SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2014 MLB Draft discussion
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 7, 2014 14:07:47 GMT -5
I think the point is that by being terrible and getting a bigger bonus pool, you can now out spend all the other teams throughout the draft by going underslot with the #1 overall pick. This rewards the teams that are terrible by giving them the financial advantage that they were trying to eliminate with these new rules. At least that's how I'm reading the previous post. Which of course is not at all the argument he made earlier in this thread. It is certainly a little sad to reward teams for doing poorly. There should probably be a much higher salary floor so that MLB doesn't turn into the NBA where you only want to be at one end of the spectrum (win it all or top draft pick). In the end, it's really difficult to define a set of rules which fairly distributes talent while incentivizing every team to win. But I agree with JMei's first post whole-heartedly. It absolutely is something I brought up in my first post. Hence the comment "[it] almost forces them to be bad to have more resources to spend in the draft and internationally" There are a lot of nuances to it with different arguments and counter arguments, but what it boils down to is teams are rewarded with more money to spend by being bad. If you want to make an argument that this makes sense in the draft because a higher first round pick is going to cost more to sign then a lower one, then that makes some sense. I still think it's too restrictive. However, internationally it doesn't make sense. Every team has the same ability to sign an international talent so why should a bad team in 2013 get more money to sign kids who won't play until 2018ish? One thing that it did was eliminate free agent musical chairs. Basically, it was more beneficial for a team like the Red Sox to let their own FA walk, get 2 picks and sign another big free agent and only lose 1. It was a net gain of picks. That's just dumb. You could have eliminated that without incentivizing losing.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 7, 2014 14:19:10 GMT -5
You seem to think what the Astros and Cubs are doing is some new strategy-- it decidedly is not. Teams have always traded away their MLB talent for prospects if they weren't competing (see, e.g., the 2008-11 Padres). Owners have always been hesitant to spend money in free agency if the team does not project to be a playoff contender. Losing teams have always received higher draft picks, which represent a far better bang-for-your-buck than overslot signings (see the link I posted above-- early first-round picks have a much higher surplus value than overslot signings). The addition of the draft spending cap had only a minor marginal effect, as the old system absolutely promoting losing almost as much as the new one does. The difference is that the old system also benefited big-market teams who have the cash flow to invest significantly in over slot amateur talent acquisition year after year. It's probably too early to tell how big an effect it will have. I think the 4th armature draft will tell us more. Small market teams have the resources to invest as much as big market teams did in the draft. We're only talking a few million dollars here. It was the best investment small market teams could have been making for long term success.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 7, 2014 15:11:05 GMT -5
Small market teams have the resources to invest as much as big market teams did in the draft. We're only talking a few million dollars here. It was the best investment small market teams could have been making for long term success. But it didn't work out that way empirically, with some exceptions. The old system was broken-- read this Kevin Goldstein article from 2007 if you want to remember some of the sordid details. There were a slew of drafts in the last decade where small market teams were forced to take "signability picks" in the first half of the first round while passing on superior talent (remember Bryan Bullington?). That happened because those GMs knew they had limited draft budgets while agents had the leverage to get their clients to the overslot teams (Red Sox, Yankees, Tigers, Angels, etc.) by declaring that they wouldn't sign below X number. If your team has a very limited budget, it's harder to go to the owner and make the pitch that spending more now on amateur talent is more worthwhile than spending on major league talent. This is especially true when every draft dollar takes away from a dollar you can spend in free agency, and GM tenures are often so brief that if they don't succeed in the short term, they won't get to reap the advantages of spending on long-term amateur talent. Plus, if small-market teams started spending more on the draft, it would have quickly become a race-to-the-bottom where the big market teams would have emerged in the end. Any uncapped system favors teams who can or are willing to spend, and that hurts competitive balance, and I'm a little surprised that that fact is at all controversial.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 7, 2014 16:52:49 GMT -5
Not liking the new system isn't equal to thinking there was nothing wrong with the old. Go ahead and cap it, I'm ok with that. Just don't scale it rewarding worse records with more money. Not just in the draft but internationally.
