Rethinking the Draft: Ideas for the Next MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement

They should rework the direct compensation as well. If a team signs three Type As (lose a 1st and 2nd and 3rd) yet loses two Type A s(gaining two 1sts), they currently end up with two first round picks, two supp firsts, and some poor team gets stuck with their 3rd rounder.

Instead, if a team gains a 2nd or 3rd first rounder, those should be eligible to be relinquished to teams whose FAs they signed.

I just have to say I love the Napoleon III analogy. Its not every day people reference the Second French Empire.

The biggest thing I’d look to change is the compensation. Elias needs to rework their rankings. Definitely agree with John that more sabermetric principles should be applied there.

I suppose a supplemental for Type B is a bit high also. I wouldn’t mind that being bumped back to 3rd rounder.

In addition, I think the point made above about teams who just sign a bunch of Type A free agents in one season so that the other team only ends up gaining 2nd and 3rd rounders is a valid concern. It really stinks that you lose a star player and instead of getting normal compensation you get a 3rd rounder.

I’d say one of three things need to be administered here. You could pass a rule saying the teams highest draft pick always goes. So if they lose a Type A free agent and then sign 3 others. Rather than gaining a 1st and Supplemental, they have to include those in the compensation packages to those other teams.

Second option would be to give the club an option. Do you want to take back a 3rd rounder this year in return for losing your Type A or would you rather wait and take a 1st rounder next year?

Finally, a last option is to still penalize the signing team with their draft picks in the same manor. However, the team that loses a Type A player and should be getting a 1st rounder but is instead getting a 2nd or 3rd rounder will instead take their draft pick in the supplemental. So in essence they end up with 2 supplemental picks. But the signing team still loses their draft pick as they would now.

The team owns the rights to the player selected for 5 years, whether he signs in the draft or not. Go to college or not, you lose your bargaining power because the team that drafted you, still gets you. Hard slotting value is now real, because there is no incentive to not sign, hoping a different team will draft you next year.

This will stop the top players from sliding, for outrageous signing demands, hoping to slide to an elite team.

The Elias Rankings especially for relievers need to be redone. They are costing relievers a lot of money in free agency. I would like the idea that you can trade draft picks.

So, naturally, I’d make additional groups. There is so much available data that helps to define value (for the love of all that is holy, sabr it up - nobody cares how many pitcher wins a guy had anymore), so why don’t we use that to correspond to a greater number of tiers of draft compensation? I do like the overall system not because it balances power, but because it makes tactical maneuvering on the part of executives and front offices all the more important.

Don’t mess with the draft. There’s no way to improve it. International draft would be impossible, and hard slotting would push talent to other sports that provide more immediate financial returns than a sport that requires three or four years of minor-league slumming to reach the $400,000 payday… if you’re lucky enough to make it there in the first place.

but another item that I think needs to be brought up in the CBA discussions is expansion of roster size. With practically every team carrying 12 pitchers most of the time, and sometimes 13, there is very little room for bench hitters (1 of which will always be the backup C), particularly in the AL where 9 hitters are in the lineup. Clubs used to carry only 10 pitchers, sometimes 9. I see this situation as only getting worse in the future (I think it’s only a matter of time before clubs start using 6-man rotations). I think the roster size needs to be expanded by at least 2 and I think this is way overdue. The players obviously would be in favor of this and the owners would not be. But this could be made part of some package deal where the owners could get some other change they want that the players are against.

In particular, this could be a way of getting rid of the DH, which the players are against but the owners might be for. I dont know how much sentiment there is against the DH, but to me it doesnt make sense for one league to have a rule that the other doesnt have. Either both leagues should adopt it or it should not be in either league (AL and NL are really conferences in the same league). To me, this is something else that should be discussed in the CBA discussions.

Maybe there can be a different thread for other CBA issues.

I think the key to doing this right is to ensure that the slots aren’t absurdly low; I think what would be best is a “slot” system for the first round, and a “cap” system thereafter. The first round could be slotted from ~$6m down to $1m, and you could limit bonuses after the first round to $1m. This wouldn’t save the clubs that much money (especially after the 1st round), but I doubt we’d see that many more kids go to college or opt for another sport.

Another idea would be to allow teams to designate 5 players they can “draft & follow” through to January 31.

Being more specific about what I would do, in case it wasn’t clear.

1) No hard slotting. Even the soft-slotting is pretty stupid if you ask me
2) No international draft. Impossible to administer.
3) No trading of draft picks. I have never liked the idea and it seems like something that will get abused.
4) Completely rework the free agent compensation formula using modern sabermetric ideas
5) Keep Type A free agent compensation as-is, but revise the formulas so that there are fewer Type A free agents.
6) Type B free agent compensation will be reduced, if you lose a Type B free agent you get a pick in the supplemental second round. The signing team loses nothing.

I am not that concerned with reducing amateur bonuses. I AM concerned with competitive balance, and I think the current system where big-market teams tend to pick up a lot of extra compensation picks for rent-a-players needs to be adjusted.

I agree that the Elias formula needs to be refined. However, I don’t agree that Type B comp picks should be relegated until after the 2nd round (or later). Here’s the changes I would make:

1. The bottom 15 teams (by won-loss record) get Type B compensation in the 1-S round.
2. The top 15 teams get B compensation after the 2-S round.
3. Type A compensation would be the same as now, except the 2nd comp pick would come in the 2-S round instead of after the 1-S round (as it is now). In other words teams would get the other teams 1st round pick (or 2nd round, or 3rd round, …) plus a supplemental comp pick after the 2nd round.
4. Only the bottom 12 teams (instead of the bottom 15 teams as it is now) would have their first round picks protected with respect to Type A free agents.
5. If a team drafts a guy in the first 3 rounds and refuses to enter good-faith contract negotiations with him due to something that was discovered in the draftees’ post-draft medical exam then the drafting team does not get a comp pick in the next draft like they would if the draftee refused to sign a good-faith offer. Instead, the drafting team would get a comp pick directly after the end of the first round in the next draft.

I think it just adds another dynamic for skilled GMs to use. If you have a high pick, and you feel confident in your abilities to draft solid talent in the later rounds, and you dont like any of the players left on the board…Why would you not trade your #4 pick for a 2, 3 and say, a 2 next year? Maybe you get an even bigger haul from some impulsive GM with cash to burn and an indifference towards his farm? (I can think of a couple non-small market AL Central teams). I dont buy the argument someone made where players will demand trades to the big market teams. There is no president for that in other sports and is just latent speculation imo.