). You can freely trade draft picks at that point without much problem at all.

RIP Nick Adenhart

by gatling on Jun 10, 2025 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Open the system up

No draft— players sign with whom ever they want. No restrictions.

Remember: baseball guys... baseball...

by Metty5 on Jun 10, 2025 5:07 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

No Way.

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Jun 10, 2025 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

more money in the pockets of the players

less in the owners— free market baby

Remember: baseball guys... baseball...

by Metty5 on Jun 10, 2025 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Doesn't Make Sense

I’m a big fan of free market economics, but it doesn’t make sense in sports leagues. The ultimate goal of the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers isn’t to put the rest of the league out of business. In order to be profitable, the league needs some level of parity to keep all (or at least most) of the teams financially healthy. That occurs best when every team has a winning season now and again. Going to a complete free market system would just mean that all of the best prospects would end up on the teams with the deepest pockets. Which would be good for the very best prospects. But not so good for the league. And when the league ultimately folded, it would be bad for all of the players…

by knightgalt on Jun 10, 2025 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Athletes

In the end, these players are all athletes and the reason why they play baseball is because of their god given ability to do so.

If this were the case, wouldn’t the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Red Sox have signed Yona? Wouldn’t one of those teams have signed Miguel Cabrera? Wouldn’t they be the front runner for Sano?

There is more to an open system than money. Players and teams build relationships. Players want to play. Do you really think that Steven Strasbourg would want to be the 7th starter on the Yankees or Sox? Who is to say he wouldn’t go to San Diego? Stay close to home and be at the team where his coach became a HoFer?

The idea of opening the draft up isn’t to help big market teams. Its to help the players. In an open system teams get to compete for players, thus driving the price of these players up. Not to mention that a draft where an employer gets sole rights to an employee is borderline illegal, or it should be.

Could you image graduation HS, College, or Graduate School and getting a phone call from your new employer. Hi, we need you to move across the country. Oh and your contract, where this is about what we have to pay you. Oh and lastly, without signing this contract you are going to delay obtaining your dreams. Thanks, have a nice day.

Sure, players can play chicken with teams. I will go to Indy Ball, I will go back to school! But who gains from that? The player has demands, if one team doesn’t feel they are worth it, another might. And if no one feels they are worth it, obviously they need a reality check.

Players need to be able to negotiate for their future. I don’t really understand how we have two systems. One where the players have all of the leverage (International signings) and one where they have little at all (outside of fear mongering about going else where).

One open system without restrictions. No age limit, no staying in college for X many of years before your 21st birthday. If you want to sign a deal, go for it.

Maybe Bryce Harper gets picked up by my Mets, or the more local Dodgers. But we already see players using fear to move down towards teams with more money. And if the Nationals can sign Strasburg today, why couldn’t they sign him in an open system?

Remember: baseball guys... baseball...

by Metty5 on Jun 11, 2025 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

International signings

If this were the case, wouldn’t the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Red Sox have signed Yona? Wouldn’t one of those teams have signed Miguel Cabrera? Wouldn’t they be the front runner for Sano?

There are a lot of factors at work that make international signings different from what we’d see if American teenagers were free agents. Signing at sixteen, age scandals, players trained for showcases not games, teams can develop their own guys at academies, corruption, etc.

Just because the Yankees don’t flood one market with money (and they are still consistently one of top spenders down there, anyway), doesn’t mean they would do the same in a much safer market.

by aCone419 on Jun 11, 2025 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dam this got deleted the first time

In a safer market, teams who have less disposable income will be more likely to spend. The Yankees already have more resources, so the risk is less for them.

Take a look at the spending last year.

1 P Michel Ynoa A’sDominican Republic $4.25M
2 OF Rafael Rodriguez Giants Dominican Republic $2.55M
3 OF Yorman Rodriguez Reds Venezuela $2.5M
4 P Adys Portillo Padres Venezuela $2.0M
5 OF Luis Domoromo Padres Venezuela $1.25M
6t 3B Roberto De La Cruz Cardinals Dominican Republic $1.1M
6t OF Julio Morban Mariners Dominican Republic $1.1M
8 SS Alvaro Aristy Padres Dominican Republic $1.0M
9 SS Gian Carlos Arias Yankees Dominican Republic $950,000
10 OF Ramon Flores Yankees Venezuela $775,000

This doesn’t have many huge payrool teams. In fact, I would argue that the low income teams have taken more of a risk here on the open international market. Lets look at the all time spending list. Its a fair assumption that the more money a team has, the more times they can flex their muscles to get their guy.

