Pirates' Draft Bonus Pool Just $6.5 Million, Jim Callis Reports
The Pirates get $6,563,500 to spend, the 16th largest amount, according to Jim Callis. This includes the compensation pick for Ryan Doumit, but not the one for Derrek Lee, which it looks like the Pirates might not get. Commissioner Steinbrenner . . . er, Selig isn't going to allow any more Josh Bell shenanigans ever again, no sirree.
Via Tim.
UPDATE by Charlie: I take back every let's-be-reasonable-about-this thing I said about the draft pools if this is true. This would be awful. It's directly at odds with what Frank Coonelly told me at PirateFest. More later; I have to go to work.
3 months ago
WTM
182 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Wait, what? Frank Coonelly told us in December that it would be something like $10 million. That didn’t make much sense to me at the time, but even I didn’t think it would be this low.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 20, 2012 11:50 AM EST reply actions
Did that number have a potential pick from D Lee in it? That might be some of the difference in the number, but wow…this kinda dampens my day a bit.
by goodtymes31 on Feb 20, 2012 11:58 AM EST up reply actions
No it doesn't include D Lee potential pick IF we get compensation
Tim at Pirate Prospects says that if he retires or signs a minor league deal then the pirates get no compensation.
So if he signs a minor league deal and then comes up after the beginning of the 2012, then that would circumvent the compensation due to the pirates? which is the way I somewhat read it.
Doubtful
he signs a minor league contract.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 20, 2012 2:51 PM EST up reply actions
It probably did, but...
There’s no way that makes up the difference. The comp pick for Lee would likely be slotted under $1 million, not well over $3 million. The 10th overall pick doesn’t even get $3 million.
If I recall correctly...
I think several of us had guessed at around $7-8M when the word of the CBA first came out. And that was without comp picks. One has to assume that if the Doumit comp is in there…the “true” slot is a whole lot closer to $6M than 6.5.
If one really wants the draft budget to be large to go after a once in a generation player like Harper or Strasburg…looks like tanking is the only way to do it.
So, in the long run, this will do nothing but hurt the validity of baseball as a fair organization.
I mean, not that that wasn’t obvious from the get-go. I guess giving a second round pick four million simoleons is a crapstain on the face of baseball compared to a team tanking purposefully so they can actually have the ability to draft good talent.
Way to go, Bud.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
What bothers me the most....
because I already knew that the Pirates were getting screwed, is how Coonelly was that far off in his estimate. It sounds like he was either uninformed about the matter or misinformed. Given how important the draft is to the Pirates I’m shocked that he didn’t have a better handle on this. I believe that an explanation is in order. Let’s hope we get one.
Look at what is being allotted to the Tigers and Angels!!! In effect the MLB is telling them to sit the next draft out.
"Don Mossi was the complete five-tool ugly player. He could run ugly, hit ugly, throw ugly, field ugly and ugly for power.
WTM, I changed the links a little bit not to divert traffic from Tim, but to emphasize that this is just what one person is saying right now. We’ve heard so much wacky stuff about this that it’s probably not wise to assume this is fact yet.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 20, 2012 11:54 AM EST reply actions
OK, I linked to Tim originally because he had more Pirate discussion than Callis.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
Yeah, that’s fine normally, obviously.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 20, 2012 1:32 PM EST up reply actions
I'm just going to go on this as my operating assumption
If need be, I’ll pull my (remaining) hair out when it becomes official.
On some level
It is kinda his fault. Not that he as an individual can make a huge difference, but other owners in similar situations coming together could. Even going by some of Coonelly’s quotes after the CBA it seems like the biggest thing for owners is just to get a deal done, whether or not it’s a great one. I think there’s a huge fear of any kind of work stoppage.
it was my understanding
john henry, bo sox owner really raised hell over the bell pick.
by karreemofwheat on Feb 20, 2012 12:02 PM EST reply actions
Where did you hear that?
The freaking Bo Sox passed on Bell four times, FFS.
by maguro on Feb 20, 2012 12:08 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
But... but...
His mom sent a letter! It’s not fair! The Red Sox should always get everything they want! Waaaaah!!!
I remember seeing that as well
He was livid the Pirates spent $5M on Bell. He would have gladly done the same but thought it was too far over the slot
you'll prolly never see this
this is not the article i read but you get the idea.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ycn-10524973
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/s_768718.html
by karreemofwheat on Feb 23, 2012 5:31 PM EST up reply actions
This is fantastic news, IMO.
Less money for the draft means more money for Cutch’s extension.
That is, unless we continue to spend 17MM, while slapping Bud in the face.
Less money for the draft means more money for Cutch’s extension.
Money is not the issue holding up Cutch’s extension. Length is.
What makes you say that
Everything I’ve read has indicated the opposite, including that podcast where he talked about Cutch being comparable to players in the 35-40 million range instead of 50-60.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 20, 2012 2:54 PM EST up reply actions
waitaminute, just $6.5M for the whole 50-round draft, including at least 1 supplemental pick?
I realize there is a significant difference in (expected) draft bonus for the first round pick, picking 8th overall instead of first, but a total of $6.5M seems way too low.
nope, I shoulda read Tim's article linked above
The bonus pool for the Pirates is $6,563,500. That’s the 16th biggest pool in the draft, putting them far from their usual spot as one of the top spenders from the last few years. The total includes the $2.9 M that the Pirates have to spend on their first round pick, the eighth overall selection.
The Pirates will have $3,663,500 to spend on the remaining ten picks in the first round, including the compensation pick they will receive for Ryan Doumit. That figure would also include the difference of any bonus over $100,000 signed after the 10th round.
the $6.5M total still seems low, though.
What's really
weird is though we are drafting 8th and we have a supplemental pick for the first time in forever, we’re 16th.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 20, 2012 2:55 PM EST up reply actions
And we're
freakin last in the division as well. We will pass the Reds if we get comp for Lee though.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 20, 2012 2:56 PM EST up reply actions
Remember how it works
If someone doesn’t sign, you lose that money from the pool. So, the pool could actually be significantly smaller if someone decides not to sign.
The draft is 40 rounds now. And the $6.5 million figure just applies to the pool. But good luck spending much more than a million or so in the other 30 rounds.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 20, 2012 1:33 PM EST up reply actions
Someone more informed
and more well-spoken than I on this subject than I should write a nasty letter to Bud/ the owners. Pass it around, we could all sign it.
the amount doesn't matter because of the severe penaltie
For going overslot on any pick. Money is not easily transferrable to other picks. Either a pick likes his draft position or he doesn’t and refuses to sign, in which case the money is forfeited. Just draft the best available, if they don’t sign your pick is protected for a couple of years.
by Joe9195 on Feb 20, 2012 12:19 PM EST via mobile reply actions
So...
obviously…the system is still broken. And TPTB have no interest in fixing it. 8th worst record and 16th draft budget…what’s wrong with this picture?
