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.
2015 Draft Discussion
|
Post by jmei on Dec 24, 2014 9:07:53 GMT -5
You can't lock up guys in the draft the way you can in IFA, though. Other teams will call your bluff and draft someone even if he claims he won't sign below X, and that HSer will either have to take what the team is offering them or go to school. I mean, have you heard of even a single case of this kind of thing where a team (other than with the no. 1 overall pick) "locks up" a player in the draft the way you see in IFA? We don't know either way because as of yet, no team has exceeded the draft allotment. You don't have to go over the allotment to lock up a guy Like you're suggesting. Any team with a little wiggle room in their draft pool (e.g. the team with the no. 1 overall pick) could theoretically go to a projected late first round talent and say we'll give you mid first round cash if you exaggerate your demands, scare off other teams, and let us take you in the 11th round. The fact that there's not a whiff of that having happened suggests that it's not really a viable strategy.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 24, 2014 9:13:26 GMT -5
I understand what you are saying except that such a strategy wouldn't be limited to tough signs, and that was the author's point. Yes, some would sign elsewhere anyways and yes some teams would call the bluff but I can't see the majority of teams risking it when the general status quo is to take guys you are sure you can sign to a number that fits within your game plan. That's particularly true for the third through 10th rounds where you don't get another pick the following year. So for the early round talents you can cubbyhole, they are likely to be there for a while particularly since slot money decreases. ADD: In any study I've ever seen, the first round actual value far exceeds the average slot amount. Let's say conservatively that a first round pick is worth $5m. If the Sox got a first rounder in the seventh round for just a million over slot, they are financially ahead. It wouldn't have to be limited to tough signs. If a player was estimated to go in a slot with $1.5m attached and the Sox offered $2.5m, they are still ahead and that offer makes the player a tough sign for that slot. It is specifically against the CBA to have an agreement in place with a player prior to the draft. I know that teams loosely gauge what it will take to sign a player, but the league went out of their way in this CBA to have that rule specifically inserted to prevent what you are talking about. As we've seen from the last few drafts, 1st round talents don't fall to the 7th round. Very few top players fall and those that do have serious flaws, don't tend to fall far, and/or are simply not looking to go pro for any reasonable offer. Look at the BA rankings of the players that fall outside of the top 3 rounds of the draft. They are almost never top 30 players. That means you're taking an enormous risk for 2nd/3rd/4th round talents. There is no way that is worth it. Just think of how the process would go: 1.) The Red Sox would have to specifically violate the CBA and tell players they will pay them over slot if they fall. 2.) The player would then have to trust the Red Sox and tell other teams they are unsignable for near slot. 3.) Teams would have to trust the player is being truthful and not call their bluff. 4.) The Red Sox would have to do this to enough players that they could be sure some would fall, which would be almost impossible to do with any precision. 5.) The Red Sox would have to hope the league just lets their clear violation of the CBA fly. On top of this the team would have to: 1.) Be confident they will sign top free agents for each of the next couple years. 2.) Be confident they will in fact be a top 10 team in the league (see the Red Sox 2014 season for why this is a difficult bet) I just don't see it as being a viable strategy.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 24, 2014 9:22:23 GMT -5
Yes, some would sign elsewhere anyways and yes some teams would call the bluff but I can't see the majority of teams risking it when the general status quo is to take guys you are sure you can sign to a number that fits within your game plan. That's particularly true for the third through 10th rounds where you don't get another pick the following year. So for the early round talents you can cubbyhole, they are likely to be there for a while particularly since slot money decreases. I just don't know if this is true. Teams have been taking signability guys earlier and earlier, and if other teams catch even a whiff of what the Red Sox are trying to do (which they will, since Boston would have to talk to dozens of agents to do this, and at least some of them will be shopping around offers), those other teams are almost certainly going to call their bluff. But to make up for the two second round picks you're losing (which could amount to two first round picks if you don't sign a QO FA or are bad enough to get a protected pick), you have to be able to lock up at least four of five guys to these under-the-table deals the year you're going over. For reasons discussed above, I think that's unrealistic.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 24, 2014 9:30:07 GMT -5
To clarify my post above: Link
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 24, 2014 10:01:28 GMT -5