1 P Michel Ynoa ‘08 A’s Dominican Republic $4.25M
2 OF Rafael Rodriguez ‘08 Giants Dominican Republic $2.55M
3 OF Yorman Rodriguez ’08 Reds Venezuela $2.5M
4 OF Wily Mo Pena ’99 Yankees Dominican Republic $2.44M
5 SS Joel Guzman ’01 Dodgers Dominican Republic $2.255M
6 P Byung-Hyun Kim ’99 D’Backs South Korea $2.25M
7 P Chin-Hui Tsao ’99 Rockies Taiwan $2.2M
8 3B Angel Villalona ’06 Giants Dominican Republic $2.1M
9t OF Juan Duran ’08 Reds Dominican Republic $2.0M
9t P Adys Portillo ’08 Padres Venezuela $2.0M

Again, the big markets aren’t that well represented. All we have are the Dodgers and Yankees (and Giants?).

I really think that this would be no different that real life. Every negotiation has their own quirks outside of money.

Remember: baseball guys... baseball...

by Metty5 on Jun 11, 2025 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In a safer market, teams who have less disposable income will be more likely to spend. The Yankees already have more resources, so the risk is less for them.

Disagree. Small market teams have the incentive to take bigger risks. Playing it safe when you are at a severe resource disadvantage makes little sense. The recent emphasis on Latin America by clubs like Oakland, San Deigo, and Cincinnati illustrates this.

Focusing on “record bonuses” misses the point. Not all foreign imports are as risky as 16 year olds with no formal training who might be 20. Big market teams have shown no hesitation flexing their muscles on the “safer” bets. Its not a coincidence which teams consistently get the biggest names from overseas, who end up with MLB contracts instead of bonuses:

Matsuzaka (Boston) , Irabu (NYY), Contreras (NYY) , K. Matsui (NYM), H. Matsui (NYY), Soriano (NYY), Fukudome (CHC), Ichiro (SEA), Johjima (SEA), Kaz Sazaki (SEA), Kuroda (LAD), Nomo (LAD), Igawa (NYY).

All those teams have got a bunch of money and they use it to get the elite international free agents. Now other teams get involved now and again (Danys Baez in Cleveland for example; Atlanta with Kawakami), but the big players are clear. The best players in the draft are much more akin to these type of players than Rafael Rodriguez.

by aCone419 on Jun 11, 2025 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Off Topic But....

Will Bryce Harper be the #1 overall pick NEXT year?

his parents are trying to find a way for him to be a draft eligable High School Jr.
right?

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Jun 11, 2025 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Said by a fan...

of one of the teams most willing to overpay for players.

Adam Dunn: Proof that even sabermetrics doesn't have it right.

by Boxkutter on Jun 11, 2025 4:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mets overpay for players recently?

Sorry I must of missed that. Other than the stupidity of Castillo and Oliver Perez, Minya has been pretty decent with his signings. The core of this though is Latin America and the Draft neither of which the Mets have been huge spenders or an over slot organization.

Remember: baseball guys... baseball...

by Metty5 on Jun 11, 2025 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Those were recent signings.

by jfish26101 on Jun 11, 2025 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not in the draft or internationally

Remember: baseball guys... baseball...

by Metty5 on Jun 11, 2025 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And how do you think it would turn out

if all young talented players were automatically free agents after elimainating the draft? There will be even more stupid signings by the big boys, outspending other teams just to get a player they want. Teams like the Mets and Yankmees don’t spend that much on developing talent through international markets and the draft because they can afford to pay the big money for free agents.

So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded!? Yea, totally. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets do a sample. There are 4 of us and you're retarded. Thats 25 percent. -South Park; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce.

by gorillakilla34 on Jun 14, 2025 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Leave it as is

Why fix it if it isn’t broken? There is no draft like the MLB draft. Football is 7 rounds, basketball is 2 and hockey is, well…who cares, it’s hockey.