The Pirates would have been much better off if the lockout was still ongoing. Just think…we wouldn’t be having 300 AJ Burnett threads, but would have had many more Maholm and Doumit FA threads and lack of a Cutch extension threads.
The World Series champion Cardinals get $9.1M
Other teams getting more than the Pirates are the WS runner-up Rangers and the big spending Red Sox. The Pirates have the smallest draft pool in the entire NL Central.
now that makes absolutely no sense right there. but you have to remember the cards are getting a comp pick for Albert, im guessing the sox are getting ones for Papelbon and Scutaro
Right
but how much are these comp picks worth? Shouldn’t be a $2.6M difference between Bucs and Cards because of Pujols comp pick.
No
Beltran had it in his contract that he couldn’t be offered arbitration. They got the Angels first rounder for Pujols, a supplemental pick for Pujols, and a supplemental pick for Dotel.
Yeah
I was forgetting the Angels first round pick. I was just thinking they got supplemental picks, like the Pirates did for Doumit.
They got 2 for Puols...
I think. The angels first rounder and a supplemental
wow.
This is f*cked up.
They should have waited a year to institute the rules instead of doing this half-assed thing where lots of B.S. comp picks still occur, bolstering the budgets/picks of powerhouses, while enforcing slot-limits on the Pirates of the world.
Bright side: Look at it this way: this is likely to be THE WORST it ever gets, right? Not by a ton, but still, it’s hard to see how it gets worse. There will be extra comp. picks for market size and all that, from which the Pirates will benefit, while there will be only a few comp. picks for (only truly valuable) free agent losses, who will themselves be more likely to come from teams like the Pirates than teams like the Yankees (whose traded-for free-agents to be won’t net them compensation any more… unless they get them at the deadline the year-before, in which case they will require an even greater premium to acquire, presumably).
by tobynotjason on Feb 20, 2012 2:47 PM EST up reply actions
My question
After this season are the compensation picks reduced? Is this a one time oddity or is this going to be the case every season?
I expect compensations picks will normalize
I don’t think the $12.5 M rule went into effect this year, but should next year…right?
Ya
its actually 125% of the top 100 players or something like that, but it will decrease the amount of comp picks dramatically.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 20, 2012 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
It also means...
that if Cutch plays out his arby years and somehow hasn’t been traded or extended…we’d have to offer that much to get a comp pick. Which is why I figure he’s got no chance to make it through 2015 as a Pirate without being extended.
That makes absolutely
no sense. Any Pirates FO, Huntington or his successor, will offer Cutch a deal that annually pays him 12 million dollars (the approximate amount right now). He’ll be worth way more than that. Thus
There’s basically a zero percent chance he will sign with the Bucs.
If he does, he then Pirates will be ecstatic. They will be able to lock up a superstar for half his market value. Ya that’d be 20-30% of our budget, but trust me, that contract will be offered. There’s absolutely no risk.
I’m re-reading this again? You don’t think they would offer that much because he might accept? You honestly believe? I’m literally not trying to be a jerk, but if you really are that cynical (which any Pirates fan probably has the right to be) I don’t understand why you’d even care/cheer for the team anymore.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 20, 2012 4:46 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think they will offer Cutch enough...
to give the Pirates an arb pick. They will make a bid based on their “internal value”, which has been proven on numerous occasions, with numerous players, to be lower than what the general fan perceives as “market value”. Until they sign AND pay at least ONE player to a “market value” contract, I must remain skeptical of their willingness to do so. I truly believe that when the Doumit and Maholm original deals with large option figures in the contracts, they had no plans on ever exercising those options unless the players were putting up “All Star” numbers.
I’d guess that the Pirates might try to cover Cutch’s arby years and only do options for maybe his first 2 FA years. But those options are going to have to be for pretty big numbers for Cutch to even consider taking them. I’ve said before, Matt Kemp is a pretty strong comparable. And Kemp’s first 2 FA years went for $20M apiece.
Kemp didn't sign a contract
before he hit arb, so that’s not comparable and Neal Huntington isn’t that dumb. He’s not going to offer Cutch a contract he knows he won’t sign and miss out on picks rather than offer him a contract he know he won’t sign but receive picks.
Honestly, right now you are just being dumb. If you believe that, then never expect the Pirates to ever compete.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 20, 2012 11:23 PM EST up reply actions
Evidently, Cutch won't be signing a contract before he hits arb either.
I was referring to Kemp’s FA salaries as a comparable for what Cutch will be looking for after the 2015 season at basically the same age. Do you see NH offering Cutch anything near $20M for a FA season, or even $15M? I’m not saying that NH is going to offer it to him tomorrow morning. But in 2014 or 2015, there’s a pretty good chance that’s what the going rate will be for Cutch’s 2016 contract. Andre Ethier’s last arb season is costing the Dodgers just under $11M. Kemp’s last arb season (2012) is over $10M.
Do YOU seriously think that Cutch would even consider signing off on a FA year or two for…let’s say $8M? Heck, Tabata has an option in THAT neighborhood for his first FA season, and a lot of people here thought the Pirates took advantage of him at that price. And that Cutch is a lot better player.
The Pirates get Cutch at whatever they want this season. Next season (Arb 1), the price will probably start somewhere in the neighborhood of $4-5M, Arb-2 probably close to $7-8M, Arb-3 maybe $10-11M. Those are all if he goes to arbitration. That has nothing to do with an extension signed between now and then. Then you throw in (assuming he has decently good seasons), $15-20M for his first season or two as a FA.
That gives you a starting point of an offer at the end of the 2012 season of say 5 years/$52 M on the low end and 5 years/$60+M on the expensive side. The Reds got off cheap and got 3 of Jay Bruce’s FA seasons and the part he’s still owed is 5 years/$48M, and I don’t see anyone here saying Bruce is better than Cutch? Heaven forbid Cutch puts up .300+/30+ HR/100+ RBI/30+ SB this season. Then you might see say 75% of Ryan Howard money numbers where his 3 arb years cost the Phillies $54M.
No, I don’t see the Pirates even offering Arb-3 and FA market price for Cutch. I could be wrong, but it will probably take 2 or 3 years to find out.
And, with the current economics of baseball, and Pirates ownership/ management, it’s going to take a miracle for the Pirates to be competitive on a regular basis. You might get a “Freak Show” season or two at some point, but that’s it.
That doesn’t mean I quit rooting for the Pirates. It just means I’m cognizant of the current rules and economics of MLB. The one possible advantage that the Pirates were using…spending more money on the draft…has effectively been removed with the new CBA. The foreign FA spending edge goes away in July.