As we've seen from the last few drafts, 1st round talents don't fall to the 7th round. Very few top players fall and those that do have serious flaws, don't tend to fall far, and/or are simply not looking to go pro for any reasonable offer. Look at the BA rankings of the players that fall outside of the top 3 rounds of the draft. They are almost never top 30 players. Just to put some some names to this. Last year, the highest ranked ranked players drafted outside the top 100 were: 1. Jacob Bukauskas, BA #33, drafted in the 20th round, did not sign. 2. Mac Marshall, BA #57, drafted in the 21st round, did not sign. Then you are dipping in the 70s, with players like Keith Weisenberg, drafted 38th round, did not sign. Basically, last year, when you drafted past #100, you didn't get access to a player in the BA top 30. So, you are paying premium for HS players with large price tags and without a consensus that they deserve it. In other words, you are paying for a lot of risk. And even then, there is a lot to choose from. The only way around that is to circumvent the rules in the ways that Chav pointed out are expressly not allowed.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 24, 2014 10:23:55 GMT -5
I might be wrong, but wasn't Marshall going to sign when then whole Aiken thing blew up on the Astros?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 24, 2014 11:07:17 GMT -5
I might be wrong, but wasn't Marshall going to sign when then whole Aiken thing blew up on the Astros? I believe the scenario was that when the physical came back on Aiken, they tried to get him to take a lower bonus, and the money saved there was going to go to Marshall. Nix, by comparison, had agreed to sign for the money that was already being saved on the slot, I think.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 24, 2014 12:26:40 GMT -5
Yeah, that does sound about right.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 24, 2014 13:04:29 GMT -5
Asking a player if they will sign for X dollars prior to drafting him is not a pre draft agreement. None of this is anything to do with any attempt to circumvent the draft cap, it's actually the opposite. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't necessarily mean it won't be done, 2014 MFYIFA's say hello.
We at least seem to agree in the general sense that we know what the author is implying can be done. It's totally up to the Sox and Cubs as to whether they will attempt it or not.
Personally I think it can be done, I see nothing compelling in anyone's objections saying it can't be done and I'd love to see them go for it if they go for it extreme, all out or not at all.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 24, 2014 14:15:11 GMT -5
But if you aren't circumventing the system with a predraft agreement then how are top players going to fall? We've already shown that with the new draft rules top players don't fall beyond the top 100 picks. Unless you're saying to sign a dozen 3rd/4th round talent guys? In which case I think they're better off with two first rounders.
Players aren't going to tell every other team they won't sign with them simply because the Red Sox ask if they would sign for X. That would be completely foolish.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 24, 2014 14:57:34 GMT -5
Asking a player if they will sign for X dollars prior to drafting him is not a pre draft agreement. None of this is anything to do with any attempt to circumvent the draft cap, it's actually the opposite. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't necessarily mean it won't be done, 2014 MFYIFA's say hello. We at least seem to agree in the general sense that we know what the author is implying can be done. It's totally up to the Sox and Cubs as to whether they will attempt it or not. Personally I think it can be done, I see nothing compelling in anyone's objections saying it can't be done and I'd love to see them go for it if they go for it extreme, all out or not at all. Again, the big difference here is that you're talking about a draft instead of free agency, and the only way a plan like this makes sense is if you can draft multiple first-round-caliber talents in the later rounds, which has not happened since the new CBA was implemented.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 24, 2014 15:01:22 GMT -5
Seriously, if the #1 consensus pick agrees to sign with the Red Sox for like $20 million, you really think no one is going to call his bluff and draft him ahead of us? I say #1, but really any # works there.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 24, 2014 15:15:55 GMT -5
I want to give a quick example to show why this won't work for the team's benefit:
Player 'A' is willing to sign for 500k (but doesn't tell anyone this) Team 'A' offers to pay 800k if they are able to scare off teams so the last to the 11th rd Agent for player 'A' now tells other viable teams 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E' that they are willing to sign for 810k
The 'agreement' would simply be used by the agent as a marker for where he should set his asking price and would net his player 300k+ on the signing bonus (and himself ~15k extra)
Team 'A' would only gain an advantage if: - they have more money to offer than everyone else - they plan to artificially inflate the player's asking price in order to low-ball him after he is drafted. (this could backfire very quickly)
Unless the player has a non-financially based predisposition to want to go to a certain team, there is no reason to act differently than the above. If the reason is non-financial, they are best off saying 'don't draft me because I won't sign under any circumstances' as that gets the point across better than a high dollar number - since that can be misconstrued as starting point for bargaining (e.g. 70mil/4 years)
Like the whole 'player opt-outs are good for the team' proposal, this doesn't make sense as long as the player/agent act rationally (i.e. sign for the greatest amount of expected utility for the player).