|
|
|
Post by bjb406 on Feb 7, 2014 16:56:36 GMT -5
teams weren't forced to take signability guys. They just chose to. If they didnt want to pay someone's bloated price tag there were plenty of equally good players with more reasonable demands. The problem was that some teams, like the Pirates especially, were simply too stupid. I remember 2006 the Pirates picked at 4 and i think Andrew Miller was the big bonus guy, but there were plenty of very good players they could have picked at a reasonable price (Kershaw comes to mind), but instead they picked Brad Lincoln, who if I recall wasn't expected to go in the first round. The current system hurts the well run teams like the Rays because they can't accumulate as many picks for their departing free agents, but protects teams like the Astros because there is no excuse for them not to spend their allotment, so it protects them from their own stupidity. The old system favored intelligence, while this system just favors teams who suck.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 7, 2014 17:36:43 GMT -5
Not liking the new system isn't equal to thinking there was nothing wrong with the old. Go ahead and cap it, I'm ok with that. Just don't scale it rewarding worse records with more money. Not just in the draft but internationally. Would you be fine with hard-slotting a la the NBA or NFL, where each pick has a pretty set bonus amount and the draftee can either take it or leave it?
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Feb 8, 2014 9:46:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 8, 2014 10:08:08 GMT -5
Another name to throw out there is Forrest Wall. I really like his lefty swing and he seems to have a good idea at the plate with developing power.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 8, 2014 11:16:34 GMT -5
Not liking the new system isn't equal to thinking there was nothing wrong with the old. Go ahead and cap it, I'm ok with that. Just don't scale it rewarding worse records with more money. Not just in the draft but internationally. I'm with you on the international part, but why would a flat cap on the draft make sense? The current system takes into account the fact that higher picks take more to sign. If, as a team, you want to employ a strategy in which you take an inferior player in order to have more money to spend elsewhere, more power to you, but you run the risk of selecting Carlos Correa (a great prospect) instead of Byron Buxton (who I'd still trade Correa, McCullers, and Ruiz for in a heartbeat). Remember, the money is allotted to the picks, not the teams. Teams that pick lower thus tend to have more money to spend, but you need to do something like this, otherwise you're, say, punishing teams for having more picks by capping a team with 12 at the same amount as a team with 9, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Feb 8, 2014 13:11:20 GMT -5
My preference is that players should be drafted in order of talent, without too much concern for signing concerning, except perhaps in case of expressed intent to attend a top university. In the current system, there is too much risk to the team on the loss of slot money when a round 1-10 draftee does not sign. So the sox have been drafting college seniors in the 7-10 slots to have money for a difficult sign later. I think a better mechanism to implement this is: if a round 1-10 draftee is offered slot and does not accept within 10 or so days, then the can used that slot money elsewhere. In the case of a 1st round pick, the team can opt for either using the money for other draftees in the current year, or electing for compensation the next year. If the 1st round draftee is not offered slot, then there is no compensation.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Feb 8, 2014 13:54:58 GMT -5
Another name to throw out there is Forrest Wall. I really like his lefty swing and he seems to have a good idea at the plate with developing power. Plus having two guys in the system named Forrest is a plus.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Feb 8, 2014 14:43:09 GMT -5
Swing Forrest, swing!