We’re talking about 50 rounds here. It’s a dynamic that no other league has to deal with. Also, you’re talking about such an insane range of ability levels. There are way too many question marks to make a hard slot system.

I’m all for a salary cap, but at the same token it’s not all that essential. Scouting is the name of the game. Leaving the draft the way it is actually gives the smarter/better scouting organizations a leg up. Think about what happens to the Nats if they do commit $50 million to Strasburg and he fizzles out. They’re screwed for a while.

I personally feel that if Strasburg gets anymore than $15 mil the Nats are making a mistake. Tell him to screw and get yourself a nice compensation pick in return if he’s asking for too much. They have a young pitching staff with potential. Keep your $50 mil or go sign Ben Sheets for 3 years. At least you know what you’re getting. 140 innings a season, but 140 innings of quality pitching.

If you think it needs to be changed, let us know why. For every Joe Justin Upton there’s a Matt Bush. Houston got reamed last year for taking Jason Castro. Looks like they were right and we were wrong.

by rutgersjpm on Jun 10, 2025 6:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

but is is broken...

Pittsburgh and Baltimore should have drafted Matzek and Turner or Purke but they drafted whom they drafted because of fear of the signing bonus. A slotting system will allow them to sign the BPA. I don’t care if the players get more money or the owners because will are just fans, we don’t win anything if Matt Purke or Matt Wieters or Porcello get 7 million or 2.5 million. We should only care about our team getting the BPA A slotting system will allow every team a chance to be competitive.

by LCT on Jun 10, 2025 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Please don't take offense to this anyone, but

…how do we know who each team should draft. We’re prospecting. No science involved, just guess work. No one knows what’s going to happen before these guys make it to the bigs. Maybe Pitts mentality was that their pitchers aren’t developing as well as they would like because they’re missing an intelligent catcher in the system.

Sure, signing bonus play into the decision making process, but I read in many places that after Strasburg and Ackley the entire first round was a crap shoot. So why not go with the cheap, sure thing instead of the high school arm that’s going to cost you millions that may not give you anything.

I like things the way they are. It makes things a little more exciting.

by rutgersjpm on Jun 10, 2025 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In one sense, the first round (after Strasburg and Ackley) was a crapshoot; but there were certainly tiers of players who were generally grouped together. I cannot believe that Pittsburgh honestly thought Sanchez had a higher upside than a good 15 - 20 players that were available; the only reasonable explanation for their choice that I can find is that they felt economic pressure to select someone that (1) they believed was very likely to sign and (2) that was someone they could afford to sign.

I am not a Pirate fan nor an Oriole fan, but I was saddened by their picks. The whole purpose of the amateur draft is to distribute talent to the teams that (we assume) didn’t have much talent the previous year. Once again, that goal was not achieved.

Getting back to the original question, I think I’d like to see draft picks available for trade; but I agree there would have to be some kind of slotting system and perhaps a salary cap. My fear is that organizations like Pittsburgh are not just short-sighted and cash-strapped - I fear they aren’t smart enough to handle a newer flexible system that would allow the temptation of trading draft picks away.

Sergio Romo: striking out professional hitters since 2005. And winner of the 2012 NL Fireman of the Year Award!

by Lyle on Jun 14, 2025 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Neil Huntington

Actually had a pretty smart plan(atleast I think it was). He went cheap on Sanchez and drafted abunch of high upside highschool pitchers in the later rounds. He drafted Sanchez knowing, and liking, what kind of player he will be. There was definetly better potential talent available but they took a solid player who signed for slot allowing them to spend bigger in later rounds on guys who dropped because of signability. I like it.

by gorillakilla34 on Jun 14, 2025 9:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is flawed

GM A and GM B are both equally talented, have equal staffs, and do everything exactly the same. GM A works in a market where he can spend $130 million a year, GM B works with $50 million a year. Yes having a good set of scouts and a well run organization is important, but in the end, money is wayyyyyy to important in the current draft system to really have things equal.