Okay. I went over the line for the 'rooting for the Pirates' thing and I apologize
Here’s what I don’t think you are seeing.
You and me both admit that if Cutch continues to develop the way that is expected and he goes into free agency without signing any type of extension, he will be expecting 20 million dollars per year or more.
As such, there is virtually no risk in offering him a 10year/130M contract. He won’t sign and we will collect draft picks. Hell, if Cutch does sign for that, I think that NH, FC, and Bob Nutting would be ecstatic. You seem to think otherwise. In that case, the Pirates can just trade Cutch and his contract. Other teams would jump all over that. Plus, there won’t be a no-trade clause cause the Pirates wouldn’t add that in because they don’t want him to sign anyway.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 21, 2012 6:12 PM EST up reply actions
"internal value proven lower on numerous occasions"
which occasions are you thinking of?
by BurgherKing on Feb 21, 2012 12:58 PM EST up reply actions
Keep in mind...
I’m not referring to what the player eventually signed for…but what the fans perceived the player’s value was.
Which would be just about every guy that has left Pittsburgh…Sanchez, Wilson, Capps, Duke, Doumit, Maholm, etc.
well then
that’s neither here nor there… in terms of offering arb, there’s a pretty clear line and it has nothing to do with perception. If Cutch continues playing the way he has, I think he will be offered arb.
Total $
I don’t think looking at the total dollar amount of our draft budget is an accurate portrayal since each pick essentially has it’s own budget. Teams with more picks than us get a better shot of signing a high upside player, but it’s not like a team with a higher draft budget has an inherent advantage over us in signing a pick in a given round. Plus, let’s be honest, the variances in some of these budgets is pretty small.
Starts next year
Pretty much a lock that the Pirates would be in there unless they go 5% over the bonus recommendations. That would disqualify them. Another note is that teams who lose picks due to going over slot will have those picks lotteryed off as well. According to Jim Callis, though, going even $1 over slot would disqualify you from being up for those picks.
To borrow a quote
“Here’s another draft pick you can’t spend money on”
Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Lloyd, Andy Russell, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene, Andre Reed and Jerry Kramer
"Clemson should've stopped turning the ball over" Dana Holgorsen when asked about running up the score in the Orange Bowl
by WVPiratesfan on Feb 20, 2012 6:05 PM EST up reply actions
Ultimately, you still have to pick the right guy
Regardless of what your budget is. Once the Pirates prove they can pick the right guys, maybe I’ll get all wound up about how much money that are or aren’t allowed to spend.
by maguro on Feb 20, 2012 1:52 PM EST via mobile reply actions
This is what I've been saying since day 1.
This is a complete fucking massacre, and the Pirates may never compete again. If this is true we are fucked.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
by Kosstic518 on Feb 20, 2012 2:03 PM EST via mobile reply actions
8th overall pick, 16th largest pool?
My ass hurts. Fuck you, Bud.
by bosten7 on Feb 20, 2012 2:06 PM EST via mobile reply actions
What are the rules on international signings now?
Is that where the Pirates will have to spend their money?
no
if i m not wrong there’s a cap, which is independent of draft position… you can only spend on FAs, I think!
As of right now you can spend whatever you want. The problem is that what’s out there right now is just the leftovers from the signing period. After July 2 there will be a cap of $2.9 million for international signings. That applies to every team. Next year it will be scaled based on team record (worse teams get more money).
They have until July
That’s when the new rules go into effect. That’s why everyone is all crazy about Soler because he’s pretty much the last guy.
On the other hand, it’s fitting this news leaked on President’s Day since I was already thinking about how a bunch of powerful guys in suits have fucked all of us.
by CptnAwesome on Feb 20, 2012 2:15 PM EST reply actions 6 recs
maybe
The large market teams are upset that they give the pirates money every year to improve their major league roster and all they do is spend on the draft and raise the price for everyone for h/s and college talent. so I quess the pirates are getting there just deserts.
by melikie yung tang on Feb 20, 2012 2:52 PM EST reply actions
ya God forbid
we try and compete.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 20, 2012 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
than pay for major league talent
It seems the pirates had a budget of 55 million and an extra 10 million from this years draft 17 million minus 7 million so its look like 65 million and they are at 51 million so why no impact free agents this year… hell they have 14 million left .
by melikie yung tang on Feb 20, 2012 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
And do what?
Drop 88 million over 5 years on AJ Burnett? Yeah, that worked out real well. So well the Yanks had to dump his salary (not that I’m complaining). What about 100 million plus on A-Rod? Their old management team is still going through the bankruptcy hearings (disaster of a situation as a side note). And don’t forget the minor detail that many guys will either flat out refuse to sign here or won’t sign for a reasonable amount.
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Perspectives become reality.
Twitter: @shanecglass
Well, when a man and a woman love each other very much...
by maguro on Feb 20, 2012 8:17 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 2 recs
that is not reason
the reason is the more they spend on payroll, the less thet get from revenue sharing and the luxery tax, so they spent on the draft and mlb closed that loop hole . So where is all that extra draft money going… hey there are good free agent signing and bad free agent signing.
by melikie yung tang on Feb 20, 2012 3:21 PM EST reply actions
you do realize
the luxury tax isn’t given to the other teams? Instead it goes to a general growth fund. This fund is then used to pay players benefits, develop baseball in developing countries without baseball programs and what is left stays in the growth fund (known as the Industry Growth Fund). My God the conspiracy!
by PuncSpeedChunk on Feb 20, 2012 3:45 PM EST up reply actions
No doubt that a cap on spending hurts us. But what it also does is shift the focus from a relatively simplistic plan (spend on the draft) to the nuts and bolts of scouting and analysis. It didn’t take any brilliance from our staff to pick Bell, Allie, Holmes, ZVR, Grossman, etc., all it took was a philosophy. There’s still room for big-picture thinking (HS vs. college, power pitchers vs. control pitchers, balance vs. loading up on pitchers, etc.), but more of the burden for building a team will be on the scouts and analysts. For the Pirates to be successful they will need one of the best scouting networks in baseball, and one of the best groups of analysts to make sense of the wealth of scouting information that network provides.
Bucs aren't screwed
They are picking 8th overall, so that won’t entail signing a #1 or 2 pick for $8-10 million. We’ll be about where the Indians were last year and they spent $8.2 mill on draft – $2.9 million on Lindor. To think that the Pirates will spend $15 million annually on the draft, as the major league squad improves (hopefully), is incorrect.
The theoretical loss of a player like Bell is to be considered, although the effects of Bell’s hardened stance/posturing was an inefficiency that any team could have exploited. This new system takes that power away from the amateur player, which I think is a good thing.
Finally, it seems that overslot signings will still exist in the new system – just not to the Bell extremes most likely. Penalties are on exceeding the total bonus pool amount – not on the specific draft pick.
