Battle for top 10 (protected) draft picks

SFO and NYM are two teams that have been theorized potential destinations for Ellsbury. One hopes if they finish in the top 10 they aren't winning bidders for him or Drew.

One hopes even more that MLB will agree to let teams trade picks from rounds 1-4 in the next CBA.

Doesn't that drop theSox comp down to top of first round if they make a qualifying offer?

The top 10 picks are protected. If the team that signs Ellsbury is 11 or lower, there first round pick is removed from the draft. In that case, the Red Sox comp pick moves up a slot and the Red Sox benefit. If a team with a top 10 pick signs Ellsbury, their second round pick is removed from the draft, and the Red Sox comp pick is a slot lower than the previous scenario. So the hope is that the team that signs Ellsbury picks lower than tenth overall.

Meh.... It's one spot.

For the most part, I agree. It would be interesting if the Red Sox made multiple QO's (let's say three as an example), and all three declined and signed with other teams that draft between 11 and the end of the first round. Better yet, let's say they all sign with teams between #11 and the Red Sox top pick (#25 as of now?). Now the Red Sox would have 3 comp picks and their own first. Their first round pick would go from 25 up to 22, with each of their comp picks moving up 3 slots as well. Now you have 4 picks in the top 45 (conservatively) that have improved by 3 slots. This doesn't even account for qualified players from other teams. I guess what I'm saying is that in the case of one player, it might be a slight difference. 3 slots for each of 4 top 45 picks could have a much more noticeable difference. The ideal situation, at least in my mind, would be that all the qualified players sign with teams between 11 and the Red Sox, whether they are leaving the Sox or another team.

I've been tracking the impact of the imbalanced schedule and AL superiority on the pennant race for some years, by correctly adjusting for strength of schedule. For the first time ever, it looks like the N (8 or 10) playoff teams will actually comprise the N best teams in baseball. But as of this date, the imbalanced schedule is having a huge impact on who's getting a protected pick, something I admit to not having paid attention to previously.

Actual bottom 14, with rank by straight Win% in parens:

1. Hou (1)
2. Fla (2)
3. ChW (4)
4. ChC (3)
5. NYM (12)
6. SD (11)
7. SF (7)
8. Mil (6)
9. Min (5)
10. Sea (8)
11. Phi (13)
12. Col (14)
13. LAA (10)
14. Tor (9)

Which is to say, the Mets and Padres have easily been among the ten worst clubs in baseball, but they rank 12th and 11th in raw win %, thanks to SOS of -2.2 and -1.7 wins, respectively. In contrast, the Angels and Blue Jays would get protected picks even though they're not close to being in the bottom 10, thanks to SOS of -0.2 and 3.0.

And thus, the competitive imbalance between the leagues (currently projected to be 2.5 wins, on average, a figure half of what it was a few years ago) is perpetuated.

If the season ended right now:

1. HOU ---- (running away with the top pick)
2. MIA -5.5 (running away with the 2nd pick)
3. CHC -12.0
4. CWS -12.5 (out of the top three)
5. MIN -14.5
6. MIL -15.0
7. SDO -16.0
8. SFO -16.0
9. TOR -16.5
10. SEA -17.0
11. TOR (compensation pick) 
12. NYM -17.5
13. PHI -17.5
14. LAA -17.5
15. COL -19.0

29. BOS

5.5 games separate #3 from #14.

(tiebreaker order among teams from 3-15 (excluding #11) is as follows: CHC, COL, MIN, TOR, NYM, SEA, SDO, PHI, MIL, CWS, LAA, SFO)

If the season ended right now:

1. HOU ----
2. MIA -3.5
3. CWS -7.0
4. CHC -12.0
5. MIN -12.5
6. MIL -13.5
7. SEA -14.0
8. NYM -14.5
9. SFO -15.5
10. TOR -16.0
11. TOR (compensation pick)
12. COL -16.5
13. SDO -16.5
14. PHI -17.0
15. LAA -19.0

30. BOS

5 games separate #4 from #14.