Not to mention, the idea is for the bad teams to have an advantage in the draft with earlier picks. That’s completely nullified if a player like Rick Porcello decides he’s only signing a to a big deal, and only a handful of teams can realistically afford to pay him that.

by jseiner on Jun 11, 2025 1:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

every single team couldve realistically afforded to give porcello $7+ million....

my team, the Royals was able to give a much lesser prospect $6 million the next year, but couldnt afford Porcello? I dont buy that. Theres no excuse for any team to not have drafted Porcello.

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Jun 12, 2025 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't have the full numbers in front of me...

but I’d imagine a lot of teams had draft budgets that barely surpassed the $7 million mark, let alone putting that towards one high school player.

by jseiner on Jun 12, 2025 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

True, but that's begging the question

The only reason their draft budgets were so low is because they chose to spend their (ample) money elsewhere.

Fielding a major league team at the minimum salary costs only $10 million a year. Even a chronically hard-up team like the Pirates could easily afford to spend $20-25 million a season on player development by eschewing free agent signings.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Jun 12, 2025 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That doesn't make it a wise decision...

…to put that much of your eggs in one basket. $7 million looks a heck of a lot bigger when you’ve only got $50 or so million available as opposed to $100+ million. Fact of the matter is that it probably isn’t wise to put that big a chunk of your budget into a guy that may never throw a pitch in the major leagues. At the very least, it’s a much easier investment decision for a team that can afford to risk wasting that $7 million.

Big market teams get enough of an advantage investing at the major league level in free agency. Odds should at least be even at the lower levels.

by jseiner on Jun 13, 2025 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eliminate bonuses?

I’m not sure even I would do this, but tell me what’s wrong with this.

- Assign a specific amount to each pick, like the estimated slot. Say the #1 overall pick gets $6 million, no more, no less. Then #2 gets $5 million, #3 gets $4.5m, $4m, $3.5m, $3m, and so on.
- If the team in possession of the top pick wishes only to pay $2 million on their first-rounder, pass on the pick until #8 and take the best player available.
- That player has less leverage because the only way he will get more bonus money is if he goes higher in a later draft.

In what St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa called a "big day" for his club, starter Chris Carpenter took the mound for his first session of live batting practice and promptly buzzed the fuzz on catcher Jason LaRue’s chin with an errant fastball.

"Sorry," Carpenter called from the mound.

"Don’t say you’re sorry," LaRue barked back.

"He said it," pitching coach Dave Duncan said from the side of the cage, "but he didn’t mean it."
~ DG

by mateodh on Jun 10, 2025 10:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Next bargaining agreement...

I think this is more or less what will happen. MLBPA can’t really make an argument against the top guys selected getting the most money.

by jseiner on Jun 10, 2025 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not fair to the players

They should never be hoping to go later in the draft. Seven figures for a small-market team is a lot, but it’s way better than having to pay for that talent in free agency.

"Sorry," Carpenter called from the mound.

"Don’t say you’re sorry," LaRue barked back.

"He said it," pitching coach Dave Duncan said from the side of the cage, "but he didn’t mean it."
~ DG

by mateodh on Jun 13, 2025 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I posted this on a Mets message board a couple days before the draft

In regards to the draft coverage:

Are the players actually going to be there like they are for other sports?

If so, I can’t wait until the Padres or Pirates make a signability pick for a guy who wasn’t invited.

Shocker, shocker, shocker.

Be like the Rays. Spend the money. And you will get better.

Be like the Pirates. Keep making signability picks. And you will continue to play like you’ve played for the last 15 years. And continue to draw like you have for that period of time.

by Fanon on Jun 11, 2025 2:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Maybe you weren't paying attention

But the Pirates had one of the best drafts in the league, and will likely spend more than just about every team when all is said and done.

by RedSoxFaithful on Jun 11, 2025 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

except that.....

the Pirates spent the 4th most money on the draft in 2008 and will likely spend the same amount, if not a bit more, in 2009.

Is it better to spend 2/3 of your draft budget on 1 player or spread that money out and have a better chance of getting multiple impact (or solid) MLB players out of a draft? How many players are really worth spending half or 2/3rds of your budget on in this draft?

by ej6687 on Jun 11, 2025 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Some years...