Keep in mind, however...
that if you don’t sign someone in the top 10 rounds…the money that is allotted to that slot comes out of the pool. You can’t spend $6M (near the Pirates pool number) on your first pick and not sign the rest of the first 10 rounds. You’d have to sign the other 9 to contracts with no bonus. Not likely.
Sorry for the profanity but
FUCK YOU BUD SELIG AND THE BIG MARKET TEAMS
Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Lloyd, Andy Russell, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene, Andre Reed and Jerry Kramer
"Clemson should've stopped turning the ball over" Dana Holgorsen when asked about running up the score in the Orange Bowl
by WVPiratesfan on Feb 20, 2012 6:09 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
how is this a big deal?
Whether the draft pool is $10M or $6.5M, it’s the same proportional to the other 29 teams. I don’t see how the exact dollar amount matters at all.
And I still don’t understand why anyone thinks the new draft rules are particularly bad for the Pirates. They apply to every team. Just because the Pirates spent more under the old rules doesn’t mean they had any inherent advantage. The new rules just put everyone on an even playing field. It’s pretty easy to imagine a scenario under the old draft rules where the Yankees and Mets and Dodgers started spending like the Red Sox on the draft and Pirate fans start complaining that Selig’s ruining baseball by NOT instituting something like these new rules.
Tend to agree. Yes, the Bucs have gone over slot but not to some ridiculous amount and have the overslot bonuses paid dividends, not sure. Also, the total draft expenditures were skewed by the top pick selections.
Yes, the Bucs have gone over slot but not to some ridiculous amount
We’re going to be able to spend basically a third as much money on this year’s draft as we did on last year’s.
A THIRD.
Also, the total draft expenditures were skewed by the top pick selections.
In addition to Cole and Bell, we went substantially above slot last year on our 5th ($600k), 7th ($550k), 8th ($250k), and 9th ($1.2M) picks. If we’re picking under this year’s rules last year, we don’t end up signing any of those guys. We get a bunch of mediocre college juniors/seniors instead. No disrespect to Dan Gamache, (our 6th from that draft who basically signed for slot as a college junior), but there’s a reason that Glasnow and Burnette and Creasy and Holmes are seen as significantly more promising talents at this point.
Thinking about this a bit
It would make me think that all, or most, of the prep players who were taken out of a college commitment will be now attending college. Does that make the draft pool overall (for baseball in general, not the Pirates) better in a couple of years? If most guys will now go to college, then they should receive decent instruction, and teams will have more information to base their evaluations. So in a few years, there should be more talent coming out of colleges since, basically, the incentive to skip college has been removed for many of these players. If you aren’t drafted in the first round, then you will go to school. Maybe there will be a smaller pool of those players who make it through those years to reach the draft, but the ones who do should be more talented, right? I am not sure if this offsets the loss of all the talent to fizzling out in college, or choosing another path.
by Wizard of Woz on Feb 21, 2012 8:24 AM EST up reply actions
It would make me think that all, or most, of the prep players who were taken out of a college commitment will be now attending college. Does that make the draft pool overall (for baseball in general, not the Pirates) better in a couple of years?
Maybe slightly. I’d expect a lot of these guys, though, to try and max out their number of opportunities to be a high pick. So they’ll be in the draft out of h.s., and then do two years at a JC to be eligible again, and then transfer to a four-year school and be eligible two more times as juniors and seniors. And who knows, maybe a year in indy ball after that, like Wade Townsend or Luke Hochevar, if they still don’t like their options.
So you’ll have a pool with more talent in it, but a lot of those players will be unsignable unless they go in the first couple of rounds, which really isn’t much of an improvement.
The interesting downstream consequences are going to be at the collegiate level (where you’ll see a lot more top talents end up in JC) and in 30-40 years, in the Hall of Fame (since players getting a later start to their pro careers will mean fewer players putting up notable statistical milestones as pros).
and in 30-40 years
Shit, man. 30-40 year implications are kinda crazy. I see what you are saying but wow. By then, who knows where this game will be.
by Wizard of Woz on Feb 21, 2012 10:28 AM EST up reply actions
I guess one advantage...
to signing mostly college players is that you wouldn’t have to wait 5 or 6 years on them to reach the majors. More like 3 or 4 at most. Otherwise, you don’t have them reaching the majors til 27 or 28.
I think you also have to consider the number of players who are HS stars in multiple sports. If they are intent on making it in a sport and maximizing their income quickly, they may be more likely to pick the other sport instead of baseball. Consider that they could play 3 years in college, get drafted and are forced to sign for $150k (or go back to school for an extra season) because there is a log of talent and teams are restricted by slot prices (and then run into the same situation the next season when even more talent hits draft eligibility). Had the draft cap not been instituted, they may have gotten $500k-1M to sign coming out of HS. This will likely cause a reduction in overall talent in MiLB.
How is going to school for 3 more years maximizing anything quickly? The NFL would make them wait 3 more years.
My fault for not stating that more clearly. With the caps on draft spending, their first contract earning potential is highly restricted. Coming out after 3 years and going pro in football or basketball, they would likely have larger contracts because of that. There is a significant drop in slot spending in baseball. Without looking at the numbers I’m guessing that the money is better later on in the first round and going forward. I’m not 100% on football draft spending, but isn’t RC min salary in the $400-450k range? In baseball if your not an early round pick, given the new cap, you are likely to see $100k or less.
Ok, that is valid but I still don’t think it’s really worth worrying about. There’s maybe 1 or 2 of them per year and they will likely be basing their decision on which they are better at or like more.
There’s maybe 1 or 2 of them per year and they will likely be basing their decision on which they are better at or like more.
There are often more than that, and money is often a primary factor (if not THE primary factor) in determining their eventual sport. Adam Dunn, for one, has been very open about saying that he only decided to play baseball (rather than football, where he was a top QB prospect in high school) because of the large, immediate payday.
In trying to find out how much his bonus was
I found this nugget on his Wiki page: “The Reds and Dunn agreed to a deal which allowed him to play minor league baseball during the summer, and return to Austin in August to prepare for football. Dunn redshirted his freshman season and served as a backup to Major Applewhite. When star recruit Chris Simms committed to Texas, Dunn was asked to move to the tight end position. As a result, he left the Longhorns to concentrate on baseball in 1999.”
If true, it sounds like Dunn’s ego was the one speaking about why he chose baseball.
How is going to school for 3 more years maximizing anything quickly?
Their first big payday is going to be more like eight or nine years away, unless they happen to be chosen in the upper part of the first round.
It's pretty similar to any of the major sports
drafted out of HS in MLB, you make a couple hundred K, wait 3-5 years til you’re making ~500K, then 3 more years til you’re in the millions.