(tiebreaker order among teams from 3-15 (excluding #11) is as follows: CHC, COL, MIN, TOR, NYM, SEA, SDO, PHI, MIL, CWS, LAA, SFO)

If the season ended right now:

1. HOU ---- (100 losses)
2. MIA -4.0 
3. CWS -9.0
4. CHC -12.0
5. MIN -12.5
6. SEA -14.0
7. NYM -16.5
8. MIL -16.5
9. COL -17.5
10. TOR -18.5
11. TOR (compensation pick)
12. SFO -19.0
13. SDO -19.5
14. PHI -20.0
15. LAA -22.0

30. BOS

(tiebreaker order among teams from 3-15 (excluding #11) is as follows: CHC, COL, MIN, TOR, NYM, SEA, SDO, PHI, MIL, CWS, LAA, SFO)

FYI, the draft will begin on June 5.

sbb.scout.com/2/1318151.html

1. Carlos Rodon, LHP, North Carolina State
2. Jeff Hoffman, RHP, East Carolina
3. Tyler Kolek, RHP, Shepherd HS (TX), uncommitted
4. Trea Turner, SS, North Carolina State
5. Alex Jackson, C/RF, Rancho Bernardo HS (CA), Oregon commit
6. Derek Fisher, LF, Virginia
7. Braxton Davidson, 1B, T.C. Roberson HS (NC), North Carolina commit
8. Michael Gettys, CF/RHP, Gainesville HS (GA), Georgia commit
9. Grant Holmes, RHP, Conway HS (SC), Florida commit
10. Brandon Finnegan, LHP, TCU
11. Jacob Gatewood, SS, Clovis HS (CA), USC commit
12. Luis Ortiz, RHP, Sanger HS (CA), uncommitted
13. Sean Newcomb, LHP, Hartford
14. Kyle Schwarber, C/1B, Indiana
15. Ti'quan Forbes, SS, Columbia HS (MS), Ole Miss commit
16. Max Pentecost, C, Kennessaw State
17. Chris Ellis, RHP, Ole Miss
18. Derek Hill, CF, Elk Grove HS (CA), uncommitted
19. Cobi Johnson, RHP, Mitchell HS (FL), Florida State commit
20. Nick Gordon, SS/RHP, Olympia HS (FL), Florida State commit
21. Tyler Beede, RHP, Vanderbilt
22. Luke Weaver, RHP, Florida State
23. Touki Toussaint, RHP, Coral Springs Christian HS (FL), uncommitted
24. Kodi Medeiros, LHP, Waiakea HS (HI), uncommitted
25. Sean Reid-Foley, RHP, Sandalwood HS (FL), Florida State commit
26. Michael Cederoth, RHP, San Diego State
27. Kyle Freeland, LHP, Evansville
28. Alex Verdugo, RF/LHP, Sahuaro HS (AZ), Arizona State commit
29. Dylan Cease, RHP, Milton HS (GA), uncommitted
30. Justus Sheffield, LHP, Tullahoma HS (TN), Vanderbilt commit

I'm no statistician, but these numbers look pretty good to me. Not sure you're making you're argument. Look how close they are to falling in order.

The Mets and twins on this date were within 2 games of each other.

The Royals, Os and Nationals all have the exact same record so the variance you show is negligible.

Didn't look at every variance, but after a scan they're close enough that I don't see how the schedule has any significant impact on the draft. Furthermore, if you actually dug into the impact likelihood of these positions relative to each other the impact positive or negative would be nonexistent.

That's a very interesting counter-argument.

The actual problem with divisional imbalance is in choosing and seeding playoff teams. Right now, TB, Cle, and Tex project to finish in a 3-way tie for the two wild cards, but the Ray's schedule will have been 1.6 games tougher than the Indians and 2.4 games tougher than Texas', so the Rangers should not be in that picture. The Braves project to edge the Cardinals for best record and home-field advantage in the NL, 96 wins to 95, but only because their schedule will have been 3.3 games easier.

If you could fix those inequalities, you could draft in order of straight W/L record and, as you point out, it would be fair in terms of each club's need to compete within its own division. And the degree to which that contributes to divisional imbalance is of course very slight compared to the inherent imbalance caused by how smart the teams have been and the size of the markets they're in.

Would be interesting if we took Justus Sheffield.