…there probably are players worth spending half the budget on, especially at the 4th pick. This year, however, was not one of those years.

by jseiner on Jun 11, 2025 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They've definitely gotten better

I don’t give them that much credit for last year considering it was almost all bonus for one guy.

Either way, I think you should always pick the best player available, pretty much regardless of money.

And it wasn’t that I wasn’t paying attention, it’s that I didn’t have internet until about twenty minutes before I wrote that, checked the first round, and the Pirates have made a pick roundly looked at as an overdraft.

by Fanon on Jun 12, 2025 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Check out the rest of their draft

Especially days 2 and 3. They made so many likely above-slot picks that towards the end I was starting to get worried that they weren’t picking enough organizational filler to staff rosters at the lower levels (they also picked 34 pitchers out of their 51 picks).

The real test will be whether they can sign enough of these people to outweigh going conservative in the first round, but they sure hedged their bets by making sure they had plenty of options should some of them decide to honor their college commitments.

by Dignan on Jun 12, 2025 6:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cool

I wouldn’t worry about a lack of organizational players though. There are plenty of indie leaguers and undrafted college seniors out there who can take those spots if no one else will.

by Fanon on Jun 12, 2025 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you cant discout their spending last year b/c they spent most of it on Alvarez....

then use the counter argument against their draft this year.

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Jun 12, 2025 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is very true

It was late when I wrote that. In any case, I saw the Sanchez pick and was like, “Really, they’re back at this game again?” It’s good to hear that they went crazy though, I want that franchise to succeed.

by Fanon on Jun 12, 2025 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with what mateodh said

about the money for the pick every time every year..

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Jun 11, 2025 11:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

trade picks

a month before the draft. Not enough time to do it on draft day. That would also facilitate some May trades.

Elvis Andrus - 2009 AL Rookie of the Year
Mitch Moreland - 2009 Rangers Minor League POY

by RangerMad on Jun 11, 2025 11:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Sanchez signs for above slot.

“Stunning”

It was a great selection of awesome.

by battlekow on Jun 12, 2025 9:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Officially

dumb

"Sorry," Carpenter called from the mound.

"Don’t say you’re sorry," LaRue barked back.

"He said it," pitching coach Dave Duncan said from the side of the cage, "but he didn’t mean it."
~ DG

by mateodh on Jun 13, 2025 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We’ll see how many of those second/third day ‘over slot’ draftings they make actually get signed now. Making a signability pick in the first so that you can draft more higher-upside guys lately is an interesting strategy (not sure I’d do that), but if they’re paying Sanchez over slot now (why? seriously?) then I’d assume they’re not going to be in a position to sign as many of those kids as Pitt fans originally thought.

by metafour on Jun 13, 2025 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe

Depends on the budget Pittsburgh has allocated for the draft. Let’s say they had a $9 million draft budget. That means they could have gone with say, Matzek at #4 leaving them $1-2 million to spend on the rest of the draft. Instead, they spend $2.5 million on Sanchez(all of what, $25K over the suggested slot amount, not exactly a huge deal) which would leave them $6.5 million for the rest of their draft.

I mean what were people expecting Sanchez to sign for? Sure, it’s just over the suggested slot amount, but it’s way less than what the “better players” they should have taken at #4 would have cost. The only way thisgoes wrong is if Pittsburgh goes cheap on all the other picks, nullifying the reason to draft Sanchez in the first place.

RIP Nick Adenhart

by gatling on Jun 13, 2025 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why did they even give him slot? Sure, relative to who they could have drafted they saved money, but is Sanchez even worth the slot-money for a #4 pick? Arguably not even close. That franchise looks so inept, why would they draft a signability guy and then fail to sign him under-slot? ANY money they could have saved on Sanchez’s deal could have gone towards signing some of the other kids they drafted, many of which BTW aren’t going to sign for “slightly above-slot” money, so if you’re going to draft Sanchez at #4 you damn well better pinch every penny you can away from him.