In the NBA you only have to wait 1 year to be making that $1m+ (if you’re in the first round) but I can’t think of many MLB/NBA players.
In the NFL you wait 3-4 (can’t be drafted til 3 years out of HS) years before you’re making ~500K, then probably 3-4 more before you get more or you’re cut.
MLB is still the only way to get guaranteed money right out of HS since making and sticking in the NFL is very tough to do.
In the NBA you only have to wait 1 year to be making that $1m+ (if you’re in the first round) but I can’t think of many MLB/NBA players.
Chris Young (the pitcher, not the outfielder) was a college star at Princeton, and he drew interest from NBA teams early in his MLB career, enough so that the Rangers had to throw him an extra seven figures during his pre-arb years to keep him on the diamond. Mark Hendrickson played in the NBA as a power forward before his MLB career. Danny Ainge spent three years as an infielder with the Blue Jays before the start of his NBA career. Kenny Lofton was the starting point guard for the University of Arizona, where he set single-season and career records for steals. Tony Clark was a huge high school basketball star – he broke Bill Walton’s San Diego-area single-season and career records for points scored.
The big basketball star in last year’s MLB draft was Amir Garrett, who signed with the Reds for $1M as a 22nd-round pick, and who’s going to be playing basketball for St. John’s when he isn’t playing baseball.
I don’t see how the exact dollar amount matters at all.
It greatly limits our ability to attract top high school players (who will just go to college in an effort to improve their draft position) and top two-sport athletes (many of whom will go pro in football or basketball instead, since they have much greater immediate earning potential in those sports now).
Just because the Pirates spent more under the old rules doesn’t mean they had any inherent advantage.
For us to not have an inherent advantage under the old rules, we would’ve needed to actively decide to cut our draft budget – why are you assuming that we would decide to suddenly stop acting in our own best interest?
It’s pretty easy to imagine a scenario under the old draft rules where the Yankees and Mets and Dodgers started spending like the Red Sox on the draft and Pirate fans start complaining that Selig’s ruining baseball by NOT instituting something like these new rules.
For the forseeable future, we’re going to be picking far ahead of the Yankees and Mets and Dodgers and Red Sox, and as such, we derive a proportionally greater benefit from being able to pick and sign the best available talent, because the best available talent is much better in our picks than in theirs.
Every team’s ability to attract top high schoolers will be limited. This is not specific to the Pirates.
Our draft budget is not inherent in the old draft rules. The non-inherent advantage you’re talking about could just as easily be curtailed by increased spending from other teams as by decreased spending from us, which is why it’s not inherent.
The bonus pools do not affect draft position or the ability to pick better talent that comes with it. And the greater bonus pools go to the teams with the higher and/or most picks, so again I don’t see the problem here.
"Every team’s ability to attract top high schoolers will be limited. This is not specific to the Pirates."
Yes, but the ability of the “rich” teams to attract top FAs is not available to the Pirates. The draft was the only way for us to – conceivably – catch up a little bit.
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 20, 2012 8:12 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly
And the other teams had the ability to take the top high schoolers who fell (like Bell) and didn’t. The thing that bothers me the most is this new draft order dictates to the Pirates how to allocate their resources.
I don’t see how the new rules change that. We still get to catch up through better scouting, higher draft picks, and better development.
We never had the ability to catch up through spending more money. Just because we did spend more money doesn’t mean it was some special privilege bestowed on us. The Yankees could have blown us out of the draft spending water at any point, had they wanted to. The Red Sox were already spending at our levels despite picking 25 spots behind us. We never had any sort of advantage in the draft.
I wish the old rules had gone on as long as the Pirates were spending way more than everyone. But as soon as the Yankees and Dodgers and Mets started following the Red Sox’ lead, I would have been hoping for a system like this to be put in place. It sucks that we couldn’t milk a couple more $15M drafts out of the old system, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong or unfair about the new one.
"The Yankees could have blown us out of the draft spending water at any point, had they wanted to."
1 The Yankees are always in “win now” mode, and will almost always try to buy their competitive edge.
[b] Yankees, BoSox, Dodgers, Mets: all examples of “rich teams” I cited above.
epoc – you are a smart and reasonable fellow, and I appreciate you stating your case eloquently. I just think you’re wrong on this.
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 20, 2012 8:45 PM EST up reply actions
But those teams wouldn't spend that much
because they’re never drafting as high as the Bucs. And remember, all of those teams had a chance to spend big on Bell and didn’t.
The Red Sox were already spending at our levels despite picking 25 spots behind us.
In large part because the Red Sox played the comp pick game better than anyone else.
yep as maguro pointed out earlier the sox passed on bell 4 times
by karreemofwheat on Feb 20, 2012 9:25 PM EST up reply actions
Yes
They’re spending at our levels because they’ve got 234 extra picks in the first 2 rounds.
by NastyNate82 on Feb 20, 2012 10:48 PM EST up reply actions
Because the Sox played the game with free agency to get those picks. A game the Pirates refused to play at all for about the last 15 years until this season.
Whether the Pirates decided to play the comp game
isn’t the point at all. They didn’t play it last year and still spent more than the Sox.
We still get to catch up through better scouting, higher draft picks, and better development.
Only the middle one of those is something that we definitely have right now, and even its magnitude is significantly decreased by the new, lower signing pools.
The Yankees could have blown us out of the draft spending water at any point, had they wanted to.
The Yankees could have spent more than us… but they would’ve always been doing so on players on whom we’d already passed earlier in the round. So unless our scouts sucked, we would’ve had first crack at a much better collection of talents, handicapping their ability to leverage that financial edge.
The teams that would have needed to worry were the ones like the Astros, who stuck to slot no matter what, because they were cheap/credulous/stupid.
Well, some of the high-spending teams (maybe the Red Sox more than the Yankees) would’ve got first crack at some of those players, because of all their sandwich round picks. As someone observed, the Red Sox had four chances to draft Bell before we got him with our second pick.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 21, 2012 10:05 AM EST up reply actions
Well, some of the high-spending teams (maybe the Red Sox more than the Yankees) would’ve got first crack at some of those players, because of all their sandwich round picks.
No, they wouldn’t, because our first-rounder is always going to be ahead of their sandwich picks.
but that's not the inefficiency we were trying to exploit
It seems like NH’s strategy wasn’t focused on doing anything special in the first round, but going overslot in later rounds. And there, the teams with sandwich-round picks would get extra shots at players before we did. It’s not a question of can we nab Gerrit Cole before everyone else, it’s can we nab Josh Bell before everyone has a shot at him.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 21, 2012 11:35 AM EST up reply actions
It seems like NH’s strategy wasn’t focused on doing anything special in the first round…
We took Pedro and Cole. That seems like a willingness to spend above-slot money for top talent to me.