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 8, 2014 15:38:49 GMT -5
Maybe players should declare for the draft like all other sports.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 10, 2014 10:16:25 GMT -5
Not liking the new system isn't equal to thinking there was nothing wrong with the old. Go ahead and cap it, I'm ok with that. Just don't scale it rewarding worse records with more money. Not just in the draft but internationally. I'm with you on the international part, but why would a flat cap on the draft make sense? The current system takes into account the fact that higher picks take more to sign. If, as a team, you want to employ a strategy in which you take an inferior player in order to have more money to spend elsewhere, more power to you, but you run the risk of selecting Carlos Correa (a great prospect) instead of Byron Buxton (who I'd still trade Correa, McCullers, and Ruiz for in a heartbeat). Remember, the money is allotted to the picks, not the teams. Teams that pick lower thus tend to have more money to spend, but you need to do something like this, otherwise you're, say, punishing teams for having more picks by capping a team with 12 at the same amount as a team with 9, etc. I don't necessarily agree that you are punishing a team with more picks by instituting a hard cap. The purpose of a hard cap would be to ensure some teams couldn't vastly outspend others, thus gaining a big advantage. In my opinion, the spending of teams leading up to this system wasn't out of control, so the cap should be fairly healthy and amongst where those higher bonus numbers were anyways. Teams with more picks still be able to sign their players and the benefit of having more early picks is clear. Plus, a pick in the top 5 costs similar money to 3 picks in the later first and supplemental round. JMEI, I don't know if I'd be in favor of a slotting system. I would be in favor of some sort of max bonus for any player. Say $5M. This would ensure small market teams could pay for any first draft pick so they take the best player not the second best. The current system, makes teams feel it's more beneficial to not take the best player. They can make a system where it's financially viable to take the best player. There's lots of things they could do to protect a team or versions of things. I just thinks teams, no matter where they draft should be able to spend the same amount on their picks. If they feel the need to protect teams for having an unsigned pick from one year rollover into the next they can do that somehow. It would probably have to do with un-used bonus money from the previous year being available for only the carry-over pick. It might not make sense to allow for extra money for said pick if the team used all their bonus money elsewhere... Would need to give this whole part more thought. Like I said its complex and if I were MLB trying to come up with a system, it'd evolve a lot through out.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Feb 10, 2014 10:21:23 GMT -5
Maybe players should declare for the draft like all other sports. This would be a big improvement.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Feb 10, 2014 10:36:27 GMT -5
Really excited about the college season starting this week and hope to get by to a South Carolina game or two. We have a few draft prospects but no probable first round guys, more of top 50-100 range. Grayson Greiner - Im not sure there is a better defensive C in college baseball. I don't see him as a power threat at all but he improved his BB-K ratio a lot over his Fr to Soph year and bc of his D I think he has a very good chance to be a back up C at minimum. He is very tall so that might be a concern but I see him as a top 50 guy and with a little more power I could see him going in the comp pick range. Team USA. www.collegesplits.com/cgi-bin/csPlayer.cgi?pl=greingr42Joey Pankake - Played his first two years at SS but will move off this year. Projected as our 3B put has experience as a corner OF too. He was too big (range) for a SS but I think he could be a good defensive 3B. Top 50-75 guy. Good power hitter at the college ranks. Good arm. www.collegesplits.com/cgi-bin/csPlayer.cgi?pl=pankajo42Tanner English - He might have the most potential of the group but hasn't had the career he had hoped for since turning down a million dollar Rays offer coming out of HS. He has K'd way to much but his FR year he had some eye problems that were corrected and he had a shoulder problem his Soph year. Before that injury he was on fire (even started switch hitting) hitting .335ish with more BBs than Ks. Plays a great CF and his arm is up there with JBJs. Very fast but his CS% is horrible for a guy with his talent. If he plays like he did the first 6 weeks of last year he should go top 75 or so. I'd keep an eye on him bc he seems to fit the middle of the diamond approach the Sox usually take every June. His K rate would be a major concern for me as he progresses. www.collegesplits.com/cgi-bin/csPlayer.cgi?pl=englita44
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Feb 10, 2014 11:39:32 GMT -5
Another name to throw out there is Forrest Wall. I really like his lefty swing and he seems to have a good idea at the plate with developing power. Plus having two guys in the system named Forrest is a plus. Maybe one of them can hit the wall allday.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 10, 2014 12:10:51 GMT -5