The Nationals made a signability pick at #10 and they got Storen signed for $1.6 mil…nearly $300,000 less than slot for the #10 pick this year (almost $500k less than last year’s slot). The logical move would have been to float $2 million at Sanchez, thats still Top 8-10 money and its not like Sanchez is going to turn that down when he’s a late first round talent in the first place and cant benefit in any way from not signing. That right there saves them $500k and lets them pay one of those HS kids 2nd-round money.

by metafour on Jun 13, 2025 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sanchez

First the complaint everyone had against the Pirates taking him there was passing on better players and taking Sanchez because he’s a signability pick. Now the complaint is over $500K? Like I said before, unless they go cheap the rest of the draft, there isn’t anything to get up in arms about. They took a guy they liked, got him signed and can get him started in the minors, and they have money to spend on the high upside guys they took in the later rounds. Just because it’s not the status quo approach doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

RIP Nick Adenhart

by gatling on Jun 13, 2025 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The logical move would have been to float $2 million at Sanchez, thats still Top 8-10 money and its not like Sanchez is going to turn that down when he’s a late first round talent in the first place and cant benefit in any way from not signing. That right there saves them $500k and lets them pay one of those HS kids 2nd-round money.

You say this like he definitely would have taken that. How do you know they didn’t start out offering $2 million? Also, I doubt the Pirates would have wanted negotiations to drag out until the last minute, so probably decided that going slightly overslot was better than having to go through long negotiations and not seeing him play until next season.

I am like your Dan Aykroyd and biglow would be Jane, the ignorant slut. -Chad

Good ol' KO

by thecoolest on Jun 13, 2025 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really, so a guy who outright knows he was drafted based off of signability is going to NOT take $2 million? Whats he going to do, sit out a whole year and MAYBE get half of that next year? Sanchez is a late first round talent in ANY draft, chances are strongly against him that he’ll luck out and have someone overdraft him again next year, and ability wise he’s not going to play into $2+ million dollar range. The choice for him is pretty easy IMO, if Pittsburgh doesn’t draft him he could have fallen all the way back to the end of the first and gotten a $1 million bonus, he’d be stupid to pass up $2 million.

The Pirates aren’t the Yankees or Red Sox, to get some of the guys they drafted in the later rounds signed they are going to need every single penny they can get. To get outright fleeced by a kid who had next to no negotiation power is hilariously sad. How can you seriously argue that drafting a guy based off of signability (which is what they did, no matter how much they say they liked Sanchez) and then botching the negotiations and actually giving him a bit MORE than slot is not a serious “WTF?” move. Drew Storen signed for under-slot within 24-hours of being drafted, he knew his standing and knew that even “just” $1.6 million is probably more than he’ll ever get as a college reliever…and heres the thing, Storen actually had a lot more power than Sanchez because he was a draft-eligible Sophomore and legitimately could have threatened going back to school.

Yeah the Pirates got their guy signed quickly, but when they come $500k short of signing Von Rosenberg (for example) its going to look utterly stupid giving Sanchez an extra $500k for absolutely no reason. Like I said initially, we’ll see how many of their guys they actually get signed…I’m not alone in being worried, theres already Pirates fans who are predicting that their draft “plan” will flop.

by metafour on Jun 13, 2025 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It just strikes me as a bit premature

Why sign him within the first week? Let him sweat a little bit and see if you can save.

by Fanon on Jun 14, 2025 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

maybe they feel that 2 1/2 months of his development time is worth a few thousand dollars

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Jun 14, 2025 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Definitely

But if waiting a month meant that you could bring the price down and sign one of the picks you grabbed lower down that you wouldn’t otherwise, isn’t that potentially worth as much?

Also, it’s not like the Pirates are hurting in the catcher position and need to rush him to the majors, and considering that defense is his calling card, if he needs to be rushed a little tiny bit it should be fine. A month isn’t going to make much of a difference.

by Fanon on Jun 14, 2025 1:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I fail to see why it would even take 2+ months if they low-balled him…as again, Storen signed within 24 hours for under-slot. I’m not even trying to “pick” on Sanchez, but in my eyes the decision for him is made for him…there is nothing he can gain by holding out, in fact, if I were a Pirates fan I wouldn’t even be disappointed if they failed to sign Sanchez, got the #5 pick next year, and had that entire $2.5 mill to sign almost all (if not all) of the HS kids they drafted. Sanchez cant sit for months and hope the Pirates cave because there is about no way his stock will ever be as high as it was after he won the lottery and got taken 4th overall.