It’s not a question of can we nab Gerrit Cole before everyone else…
That’s exactly the problem: Under the new system, it is all of a sudden a question of whether we can or can’t sign our first-rounder. Particularly now that we’re picking outside the top 5, and the slot is really pinching us.
On the first point, I guess I don’t see spending above-slot at the top of the first round as anything big; most teams do that. But I agree that having the best talents drop out of the middle-top of the first round is a problem; even if this affects all teams, it hurts us more because we need the advantage of the draft picks more than other teams, as you say below.
As I’ve said a few times, I agree that the first round is really what matters, and even the sandwich round is dubious. It seems like NH has been trying to effectively squeeze out an extra first round pick, either by throwing a lot of money at second-rounder who dropped for signability or by drafting a bunch of guys with the potential to develop into first-rounders and hoping they come through. And as has been observed, so far the outcome is pretty mixed.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 21, 2012 11:45 AM EST up reply actions
Under the new system, it is all of a sudden a question of whether we can or can’t sign our first-rounder. Particularly now that we’re picking outside the top 5, and the slot is really pinching us.
Do you really see this happening though? The Pirates pick 8th this year, so there’s really not that much room for a guy to move up in a future draft. He’d be passing up a few million for a chance to move up while also taking on the substantial risk of moving down.
by gorillagogo on Feb 21, 2012 12:09 PM EST up reply actions
Every team’s ability to attract top high schoolers will be limited. This is not specific to the Pirates.
No, but teams picking at the top of the draft will have first crack at the very best high schoolers available in each round, and under the current economic setup of the game the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, et al will almost never be picking in the first half of the round.
Our draft budget is not inherent in the old draft rules.
No, it’s not “inherent”, but spending big on amateur talent is obviously the optimal choice for our franchise, and for us to stop doing so, we’d need to completely reverse course and stop acting in the obvious best interest of the franchise. So while it may not be a de jure inherent advantage, it’s definitely a de facto one.
The bonus pools do not affect draft position or the ability to pick better talent that comes with it.
That’s correct. They only affect the ability to sign that talent, as with Bell. Which amounts to the same thing, as far as the interest of our franchise is concerned.
<No, but teams picking at the top of the draft will have first crack at the very best high schoolers available in each round, and under the current economic setup of the game the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, et al will almost never be picking in the first half of the round>
How is this different under the current model? Draft picks are still correlated with winning, and losing teams still get first crack at the best players. Furthermore, due to spending limits teams like the Pirates will represent the BEST financial opportunity for prospects in each round. This system simply strips most of the strategy out of the draft and makes it all about the order of picks. This inherently benefits us.
<No, it’s not "inherent", but spending big on amateur talent is obviously the optimal choice for our franchise, and for us to stop doing so, we’d need to completely reverse course and stop acting in the obvious best interest of the franchise. So while it may not be a de jure inherent advantage, it’s definitely a de facto one.>
If we and the other teams spending big on the draft prove categorically that the draft is the next true market inefficiency then teams like the Yankees, Angels, and Rangers will plow in similar resources to take advantage. This will then negate the advantage we may have gained while also inflating the cost. Essentially it will make it more costly for us to just tread water. Large market teams have lower opportunity costs of throwing in an extra $15M on the draft if it is in their best interest. I agree with EPOC on this 100%. This system sets up a model that inherently benefits us. Its different than the strategy we’ve taken in the past, but IF that strategy was correct (we think, but we don’t know this), then it would be copied and eliminated.
How is this different under the current model? Draft picks are still correlated with winning, and losing teams still get first crack at the best players.
We’re picking 8th overall next year. If the best player at our slot is a high schooler who doesn’t want to sign for the eighth-overall slot money, he can just go to JuCo and try again in two years, and we won’t be able to do anything about it. We’ll be fucked.
If we and the other teams spending big on the draft prove categorically that the draft is the next true market inefficiency then teams like the Yankees, Angels, and Rangers will plow in similar resources to take advantage.
They won’t be able to plow in similar resources because they don’t get their first round pick until 20+ players have already been chosen, and the picks at the top of the first round are hugely more valuable than the ones at the bottom of it. They can spend the money, but not to the same benefit that we can, due to our draft position.
I disagree on your first point, the HS player taken 8th overall will have very little reason to pass up the money associated with that slot, because compensation for the 7 higher slots has also declined. So the potential reward is significantly lower, and the risk of not marginally improving his position is very high.
I see your second point, but don’t understand how this model changes this dynamic. Large mkt teams still pick 20+ spots after us, they can’t overspend us, and presumably have fewer sandwich picks to play the whole quantity over quality game. I hope that is true at least, although it doesn’t hold as true this year.
I disagree on your first point, the HS player taken 8th overall will have very little reason to pass up the money associated with that slot, because compensation for the 7 higher slots has also declined.
If he thinks he’s worth more than that, and that he can get more than that in two years, why on earth wouldn’t he do it?
I see your second point, but don’t understand how this model changes this dynamic.
Old: We take the best available players, pay what it takes to sign them, and get to have the benefit of their labor.
New: We take the best available players, can’t pay what it takes to sign them, and don’t get to have the benefit of their labor OR We choose based on signability rather than talent, and end up with less-talented players than we would have under the old system.
If he thinks he’s worth more than that, and that he can get more than that in two years, why on earth wouldn’t he do it?
The same reason Lindor signed for $2.9M out of last year’s draft. The risk of not taking that contract is a lot bigger than the risk of taking it.
It’s true that some players might not sign, but that was always the case. The Blue Jays didn’t get Beede last year under the old rules. The new rules don’t make this a significantly bigger risk.
It’s probably true that HS kids won’t sign in the later rounds as much, but again, that is true for every team, not just the Pirates.
The risk of not taking that contract is a lot bigger than the risk of taking it.
The actual risk doesn’t matter. The player’s perception of that risk is what matters.
The new rules don’t make this a significantly bigger risk.
Yes, they do. Wait and see.
It’s probably true that HS kids won’t sign in the later rounds as much, but again, that is true for every team, not just the Pirates.
It’s true for all teams, but it’s substantially more damaging to us, because our entire player-development strategy is focused on signing high-impact high school arms, and that class of players just became significantly more difficult to sign. We’re going to need to make a bunch of changes to our player acquisition and development model as a result of the new restrictions.
This I completely agree with. This model strips the need for us to find, invest in, and exploit potential inefficiencies (i.e. HS arms) and instead emphasizes simply taking advantage of the benefits of higher draft positions. We need to adjust strategies, but thats OK. This is a much more sustainable model way to outcompete other teams with more money.
This is a much more sustainable model way to outcompete other teams with more money.
It gives more sustainable returns, but at a much lower level, and as such, it represents a loss for the franchise as a whole.
True
But for many teams, their player acquisition strategy doesn’t weigh as heavily on the draft as ours does. For teams not focused on the draft for their primary source of talent, the new rules are inconvenient, but not strategy breaking. They are still able to acquire the best players through free agency. For teams like the Pirates, our main avenue of talent acquisition has been restricted significantly.
by Wizard of Woz on Feb 21, 2012 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
In terms of restructuring their avenue of talent acquisition
do you think (I hope) they’ll put even more effort into Latin America?
There is an international cap now too
so, though they may be able to put in more effort, there is a limit on how much they can spend.
by Wizard of Woz on Feb 22, 2012 10:24 AM EST up reply actions
Yes, they do. Wait and see.
I’m happy to wait and see, but I’m curious why you think there’s greater risk of HS kids not signing in the first round now. Prima facie, there seems to be less risk, since there’s now a ceiling on how much better they can do. I’m having trouble coming up with an argument for the opposite position.
Like I said, I think you’re right insofar as this applies to guys who are drafted later than their stock would indicate, but again this applies to every team. I realize that the Pirates’ draft strategy has involved taking those types of players and paying them a lot of money, but I wouldn’t call the new rules unfair or harmful just because they aren’t tailored to the Pirates’ current strategy.
I see the big issue being with the comitted
players that were were able to get in the later rounds. These players will no longer be available. Instead we will be forced to draft college players.
Right now there are some teams that have a high percentage of players who have a high ceiling (lottery ticket type players) mixed with some real prospects and some organization filler. With less opportunity to acquire the high-upside prep players, the minors will be stocked with a much higher percentage of organizational types. These players generally have a much lower ceiling. Now, the Pirates are in a position of having a bunch of guys who could, if thing break right, really be something. In the future, I think those players will no longer be in the system, leaving a few prospects, and a lot of org player. That’s where I foresee the biggest difference.
by Wizard of Woz on Feb 21, 2012 1:34 PM EST up reply actions
The actual risk doesn’t matter. The player’s perception of that risk is what matters.
I agree with this and I’m curious to see how this plays out. I’m not at all convinced that the player perceives lower risk, in spite of athletes believing in their ability and all that (since they will have advisors).
The draft isn’t free agency though. A player can’t hold out for what he thinks he’s worth, its what he can get through the draft. And the compensation for all players is going down. I obviously completely agree that any player should try to maximize his earning power, but the carrot at the end of the stick just shrunk. The risk of not taking the 8th slot money now has to be offset by the potential reward of making 5th slot money, or 3rd slot money next year. Since the potential $$ attached to those slots have declined, it is less likely the risk is worth taking.
A player can’t hold out for what he thinks he’s worth…
Sure he can. Guys refuse to sign and go back into the draft all the time, even as things are. That trend’s only going to accelerate, going forward.
It seems like you are worried about players acting in an inefficient and illogical way, which you interpret to somehow damage us more than other teams. I don’t get it. Yeah, players can and will refuse to sign and go to college, but to the point above, players drafted high in the first round (i.e. 8th) now have much less to gain by declining the offer and hoping to improve their draft position in order to get a couple extra hundred thousand $$. In the old system, there is actually more incentive to do this because the upside was practially unrestricted, so every kid that thought they were the next Bryce Harper could convince themselves they could get $15M if they wait a year or two.
This slotting system isn’t going anywhere, and its changing incentives for all parties involved, including the players. Heck, if the draft compensation goes down any further, you could actually see kids signing earlier just so they can get to arb faster and get paid (spurious conjecture, I know).
It seems like you are worried about players acting in an inefficient and illogical way, which you interpret to somehow damage us more than other teams. I don’t get it.
Players act in an inefficient and illogical way ALL THE TIME. So do teams, for that matter.
Yeah, players can and will refuse to sign and go to college, but to the point above, players drafted high in the first round (i.e. 8th) now have much less to gain by declining the offer and hoping to improve their draft position in order to get a couple extra hundred thousand $$.
They have less to gain, but also less to lose, since the middle and lower first-round slots are now less valuable as well.
Large market teams CAN...
outspend the Pirates, they just pay for it on the back end…the penalties for exceeding the cap.
Remember…if a large market team drops their payroll below the magic line for ONE season…it’s as if they never went above the magic line. I see a scenario down the road where the Yankees drop below the magic line for one season…just before big name free agents hit the scene…and the Yankees go nuts to sign several big ticket FA. Like maybe a Lincecum or Strasburg.
that's the payroll, not the draft
If a large market team busts the cap one year, they take the full penalty — if they bust it by a lot they lose a draft pick or two. Of course their draft picks are less valuable (and successful teams basically get off unscathed for signing type A free agents, whereas a team that drafts at the top now gets a worse punishment for signing one than they did before).
One thing is that it seems that big-market teams can more easily go 5% above the cap than other teams; it means they forfeit the right to participate in some of the pick lotteries, but they wouldn’t get them anyway, would they?
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 21, 2012 11:48 AM EST up reply actions
If a large market team busts the cap one year, they take the full penalty — if they bust it by a lot they lose a draft pick or two. Of course their draft picks are less valuable
This is one inefficiency that I think does exist in the new rules, and it’s obviously disadvantageous for small-market teams. Bigger payroll teams have more money and (generally speaking) more major league talent, so they can go over their pool amount with more (economic) freedom. That’s a problem.
Unfortunately, that was also a problem under the old rules (e.g., the Yankees could have always spent more money than us if they’d wanted to), and at least under the new rules they lose future picks for drastically outspending us.
Things I like about the new draft rules:
1. No more prospects threatening to refuse to sign unless they dropped down to their favorite team that could and would still give them the contract they wanted.
2. High draft picks no longer have incentive to hold out.
3. The smart teams can focus on picking the best player, even the high school ones. If they don’t sign, the picks are protected for more than one year. No more need for a safe pick like Dan Gamach in the 6th round unless the protection on your pick is about to expire. Like the Steelers, fortune favors the teams with the best scouting departments.
4. If hs players are not picked high, they go to college. That means more development time for them, making the drafting of players more of a ‘sure thing’ for lack of a better term.
5. The comp picks bs under the previous rules gets rectified. IMHO, this was the biggest inequality under the previous draft rules, and hurt the pirates the most. This offset a lot of the benefits of the pirates spending like drunken sailors.
6. Internationl signing limits (technically not draft, but fits in well). If a big market team wanted a talent, there really was no stopping them.
Things I don’t like:
1. Less incentive for hs athletes to choose baseball for the instant paycheck. That’s an easy fix though if baseball increases signing levels. Besides, I could envision a scenario where more talent in college leads to an increase in interest in college baseball. Maybe it expands to the point where full scholarships become available, increasing the baseball opportunities.