JMEI, I don't know if I'd be in favor of a slotting system. I would be in favor of some sort of max bonus for any player. Say $5M. This would ensure small market teams could pay for any first draft pick so they take the best player not the second best. The current system, makes teams feel it's more beneficial to not take the best player. They can make a system where it's financially viable to take the best player. You're focusing on a totally different set of concerns here-- the idea that teams should take the best player available, regardless of signability. But if we prioritize that, a hard slotting system is way better than your proposed universal hard cap. A hard slotting system definitely ensures that a team would take the best player available, because there's no room for negotiation and the player has to take it or leave it (and most players would take it, knowing that they'd give up three years of earning potential and have to bear injury/performance risk). Your system would have the opposite effect and make signability more important: it gives agents/players more leverage to demand high bonuses since big-market teams drafting at the back of each round now have full clearance to spend well above slot. That would make a farce out of the slot recommendations and provide incentives to teams to find the most "bang-for-your-buck" at each pick, which guts the best-player-available ideal. Again: if you're primarily concerned about eliminating an incentive to lose, the real problem is that the worst teams still get the first pick of the litter and the solution is to abolish the draft entirely, not to fiddle with the cap. Abolishing the domestic draft and switching to the old IFA model of essentially creating a free agent pool for amateur talent could work, though the owners would require some sort of spending limit to curtail overall amateur spending. But, again, I still think you're exaggerating both the frequency and the negative effects of tanking. I think the far bigger problem is the supremely unequal playing field that the big market teams have.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 10, 2014 16:18:20 GMT -5
I'm really not focusing on different sets of concerns. I don't like the idea of having different amounts of money for different teams. I think every team should be able to spend the same amount in the draft regardless of where they pick or how many picks they have. Hard slotting would give teams different amounts to spend. I care less about how they spend their money and more about having the ability to spend equally. I only used a max bonus for a player at a lower amount than what they top guys get so that no "game changing player" could price themselves out of a smaller market and having it at reasonable figure also gives them plenty of money to spend elsewhere on other players.
You seem to like a system that level the playing field for inept teams, to make things more fair and I don't.
"If your team has a very limited budget, it's harder to go to the owner and make the pitch that spending more now on amateur talent is more worthwhile than spending on major league talent."
"GM tenures are often so brief that if they don't succeed in the short term, they won't get to reap the advantages of spending on long-term amateur talent."
I understand where you are coming from with these statements, but I don't necessarily agree with them. I started to get into why, but it feels like a whole other topic. Regardless, I have no sympathy for these GMs because their job is difficult. If MLB wants to fix a problem then maybe they should get good owners who know how to hire people and empower them to do their jobs. Once you hire a good GM, with a plan you value, and let them do it then things can work.
The Yankees spending over $200m on payroll or the Red Sox $189M compared to the other teams is where the financial inequality is. It's not the difference in draft spending. A difference that doesn't even exist between all small and big market teams and doesn't have to exist between any of them. It's small potatoes even for a smaller market team.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 10, 2014 16:30:16 GMT -5
the real problem is that the worst teams still get the first pick of the litter and the solution is to abolish the draft entirely, not to fiddle with the cap. Or creating a rotating draft system where every team will get the #1 pick every 30 years, like Nick Lowe proposed the NBA: grantland.com/the-triangle/the-nbas-possible-solution-for-tanking-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel/The Astros have been pretty openly tanking, entirely within the rules. It's good for their team, but bad for baseball. The fact that a system that incentivizes losing has been in place for almost 50 years doesn't make it the best possible system. A fixed rotating draft order along with hard slotting, would be, in my mind, the most equitable and keep the emphasis on scouting.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 10, 2014 16:46:54 GMT -5
I'm really not focusing on different sets of concerns. I don't like the idea of having different amounts of money for different teams. I think every team should be able to spend the same amount in the draft regardless of where they pick or how many picks they have. Hard slotting would give teams different amounts to spend. I care less about how they spend their money and more about having the ability to spend equally. I only used a max bonus for a player at a lower amount than what they top guys get so that no "game changing player" could price themselves out of a smaller market and having it at reasonable figure also gives them plenty of money to spend elsewhere on other players. I'm not sure if I'm really making my point across. If you want every team to spend the same amount in acquiring amateur U.S. talent, you pretty much have to get rid of the draft entirely. You can't have a draft where both every team has the same maximum spending cap that also has the best players drafted earlier and paid higher bonuses. It might be a little more tenable if MLB switched to a snake draft format, but even that wouldn't really solve all the problems. Your concern over unequal opportunity on the amateur talent market is inevitable in any system where teams take turns selecting players in a non-random order. the real problem is that the worst teams still get the first pick of the litter and the solution is to abolish the draft entirely, not to fiddle with the cap. Or creating a rotating draft system where every team will get the #1 pick every 30 years, like Nick Lowe proposed the NBA: grantland.com/the-triangle/the-nbas-possible-solution-for-tanking-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel/The Astros have been pretty openly tanking, entirely within the rules. It's good for their team, but bad for baseball. The fact that a system that incentivizes losing has been in place for almost 50 years doesn't make it the best possible system. A fixed rotating draft order along with hard slotting, would be, in my mind, the most equitable and keep the emphasis on scouting. The "wheel" format feels a little gimmicky, and it means that poorly-run teams might truly screw themselves over by having both bad major-league talent while being stuck at a bad part of the wheel (or, alternatively, that the WS winner might get the #1 pick). But it could work, especially because the disparity in amateur talent in MLB is generally a little more flat than it is in the NBA. I'm still more in favor of basically a fantasy auction-- give the teams a max cap on total U.S. amateur spending, and let them allocate it however they want. PS: it's also a Zach Lowe article, and he didn't come up with the idea (the Celtics' Mike Zarren reportedly did) but just did the excellent reporting on it.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 10, 2014 16:58:29 GMT -5
The "wheel" format feels a little gimmicky, and it means that poorly-run teams might truly screw themselves over by having both bad major-league talent while being stuck at a bad part of the wheel (or, alternatively, that the WS winner might get the #1 pick). That's exactly why I like it. No rewards for losing, no penalty for winning. The Yankees and Astros have the exact same chance at the next Bryce Harper. The Cardinals ability to find excellent talent in the draft shouldn't mean You're right, but since I screwed that up I get to post a Nick Lowe video.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 11, 2014 10:15:47 GMT -5
I like the idea of the rotation for number one picks. Still not a fan on hard slotting. All teams and business go through cycles and in a sport like baseball where it's harder to identify and develop talent due to so much uncertainty, I don't really like the idea of handcuffing teams from overloading there in certain years as part of their business model. I completely understand why they'd want to put some high water mark to ensure some team doesn't go out of bounds some year. I don't like it, but I can understand it if the initial cap number is in the range of the top bonuses historically. Having a high number allows you to have a draft where teams both have a max spending cap and draft the best player, if you cap the top player bonus at a reasonable figure. If Appel could only get 5m as a max contract, he gets picked first and signs. With a high cap to work within, the team gets its player, can sign and draft other strong players.
For me, any draft cap should be an outer boundary, not a restrictive force. I still like the free market approach. Teams should be able buy up more armature talent if they want.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Feb 11, 2014 12:34:56 GMT -5
Plus having two guys in the system named Forrest is a plus. Maybe one of them can hit the wall allday. Or Heaven forbid, one or both could steal bases. Too easy? Sorry
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 11, 2014 12:39:41 GMT -5
The more I look at the wheel format, the more I like it.
One thing about giving every team the same amount of money to work with, is it helps teams drafting further down more players to help offset their lower draft position. sure the Red Sox spent more on over-slot signings than other teams, but how many of those over-slot signings equaled the bonuses of the top players in the draft? Sure they hit on a good number of the signings so it looks better now than it historically is, but going into a given draft, would you rather have a top 5 pick or 2 or 3 picks from 28-50?
|
|
|