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 24, 2014 21:30:21 GMT -5
But if you aren't circumventing the system with a predraft agreement then how are top players going to fall? We've already shown that with the new draft rules top players don't fall beyond the top 100 picks. Unless you're saying to sign a dozen 3rd/4th round talent guys? In which case I think they're better off with two first rounders. Players aren't going to tell every other team they won't sign with them simply because the Red Sox ask if they would sign for X. That would be completely foolish. Giving a pre-draft number does not constitute an agreement. You don't think that $$ have been discussed with literally every draft prospect before their name is called at the podium? Also as an add-on which I think increases the likelihood, we have 4 potential QO's for next year, Victorino, Napoli, Masterson and Porcello which would serve to proportionately lessen the 2016 draft blow. I'm also not suggesting that this is likely to happen, only that it can happen and I certainly wouldn't give it anywhere near a zero chance nor a 100% chance. Seriously, if the #1 consensus pick agrees to sign with the Red Sox for like $20 million, you really think no one is going to call his bluff and draft him ahead of us? I say #1, but really any # works there. Earlier I alluded to high school kids. I would think that the Sox or Cubs for the higher end draftees would be limited to high school kids with JUCO leverage. Yes, I think a team with a lottery pick would shy away from trying to draft and sign a kid who's likely to be very disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Dec 25, 2014 2:37:51 GMT -5
I want to give a quick example to show why this won't work for the team's benefit: Player 'A' is willing to sign for 500k (but doesn't tell anyone this) Team 'A' offers to pay 800k if they are able to scare off teams so the last to the 11th rd Agent for player 'A' now tells other viable teams 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E' that they are willing to sign for 810k The 'agreement' would simply be used by the agent as a marker for where he should set his asking price and would net his player 300k+ on the signing bonus (and himself ~15k extra) Team 'A' would only gain an advantage if: - they have more money to offer than everyone else - they plan to artificially inflate the player's asking price in order to low-ball him after he is drafted. (this could backfire very quickly) Unless the player has a non-financially based predisposition to want to go to a certain team, there is no reason to act differently than the above. If the reason is non-financial, they are best off saying 'don't draft me because I won't sign under any circumstances' as that gets the point across better than a high dollar number - since that can be misconstrued as starting point for bargaining (e.g. 70mil/4 years) Like the whole 'player opt-outs are good for the team' proposal, this doesn't make sense as long as the player/agent act rationally (i.e. sign for the greatest amount of expected utility for the player). Why would the player need to last until the 11th round? If you are blowing through the ceiling, why wouldn't you start overpaying starting with your first pick?
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Dec 25, 2014 7:18:14 GMT -5
But if you aren't circumventing the system with a predraft agreement then how are top players going to fall? We've already shown that with the new draft rules top players don't fall beyond the top 100 picks. Unless you're saying to sign a dozen 3rd/4th round talent guys? In which case I think they're better off with two first rounders. Players aren't going to tell every other team they won't sign with them simply because the Red Sox ask if they would sign for X. That would be completely foolish. Giving a pre-draft number does not constitute an agreement. You don't think that $$ have been discussed with literally every draft prospect before their name is called at the podium? We're beating a dead horse now, but what exactly would a team say to a player that would get them to tell all other teams they are unsignable and not be violating the CBA? It must be some creative use of words, because simply saying "If we offered you $5M in the 6th round, would you take it" isn't going to cut it.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 25, 2014 7:25:18 GMT -5
Exactly how is that different from "will you sign for slot in the second round ?".
There is nothing in the CBA that prohibits teams from going over slot for any particular player or for all of them for that matter. Only penalties for doing so.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 25, 2014 11:55:05 GMT -5
Exactly how is that different from "will you sign for slot in the second round ?". You have to get the player to tell every other team that he is not signable for a reasonable amount, and every other team has to believe him. Rather than just gathering information about this player's preferences, this involves getting the player to tell other teams he's unsignable, which is clearly impermissible collusion.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 25, 2014 18:27:53 GMT -5
If you indicate to a player's representative/adviser/agent that you are willing to offer his million dollar player two million if he's available when you draft in the fifth round, you won't need to tell the representative anything, they aren't stupid and that offer is no different from the typical offer, just different numbers. I don't see any issues there. Again, there is no wording prohibiting exceeding the cap or slot, only wording for the penalties to do so. If you think about it, the CBA in effect is approving it if you are willing to pay the penalty. Does anybody here really think the players union will be unhappy ?
I still think the author had it right, it's a plausible scenario and the Sox and Cubs would be wise to take advantage until the next CBA when it likely would be changed assuming the players would approve the changes. People here talk about the inequity of dollars between the high dollar players and the newbies. This adds dollars to the bottom of the barrel without affecting the top.
We're obviously going to be in disagreement about some of the issues and implications but I can't see where the author got anything wrong as far as the technical parts and I still have yet to see anybody with a compelling argument against it otherwise.
That also is in no way collusion. Collusion would be if Theo and Ben got together and unified their pricing or decided between them who would make the better offer to any particular player. That would be extremely difficult to prove. Since the amateurs aren't represented here, you could make a far better case that the entire process is collusionary by design than make a case against a player rep deciding your offer is what's best for his client.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 26, 2014 6:22:52 GMT -5
you could make a far better case that the entire process is collusionary by design Wait, you need to make a case for this? I thought it was absolutely obvious to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 26, 2014 8:30:22 GMT -5
If you indicate to a player's representative/adviser/agent that you are willing to offer his million dollar player two million if he's available when you draft in the fifth round, you won't need to tell the representative anything, they aren't stupid and that offer is no different from the typical offer, just different numbers. I don't see any issues there. Again, there is no wording prohibiting exceeding the cap or slot, only wording for the penalties to do so. If you think about it, the CBA in effect is approving it if you are willing to pay the penalty. Does anybody here really think the players union will be unhappy ? [...] That also is in no way collusion. Collusion would be if Theo and Ben got together and unified their pricing or decided between them who would make the better offer to any particular player. That would be extremely difficult to prove. Since the amateurs aren't represented here, you could make a far better case that the entire process is collusionary by design than make a case against a player rep deciding your offer is what's best for his client. The issue is not that you're going over the draft pool, the issue is that you are negotiating an under-the-table deal before the player is drafted, which, as mentioned above, is prohibited by the CBA. The collusion is not between two teams, it's between the team and the amateur. It's the Commissioner's Office and the other teams that will be unhappy, and those parties have way more leverage than the Player's Association in terms of pursuing a grievance. Again: the question is not whether this strategy is theoretically possible. It's about whether this strategy makes the team better off, since it's hard to see a team landing enough overslot talent in the later rounds for it to be worth giving up two high draft picks. ADD: I'll note that the original article did not really consider the question of whether enough overslot talent falls in the draft to make this strategy worth it. They sort of assume that it does, which, as joshv02 discusses above, has not really been the case.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 26, 2014 11:02:43 GMT -5
This topic of cheating the draft belongs in a subforum of its own along with the trade Pedroia thread. And then I'll add a 3rd thread about how we need to sign bigfoot.
|
|
|
Post by flasox27 on Dec 26, 2014 11:34:57 GMT -5
Absolutely,correct. This topic is becoming the realm of conspiracy theorists. The reality is that the Sox have the number 8 pick in the first round and picks in rounds 3-40. If they save enough money on the pick in the first round combined with what they save in rounds 4-10, they might have resources for another above slot pick. Lets get back to what players are projected to be available.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,966
|
Post by jimoh on Dec 26, 2014 12:17:10 GMT -5
Absolutely,correct. This topic is becoming the realm of conspiracy theorists. The reality is that the Sox have the number 8 pick in the first round and picks in rounds 3-40. If they save enough money on the pick in the first round combined with what they save in rounds 4-10, they might have resources for another above slot pick. Lets get back to what players are projected to be available. Number 7 pick, no?
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 26, 2014 13:30:09 GMT -5
Yes the 7th pick.
The Red Sox can offer 20 million dollars to anyone. Won't stop other teams from picking them.
|
|
|