For the Pirates I just feel that its poor execution, which really isn’t a surprise from a franchise that has looked totally inept. If they sign everyone despite paying slot for Sanchez then I’ll be happy for them, but given that franchise’s history I have a feeling they’re not going to get as many of the “big names” signed as the “plan” called for and then failing to use the bargaining power on Sanchez will be really noticeable.

by metafour on Jun 14, 2025 3:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

All of this is true

I just don’t see why you pay a guy over slot when everyone accuses you of an overdraft.

by Fanon on Jun 14, 2025 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They paid him slot, not overslot

And anyone who “deserved” to go 4th would have cost much more than slot.

by aCone419 on Jun 14, 2025 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

that they should have signed him for 2 million since low cost/signability is why they drafted him. However, you can’t group the current Pirates organization with the pre-2008 organization’s decision making. They have been impressive with most of their decisions, including last year’s draft. I am confident that they will get alot of these high ceiling HS guys signed.

by gorillakilla34 on Jun 14, 2025 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

One Big Problem with the Draft

Is if you slot picks, how many rounds are there going to be in the draft? If you pick someone do they automatically get the slot money they are assigned to? Most teams will sign 20-30 of their draft picks out of the given 50. If you have a 50 round draft with a hard slotting system then they would be required to sign all 50 players I would imagine. Also think of how much leverage HS players will have. If they don’t like their slot $$$ they will just go to school or JC and re-enter the draft in 1 or 3 years again. I think the only solution is just allow teams to trade picks before the draft and keep it that signed players can’t be traded for 1 year after they sign.

by AthleticsReign on Jun 13, 2025 1:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

leverage?

How do you figure slot will give HS players leverage? If they think they can go to school and improve their draft position good for them, thats the point. Going to school and working hard trying to earn more money in the draft is the way its supposed to work.

Right now your getting idiots who are top 10 talents who can’t improve their draft position because they are all ready at the top. They are falling to the end of the round, or not signing at all because they think they can demand whatever money they want. By doing this Agents and 18 yr olds are running the game which is BS.

They should go with strict slot, everyone who wants to play in MLB must go through the draft process. And if you don’t like the slot money you better study something pretty damn good while your in college if you expect to find a job where your getting paid a million dollars for an entry level job.

And as far as the agents who created this problem,Boras, MLB should crack down and refuse to certify any player agent who tries to negotiate for both union(MLB) and non union(draft eligible) members. The way it is now the same agents are trying to control the league from both top(FA) and bottom(Draft).

Right now MLB is succeeding(revenue wise anyway) in spite of itself. If MLB set up a salary cap system, and a worldwide slotted draft, every single market in the league would be thriving instead of the what 8 that do now. This idea that competitve balance is bad is crazy. The NFL goes with a cap and they are the most powerful sports league by far.

As far as the cap I know people will argue if teams(Yankees, etc.) make all that money they should be able to spend it. Well under a capped system all the money they made would be profit, which they could then turn around and use to finance their OWN ballparks without any public money which is the way it should be. They can still make as much money as they want and spend it on whatever they want to, just not to gain a gross competitive on the field.

by GoldenSpikes24 on Jun 14, 2025 2:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Ballpark Finance

Isn’t going to be a big deal for decades, considering everyone has a new, fancy park now except the Florida teams (Miami is on the way), the Dodgers (Dodger Stadium is probably here to stay), the Royals (basically a new park after the renovation), Toronto, the White Sox, and the Red Sox and Cubs who are quite happy with their parks going forward, considering they sell out every game.

And as far as the agents who created this problem,Boras, MLB should crack down and refuse to certify any player agent who tries to negotiate for both union(MLB) and non union(draft eligible) members. The way it is now the same agents are trying to control the league from both top(FA) and bottom(Draft).

And I’m pretty sure this is illegal.

by Fanon on Jun 14, 2025 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs