Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Most Dangerous Division in Sports

Frank Coonelly Confirms Pirates' 2012 Draft Pool Will Be Smaller Than Anticipated

PITTSBURGH - JULY 23:  Manager Clint Hurdle #13 of the Pittsburgh Pirates talks with President Frank Coonelly during batting practice before the game on July 23, 2011 at PNC Park in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  (Photo by Jared Wickerham/Getty Images)

I just heard back from Frank Coonelly regarding the Pirates' 2012 draft pool, and he clarified that the number will actually be significantly less than the $10 million that, in December, he seemed to suggest it would be.

Here's the background: in December, Vlad and I and several other bloggers interviewed Coonelly at PirateFest. The first question came from me, and I asked how big the Pirates' 2012 draft pool would be. You can read my questions and Coonelly's answers here. Coonelly seemed to say that the draft pool would be about $10 million. That answer surprised me, because my own math suggested the number should actually be significantly less than that. The draft pool only covers the first 10 rounds of the draft, and signing bonuses above $100,000 per pick for picks after that also count against that total.

Earlier this week, however, Jim Callis of Baseball America reported that the Pirates' 2012 pool would be only about $6.6 million, a very significant difference. I knew that, in December, Coonelly had been counting on getting two compensation picks, for Ryan Doumit and Derrek Lee, and now it looks like they'll only get the one for Doumit. But that still doesn't explain a difference of $3.4 million, since one compensation pick would be worth much less than that. So I wrote to both Callis and Coonelly to figure out what was going on.

Callis wrote back immediately, essentially confirming what he'd already written. I heard from Coonelly this afternoon. Here's what he had to say.

I have not crosschecked Jim’s numbers with the current state of the world, but my estimate from December has moved in several important respects, and it was an estimate of our total draft spend and not just our spend in the first 10 rounds.

First, I was assuming that we would be receiving two compensation selections between the first and second rounds. It now looks like we will not receive a compensation selection for Derrek Lee. We had estimated that Lee would bring a selection around [No.] 40 and roughly a $1.3M addition to the pool. That number looks to be zero now.

Second, there were more compensation selections granted to other clubs than we had estimated. There seem to have been many agreements by players not to accept an arbitration offer. These additional compensation selections reduce the value of all of our selections following our first-round selection, beginning with our lone compensation selection (for Doumit) through our 10th-round selection. In early December, we were estimating that our 12 selections in the first 10 rounds would create a pool of approximately $8M, but the large number of compensation selections mean that our 11 selections in the first 10 rounds now will create a smaller pool.

In addition, my estimate from December included an estimate for the money that we would spend in rounds 11-40. We had estimated that we would spend approximately $2M there for the total of $10M.

So it sounds like Callis' reporting -- not that there was really a reason to doubt it in the first place -- was right, or essentially right. Assuming that the Pirates' pool will be about $6.6 million, they'll be able to spend about $8.6 million if they spend $2 million on the last 30 picks, as Coonelly estimates, or a hair more than $8.6 million if they pay a tax for the overage. My sense is that it will be tricky to spend $2 million on the last 30 picks, given that teams aren't supposed to go above $100,000 on them. But it may be possible to pull off a $400,000 signing or two later in the draft by getting a few picks in the top 10 rounds to sign for less than the recommended pool maximum, and then using the leftover funds on late-round picks. Of course, the overage comes out of their pool money, which we've already accounted for.

In any case, it sounds like we should trust Callis' numbers on this one.

Comment 84 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

New rules, complicated issue

Can’t be too upset with the wrong previous estimate, the Bucs will just have to adapt like other smaller market clubs to these new guidelines. As fans, we have no control over baseball’s deeply flawed system, or who owns the club. All we can do, is continue to follow the team and offer analysis. With a few breaks(including better health), this club has a shot at .500 and handing over the losing streak back to the Phillies.

by SteelStealth on Feb 22, 2012 6:13 PM EST reply actions  

or a hair more than $8.6 million if they pay a tax for the overage.

People keep throwing this around non-nonchalantly (no offense Charlie). Am I just wrong in my conclusion that by going over by <5% we don’t have to forfeit any picks but we do then render ourselves ineligible to gain any picks from other teams that do forfeit their picks. I know that there isn’t even a guarantee any teams will forfeit their picks, but I don’t see being able to spend ~350K extra being worth the risk of potentially missing out extra picks, no matter how to small the chance.