No more prospects threatening to refuse to sign unless they dropped down to their favorite team that could and would still give them the contract they wanted.
Players can still do this.
High draft picks no longer have incentive to hold out.
High school players outside of the first two or three rounds now have substantially more incentive to hold out.
Internationl signing limits (technically not draft, but fits in well). If a big market team wanted a talent, there really was no stopping them.
In practice, this just isn’t true.
I agree with epoc, the actual pool number doesn't matter all that much. We got screwed when they decided to change the rules.
Now, we can’t go get a Bell for $5M. But it’s unlikely anybody will be foolish enough to do it neither. And if nobody can go overslot, whether we have $6M or $10M doesn’t matter because those extra $4M wouldn’t have been available to sign better players.
By “better players” I mean among those available. We’re trying to regain here what we lost with the new rules : an edge over the other teams. HS players choosing college and 2-sports athletes choosing NBA or NFL is a league-wide problem, not particularly a Pirates’ problem.
It’s a Pirates problem if we end up accidentally drafting unsignable players.
It’s also a Pirates problem because our organization has been set up to focus on high school pitching first and foremost, and that player pool is now substantially less likely to sign under the new rules (since the incentive to shoot for the brass ring, re-enter school, and try to make the first round is so much higher).
The point I was arguing is that the problem you mention was created when they changed the rules
not when we discovered our pool was $6M instead of $10M. And it affect all teams. If a HS player thinks a $400K bonus is not enough for him, whether it was offered by the PIrates or the Red Sox likely will not matter (there will be exceptions).
Again, I totally agree we got screwed. We used a method the MLB though was unfair (to us, which is a joke) and decided it should be fixed. And to a certain degree, I understand what they did : they tried to minimize the effect of draft bonus negotiation and the imbalance in the number of picks by team from the equation.
Whether it’s good for the sport is TBD, but the odds don’t look particularly good as of today.
Also, guys who refuse to sign to test their luck a 2nd time will be a major problem in the first 4 years (which is a lot, I agree). After that, if this system is still in place, the stream of players who re-enter the draft should compensate those who refuse to sign.
And, after a 2-3 years of examples, I hope some guys will understand that desperately re-entering the draft to get a 7 figure bonus was not worth refusing $400K the first time.
by From France on Feb 21, 2012 10:20 AM EST up reply actions
Also, guys who refuse to sign to test their luck a 2nd time will be a major problem in the first 4 years (which is a lot, I agree).
I think you’ll actually see a lot more top talents go the JuCo route, which will give them even more chances to hit the lottery. They can be drafted out of h.s., out of JuCo, and out of both of two years of college.
Yeah, theoritically, you could try 4 times to re-enter (even 5 maybe)
That’s why I talked about ‘the first 4 years". On the 5th year, 2012 HS draft-eligibles who haven’t signed yet will be college seniors and will have a last chance turn pro. After that, all college seniors will be former HS players who were eligible under the new system.
But if you haven’t got what you think you deserve the first 3 times, maybe going for it a 4th time isn’t the smartest idea …
(insert here a reference to the guy who was drafted multiple times for decreasing bonuses and now sales tires)
by From France on Feb 21, 2012 11:13 AM EST up reply actions
Vlad, you’ve probably thought about this more than me, but I just don’t see how this puts at a greater disadvantage than other teams. All teams are subject to the same risk of unsignable players. We’ve focused on high school players b/c the FO thinks they represent a higher return on investment. We haven’t copywrighted the strategy, it can be copied if proven to be successful. And its not like scouting HS pitchers is all we are good at. We can change strategies to fit the new model.
We’ve focused on high school players b/c the FO thinks they represent a higher return on investment.
A higher return on investment is a market inefficiency, and the primary market inefficiency that we were exploiting just went away.
It’s a lot easier to say that you’ll just find a new market inefficiency to exploit than it is to actually find one.
And its not like scouting HS pitchers is all we are good at. We can change strategies to fit the new model.
We can change, but making the change is going to require a significant investment in time, energy, and financial resources. Needing to do that is not a positive development for us.
We haven't even proven to be good at it yet...
Time will tell. Perhaps the new CBA will force a fundamental change in the way the club approaches the draft, which could turn out to be a good thing.
www.drstrangeglove.com
by nycbucsfan on Feb 21, 2012 11:58 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
I appreciate your comments. Looks like we are having 2 parallel conversations here. The point I just made above is now we don’t need to find market inefficiencies. Finding one is like winning the lottery, you can’t bank on it. Look at the A’s. This model takes away the need for high risk high reward drafting strategies, by reducing both. Now, the teams that identify and draft the better players win.
The point I just made above is now we don’t need to find market inefficiencies.
I very strongly disagree with this. Given the inherent revenue disparity of the sport, we absolutely MUST find a substantial market inefficiency in order to have any realistic hope of an extended window of contention.
Then we are screwed
True market inefficiencies are like UFOs – as soon as you think you see one its gone, er something like that. We can argue all day about the incentives and reactions to the draft but this right here probably gets to the core of our different philosophies. The Pirates won’t compete with any degree of regularity by constantly uncovering market inefficiencies and exploiting them. Just won’t happen. I would much prefer a system that lessens the need for us to find inefficiencies in order to acquire better players than our competitors. In my opinion, this draft system does that by giving clear benefits to teams in better draft slots, and reducing the ability of teams in worse draft positions to use $$ to close the gap. In so doing, it also restricts our ability to find that infamous market inefficiency in later rounds, but thats a price I’m willing to concede because we have no advantage over other teams in this regard.
True market inefficiencies are like UFOs – as soon as you think you see one its gone, er something like that.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Jackie Robinson signed with the Dodgers in 1947, but teams like the Phillies, Tigers, and Red Sox didn’t integrate until the late 1950s.
I would much prefer a system that lessens the need for us to find inefficiencies in order to acquire better players than our competitors.
So would I, but until MLB starts sharing a much larger portion of teams’ local revenue, that isn’t on the table, and this is a step in the wrong direction for us.
What we need
is one of them there TV deals that the Rangers and Angels got.
by NastyNate82 on Feb 21, 2012 10:01 PM EST up reply actions
potential market inefficiency?
Could a team make itself a more attractive destination by raising its minor league salaries? I’ve heard some grumbling that the chintzy working conditions in the minor leagues isn’t good for player development anyway (mostly as it pertains to pushing players to eat unhealthily); could we say “Sign with us and you’ll get not only your bonus but a decent wage for the next few years”?
The obvious problem is that spread across the whole minor-league system it would cost a lot of money.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 21, 2012 12:32 PM EST reply actions
what about team living facilities
dorms with a chow hall. that would save money yet raise the living standards.
by karreemofwheat on Feb 21, 2012 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