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Feb 22, 2012 6:32 PM EST reply actions  

Yeah, I think you’re right about that. I wasn’t trying to be nonchalant, just to cover all the bases. In practice, it will probably be a while before we know exactly what teams do with that rule.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 22, 2012 6:48 PM EST up reply actions  

I thought they forfeited the opportunity for the extra pick

awarded to 10 of the smallest payrolls, or whatever the exact wording was.

by Joe9195 on Feb 22, 2012 7:04 PM EST up reply actions  

I think so, but I'm not quite sure.

The draft changes pissed me off so much that I can’t bring myself to memorize all the details.

Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!

by WTM on Feb 22, 2012 7:24 PM EST up reply actions  

The competitive balance lottery does not take place until next year. However, I assume that if there are teams who exceed the threshold in 2012, those teams would forfeit picks. Those picks would be lost in the 2013 draft, so there would be a separate lottery in advance of that draft.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 22, 2012 7:30 PM EST up reply actions  

isnt the thing the 10 smallest payrolls get

the competitive balance lottery?

Dammit, as WTM says, there’s way too much. It’d be very helpful if someone who understands it posts some sort of a “everything you need to know” post!

by BurgherKing on Feb 22, 2012 7:32 PM EST up reply actions  

Right. As I read it, there are two separate lotteries. One is for the losing teams and low-payroll teams. The other, which may be intermittent, is open to all teams that do not exceed their draft pools, and this is where the forfeited picks are given away.

Why they wouldn’t just remove those picks from the draft entirely and move every other team up a spot is beyond me, but hey.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 22, 2012 7:40 PM EST up reply actions  

As far as I can tell, that’s a separate lottery. All teams that stay within the draft pool would be eligible for the lottery on forfeited picks. Again, as far as I can tell. It’s a complicated system. See here.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/2011_CBA.pdf

by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 22, 2012 7:28 PM EST up reply actions  

alas, we have no ambassador to Iran … otherwise Rec

by Yamada on Feb 23, 2012 1:01 AM EST up reply actions  

Obama appointed a new ambassador to Syria

then had to recall him later. He probably wouldn’t mind sending someone to Iran, to show how much he is willing to talk.

by Brian Cartwright on Feb 23, 2012 3:27 AM EST up reply actions  

we have no ambassador to Iran

Exactly.

Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!

by WTM on Feb 23, 2012 8:41 AM EST up reply actions  

Not to give away too much,

but I talked to NH last night while taping, and I asked him about it. and he reviewed it, too – I was really unclear on the Rounds 11-40 picks at $100K. I think I still am.

Will post it when it’s ready – shouldn’t be too long.

________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 22, 2012 7:30 PM EST reply actions  

Perhaps a stupid thing to say

But I’m worried these new rules are going to make a joke of the draft. Correct me if I’m wrong, but a top talent in the draft could conceivably say “don’t draft me until round 11 or I’m not signing”, since there’s no limit on spending after that point. Someone please tell I’m just an idiot.

by bosten7 on Feb 22, 2012 7:32 PM EST via mobile reply actions  

Spending on any given pick from 11+ can’t exceed $100k or the difference comes out of your draft pool from the first ten rounds.

by Vlad on Feb 22, 2012 7:35 PM EST up reply actions  

What I can't figure out....

1. Who are these new rules supposed to be helping out?

2. Do you think this will mean more guys will go to college (helps the NCAA, I suppose) – since they figure that if they aren’t drafted by a team with a big remaining draft budget in the first few rounds, then it’s better to come out when they get drafted really high? OR will teams basically draft all HS guys in the first few rounds, paying top dollar. And then pay pennies for guys coming out of college (in effect, guys will NOT go to college because of this – hurts the NCAA)?

by impliedi on Feb 22, 2012 7:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Can I ask a stupid question?

If a guy (say out of college) is drafted and doesn’t sign, does he become a amateur free agent?

The reason I ask, is that it seems these new draft rules are going to cause a lot of teams to sign a small number of players to try and maximize their dollars. That means that the minors will be much thinner than they are now. A lot fewer guys will be signed.

Obviously, these teams will have to fill out their minor league rosters somehow. And where will these guys come from?

Just curious if there will be a huge market then for “undrafted” free agents.

by impliedi on Feb 22, 2012 7:49 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't believe so

I think the same rules apply as years past. If he’s eligible, he’ll return to the draft. He can go to Japan and an Independent league and become a free agent that way though. I haven’t heard about this changing.

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

by glass0941 on Feb 22, 2012 8:06 PM EST up reply actions  

Went back and double checked and glass is correct.

I guess, in reality, there are no such things as amateur free agents, only professional ones. If a college senior graduates, he either has to wait until he’s drafted or sign a “professional” contract.

by impliedi on Feb 22, 2012 8:45 PM EST up reply actions  

signing fewer players won't work

If you don’t sign a player, you don’t get to spend the cap money for their slot.

Am I the only person who thinks this gives players more leverage? They can say “Sign me for my price or you’re completely screwed.” I wouldn’t count on being able to lowball players to free up overslot money elsewhere unless you were making huge overdrafts for that exact purpose.

Not actually affiliated with whygavs.

by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 22, 2012 8:20 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't agree. necessarily.

Basically, these new rules hinder the ability for a lot of players to get huge bonuses. So, there will be a few coveted big money spots and not much else, but just because a player says “sign me for my price”, if the team doesn’t comply, the player has to go back into the draft and there isn’t many more chances that the player will get a big payday the next year, because the number of slots will be so limited.

by impliedi on Feb 22, 2012 8:36 PM EST up reply actions  

It gives the organizational type picks leverage to hold out for slot dollars.

Which, in my view, makes it kind of silly to draft an org type player in the first ten rounds (or whatever the number of protected rounds are if picks don’t sign). Even in the first round, lets say someone like Sanchez (not saying he was, just as an example) was a signability pick, or a way to save money for later rounds. There is now very little incentive to take that strategy anymore. Load up on as much talent as possible, hope they sign, and if they do not, that pick is protected for more than one draft. The only time you worry about signability is if the protection on the pick expires that year. If I’m the pirates, I’m increasing the number of scouts and focusing even more on talent evaluation than normal. That is the strategy I would emply if I were the pirates.

by Joe9195 on Feb 22, 2012 8:47 PM EST up reply actions  

the protected pick makes sense

It makes it harder to lowball a player, but if your pick won’t sign for slot it doesn’t burn up into thin air; you just get to try again with a similar slot the next year.

I really don’t see why they went for all this Rube Goldberg crap instead of just instituting hard slots. Seems like it would have the same effect.

Not actually affiliated with whygavs.

by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 22, 2012 9:20 PM EST up reply actions  

Are all 10 rounds protected or still just 1, 2, and comp rounds?

by Mr. E on Feb 22, 2012 9:57 PM EST up reply actions  

dunno

Not actually affiliated with whygavs.

by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 22, 2012 10:44 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm with Joe...

The strategy has to be to draft high upside guys, and that’s where scouting becomes more important than ever. The restrictions on how much a team can spend lowers the risk, so a high upside guy becomes high reward/low risk—every owner’s dream.

I know the conventional wisdom is that players will go to college, but I’m not sure that’s right. If I’m a HS star and know that my chances at a big draft bonus after three years of college are slim under the new rules, then I want to shorten the time it takes to get to the majors and ultimately arbitration and free agency. That would suggest skipping college. Had Bell gone to college his estimated arrival time to the majors would have likely been 2016 (3 years college, a full year in the minors and then a mid-season call up, and that may be optimistic). Now he has the chance to force the issue and be in Pittsburgh by 2015 or possibly 2014 (A this year, AA next, AAA in 2014 with a possible late-season call-up). And for pitchers, why take the risk of a serious arm injury when your chances at a big draft bonus are so small (same risk as before but now a lower potential reward)?

by TNbucs on Feb 23, 2012 11:08 AM EST up reply actions  

after three years of college

Don’t forget that players can buy an extra year of draft eligibility by going to JuCo for two years and then transferring to a four-year school.

by Vlad on Feb 23, 2012 11:45 AM EST up reply actions  

If a guy (say out of college) is drafted and doesn’t sign, does he become a amateur free agent?

Not in the sense that you’re using the term, no. He can sign with an unaffiliated league (i.e. foreign or indy ball), but isn’t free to shop his talents to MLB teams.

If a guy isn’t drafted at all, though, he’s free as a bird.

by Vlad on Feb 23, 2012 9:18 AM EST up reply actions  

What I can’t figure out….

1. Who are these new rules supposed to be helping out?

Cheap owners, who don’t want to invest more than necessary in amateur talent, and who resent teams that do.

Do you think this will mean more guys will go to college (helps the NCAA, I suppose) – since they figure that if they aren’t drafted by a team with a big remaining draft budget in the first few rounds, then it’s better to come out when they get drafted really high?

Yes.

And then pay pennies for guys coming out of college (in effect, guys will NOT go to college because of this – hurts the NCAA)?

I think you’ll see some of this, as well.

by Vlad on Feb 23, 2012 9:17 AM EST up reply actions  

As far as I can tell, that’s basically right — $100k PLUS any leftover draft pool funds. Which of course doesn’t include any funds intended for unsigned picks, because teams forfeit the right to spend that money.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 22, 2012 7:42 PM EST up reply actions  

I brought this up in a different thread and am unsure of the actual rule.

Each pick has a slot cap correct? So going over that slot cap will result in a tax and/or loss of pick. Is that correct? My understanding is that in the first 10 rounds you cannot go over those caps, but in the last 30, you can go over the $100k mark if there are funds left over from the first 10 rounds. Am I just not understanding that correctly or is what I wrote the case?

by pskell02 on Feb 22, 2012 7:46 PM EST up reply actions  

I think

and I don’t know, but I think the pool is total for the first 10 rounds. So you can go overslot in one pick as long as you go underslot in another, and sign the guy.

I think I like this system less than a straight-up hard slot.

Not actually affiliated with whygavs.

by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 22, 2012 8:21 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah, it is pretty cool. I don’t want to abuse it, but I guess I can try doing that every once in a while now.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 22, 2012 7:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Not too often!

you don’t want anyone to figure you out. I’ve already said too much…

by Mr. E on Feb 22, 2012 8:28 PM EST up reply actions  

ha!

i keep going back to the thought that no one’s seen Charlie and Nutting at the same time, and apparently Coonelly responds to both!

by BurgherKing on Feb 22, 2012 11:23 PM EST up reply actions  

I figured it out

He wears glasses when he’s Bob and removes them when he’s Charlie. That had the crime lab stumped for years.

by Mr. E on Feb 23, 2012 12:12 AM EST up reply actions  

FRONT OFFICE LACKEY!

________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 22, 2012 8:35 PM EST up reply actions  

@c42: that's whygavs

Not actually affiliated with whygavs.

by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 22, 2012 9:20 PM EST up reply actions  

...was waiting for SOMEone there...

________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 23, 2012 7:09 AM EST up reply actions  

Hey!

I haven’t been paid off by the front office. Yet.

http://www.whygavs.com
http://twitter.com/whygavs

by whygavs on Feb 23, 2012 10:02 AM EST up reply actions  

Kipper from PSF

changed his signature a while back after I made a “Nutting’s too cheap to pay off the bloggers” comment there.

Heh.

________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Feb 23, 2012 10:15 AM EST up reply actions  

agents

I can’t believe agents are taking this sitting down. You think they would be leading the charge for anti trust law suit. Just wondering can a player not sign a consent form to not be drafted and sign as a pro with a indy team ,thus making him a free agent when his indy contract is up.Than sign with any mlb team at market prices.

by wishiewashie on Feb 22, 2012 7:42 PM EST reply actions  

Hey!

How did you get Francois to tell you this

Are you the leader of some sort of demon fan wing of the Pirates that Nutting keeps in his basement?

Santa Roberto Clemente
Ora Pro Nobis
@ChristianTappe

by CTapps on Feb 22, 2012 7:46 PM EST reply actions  

We're fucked.

Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?

http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained

by Kosstic518 on Feb 22, 2012 7:53 PM EST via mobile reply actions  

Does this only apply to signing bonuses??

Could you sign a guy to a $100,000 signing bonus, but give him a major league deal where he gets 1 million for each year?

Would that only count as $100k against the pool?

Does this just mean that teams will give the high-profile guys small signing bonuses, but actually give them major league deals (like Pedro got), but give them much higher annual salaries in lieu of the signing bonus?

by impliedi on Feb 22, 2012 7:56 PM EST reply actions  

Or better yet....

Can you give a minor leaguer large yearly salaries? Can you sign a guy to a minor league deal, but give him $1million each year?

by impliedi on Feb 22, 2012 7:58 PM EST up reply actions  

I thought

I heard there were no more major league deals

by PuncSpeedChunk on Feb 22, 2012 7:59 PM EST up reply actions  

How about this....

You draft Gerrit Cole. You give him a minor league deal and a $400k signing bonus. But secretly promise to give him a raise the next year. The deal goes through the commissioner’s office with no problem. The following year, you renegotiate his deal to pay him $1million/year. Is this a loophole? Or are teams required to pay their minor leaguers an exact salary?

by impliedi on Feb 22, 2012 8:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Commish could probably veto something like that, and probably punish the Pirates for attempting it

by Mr. E on Feb 22, 2012 8:30 PM EST up reply actions  

IIRC, those kinds of payments are actually expressly prohibited by the new CBA.

by Vlad on Feb 23, 2012 9:21 AM EST up reply actions  

Correct me if I'm wrong...

…I’ve been out of the loop on this issue.

But it seems like the high-revenue, big-market teams will be the beneficiaries here, right? They have more big-time players to lose to free agency, and thus more compensation picks and a bigger chunk of the pool.

Am I getting that right?

Santa Roberto Clemente
Ora Pro Nobis
@ChristianTappe

by CTapps on Feb 22, 2012 8:04 PM EST reply actions  

There are going to be a lot fewer comp picks after this year, so that should straighten itself out somewhat in 2013.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 22, 2012 8:06 PM EST up reply actions  

But it seems like the high-revenue, big-market teams will be the beneficiaries here, right?

The primary beneficiaries will be teams that don’t like spending money on the draft, like the White Sox and Astros, since they don’t have to worry about other teams out-spending them and making them look bad, anymore.

by Vlad on Feb 23, 2012 9:22 AM EST up reply actions  

It does level the playing field, which shouldn’t have been done without something similar happening with free agency. But the ultimate winners will be the teams that are willing to spend the most money on scouting and development. A guy like Holmes will no longer fall to the 9th round, but those 9th round picks still matter. A team can’t get by with simply spending more on players that other teams pass on (players that any scouting service would identify as a good pick), they have to rely on their own scouts to uncover guys that aren’t highly rated and are willing to sign.

by TNbucs on Feb 23, 2012 11:23 AM EST up reply actions  

Did this strike anyone else as odd?
Second, there were more compensation selections granted to other clubs than we had estimated. There seem to have been many agreements by players not to accept an arbitration offer.

I’m not saying collusion because I think that term is thrown around way to frequently by sports fans, but doesn’t it kind of sound like that’s what he was getting at?

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

by glass0941 on Feb 22, 2012 8:07 PM EST reply actions  

Collusion is really among teams, I think; or at least that’s the kind of collusion lawsuits get filed over. There’ve been handshake deals between players and teams not to accept arb.

Now if only we could’ve got a handshake deal with Derek Lee to fucking sign somewhere.

Not actually affiliated with whygavs.

by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 22, 2012 8:24 PM EST up reply actions  

or Ludwick and Snyder not to accept arb.

by Mr. E on Feb 22, 2012 8:31 PM EST up reply actions  

Which is why I kind of wanted to stay away from the C word

It just seemed like an odd comment to make I guess

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

by glass0941 on Feb 22, 2012 8:47 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't know, now that I'm looking closer at this, it might not be that big of a deal.

The following teams have bigger pools than their draft expenditures last year:
Twins
Astros
Cardinals
A’s
Cubs
Mets
Reds
Rockies
White Sox
Dodgers
Marlins
Phillies
Braves
Tigers

And these teams have a pool that is 1 million (or less) less money than they spent year:
Padres
Blue Jays
Orioles
Brewers
Yankees
Giants
Angels

So, really the only teams getting really screwed by this (between last year and this one) are:
Red Sox
Pirates
Royals
Nationals
Rays
Diamondbacks
who all have significantly smaller pool money than they spent this past year.

by impliedi on Feb 22, 2012 9:03 PM EST reply actions  

That is how they got it through the owners, where Steinbrenner clan goes the other owners follow. You don’t think the Yankees don’t want a system that screws the Red Sox and Rays and doesn’t affect their own strategy? Screwing the Pirates and Royals and the rest is just gravy.

by Yung-Han on Feb 22, 2012 10:02 PM EST up reply actions  

In a way the Pirates were screwed when they drafted and signed Bell. Teams had kind of self-monitored their draft spending knowing that without restrictions it could very quickly get out of hand. But after teams like the Red Sox felt burned by the Pirates’ success with Bell, does anyone think they were going to hold back on spending next year? And once the Red Sox spent heavily, the Yankees would soon follow suit and then we’d end up with a situation where many players used the “Bell strategy” (I think Bell was sincere, BTW).

Over the last several years we saw more and more teams implementing a Pirates or Royals-like strategy. Teams were catching on, and the Pirates advantage in the draft was about to end anyway.

by TNbucs on Feb 23, 2012 11:34 AM EST up reply actions  

Killing the comp round really helps the pirates. We generally trade away players before they become free agents. This means our second round pick will be higher in actual slot position. Honestly the team that this new system screws the most is the Rays. They play well on the field, so they will never have a large draft pool, they have gotten a ton of compensation picks because they had a ton of type A free agents which soon will be gone, and they spend a ton of money on the draft. The pirates only have a problem with the last one. We have had very few Type B free agents…actually I’m not even sure when. Connelly knew the CBA would change the rules so overspent on the last couple drafts, which makes him alright in my book since it was screw you to Selig just as the Rays use of the compensation round.

by Yung-Han on Feb 22, 2012 9:57 PM EST reply actions  

Get ready to shoot me.

I don’t know that this is entirely a bad thing. I do hate the fact that the Pirates have less to spend as that is how they are going to build their team. It was great signing Bell last year. However as stated in previous posts, I think the main beneficiaries are the colleges and the people getting the screws put to them the most are the agents. “Scott you can ask for as much as you want but here is what we have to offer, if you have a problem with it go see Selig.” Wouldn’t it be something if top tier players didn’t wait until the deadline and got into minors faster…seems to have worked out just fine for Bauer. The real problem comes with international signings. If teams like the Yankees feel as though they can only spend so much in the draft and they take extra money out and throw it towards international guys, the smaller markets really can’t compete.

by sidbreamslegs on Feb 22, 2012 10:39 PM EST reply actions  

There is a universal cap for all teams now on int. spending (doesn’t include Cuba and Japan though). I believe it is $2.9m to start. They also bumped the signing deadline up, I think, 30 days to July 15th, which is also very nice.

by Mr. E on Feb 23, 2012 12:16 AM EST up reply actions  

rules for International

from Callis…players 24 and older, 5 or more years in foreign league are treated as professional free agents, no caps, options, etc. 3 years experience in Cuba for 1st two years. Players not meeting those (like Soler from Cuba at age 19) are amateur free agents, subject to bonus pools, no MLB contracts, etc.

by Brian Cartwright on Feb 23, 2012 3:37 AM EST reply actions  

Aw, balls. There goes my “sign with Honkbal Hoofdklasse” loophole.

by Vlad on Feb 23, 2012 9:24 AM EST up reply actions  

Soler will likely sign

before July 2, when the new rules on international signings takes effect

by Brian Cartwright on Feb 24, 2012 1:53 PM EST up reply actions  

I need to check back with Callis

on whether it’s age and experience, or age OR experience

Say if a Cuban is 25 but only has 2 yrs in Serie Nacional, does he qualify because of age, or a 22 yo w/5 years exp, does he qualify because of experience, or does he have to meet both?

by Brian Cartwright on Feb 24, 2012 1:55 PM EST up reply actions  

It's weird Coonelly insisted on the notion of an extra $2M, which means it was not a part of the cash saved from the first 10 rounds

If we keep it simple, they estimated to divide $2M between 30 players. That’s $67K per player. But no team signs all of their late-rounds draftees.
If they sign 2/3 of them (30*2/3=20), we’re at $100K per. But that’s weird because historically not all late-round draftees ask for and receive a 6-figures bonuses. And I can’t see a significant reason to start this year.
That’s maybe where their new strategy to exploit the draft kicks in. But it must be really special, because apparently no one here has even a slight idea of what it may look like.

by From France on Feb 23, 2012 6:26 AM EST reply actions  

Talking to Coonelly in December??

That explains the numbers…he was drunk!

by TucsonBuc on Feb 23, 2012 4:30 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Pittsburgh Pirates.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Mlb_photo_1367_small
Fixing the Pirate offense: Plate Discipline

Recent FanPosts

Small
Who'd of "Plunked" it? Shades of Jason Kendall
Small
Runs . . . Any way you can get them
Pirates_1908_small
gamethread vs cubs 5/26/12
Smiling_small
A little background on the offense
Insetcommodoreperry_small
Guess the Score Game 47: Cubs @ Pirates
Insetcommodoreperry_small
Guess the Score Game 46: Cubs @ Pirates
Small
A cheerful look at our offseason additions
Small
Pedro's Defensive Contributions
A_red_spider_web_on_a_black_background_0071-0911-1622-1329_smu_small
A couple guys that could help the Buccos offense
178896_499126548441_596563441_5939410_7960015_n_small
The Pirates Pitchers Have Adopted Their Own Sign: The FU!

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Charlie_small Charlie Wilmoth

Editors

18470r_small Vlad

Davidtodd_small David Todd

Authors

Img_1692_small WTM

Mark_profile_pic_small MarkInDallas