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.
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 25, 2017 6:51:56 GMT -5
If you fail to sign any of the top 10 round picks you also loose the slot money attached Ouch, what a dumb rule. Like teams should be penalized because a 18-21 year olds don't know exactly which direction they're going with their lives. No wonder why the Sox signs their top 10 guys usually. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 25, 2017 9:40:58 GMT -5
Why is it a dumb rule? If you don't sign a pick, why should you still get the bonus money associated with that slot?
Also, the reason you sign Netzer is that you thought he was good enough to draft in the third round. You only get so many draft picks. You need to sign the good ones.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419 
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jun 25, 2017 10:03:21 GMT -5
You have to lose the slot money, or teams could bag one of the picks to fatten an offer for another. Think of how often there are the tough sign longshots late: now, imagine, say, blowing off your Round 2 pick so you bundle the 2nd and 3rd slot for some hard to sign guy.
Conversely, it would give draftees too much leverage. Basically, they could demand all of your slot money, saying it's not my problem you don't have money left for other picks.
|
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jun 25, 2017 10:19:16 GMT -5
Why is it a dumb rule? If you don't sign a pick, why should you still get the bonus money associated with that slot? Also, the reason you sign Netzer is that you thought he was good enough to draft in the third round. You only get so many draft picks. You need to sign the good ones. It is a dumb rule because it leads to a situation where a team drafts some safe prospects well ahead of their rank, so that they can be signed for below slot, making money available for more risky prospects. There are good points to the current system in that it has reduced the need to offer very large bonuses for draftees who felt they should have been picked higher. However, I think the current system could be improved as follows. If a draftee is offered slot, but does not accept within a set number of days, then that amount could be offered to another later pick. Multiple slots cannot be combined for one person. The intent here is that the draft should be largely in order of talent, with some consideration for whether the person will sign. |
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 25, 2017 11:41:54 GMT -5
I'd say the system is working out pretty well....something like 99% of picks signed in the first 10 rounds last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Jun 26, 2017 9:47:15 GMT -5
I'd say the system is working out pretty well....something like 99% of picks signed in the first 10 rounds last year. Players sign, and are picked generally
in order of skill for the first 5 rounds (then you get senior signs etc). The system definitely hurts the Red Sox, but you have to make a system where the best guys go early. I'd like a system where you have to 'declare' for the draft. So guys with true college commitments just aren't drafted and you make guys really tell you what their number is. I think I mentioned before, or thought it, where you could make it where if you declare and get drafted in top 5 rounds, you are committed to sign if offered slot. If you won't turn pro for top five (or three, whatever) round slot, just don't declare for the draft. As it is though, enough are signing you probably don't even have to make that rule. |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 26, 2017 9:54:55 GMT -5
I'd say the system is working out pretty well....something like 99% of picks signed in the first 10 rounds last year. Players sign, and are picked generally
in order of skill for the first 5 rounds (then you get senior signs etc). The system definitely hurts the Red Sox, but you have to make a system where the best guys go early. I'd like a system where you have to 'declare' for the draft. So guys with true college commitments just aren't drafted and you make guys really tell you what their number is. I think I mentioned before, or thought it, where you could make it where if you declare and get drafted in top 5 rounds, you are committed to sign if offered slot. If you won't turn pro for top five (or three, whatever) round slot, just don't declare for the draft. As it is though, enough are signing you probably don't even have to make that rule. No. If you're a player who is willing to sign for a million and not $450K then he would be screwed by this. You shouldn't have to accept signing for a slot just by declaring for the draft. |
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Jun 26, 2017 10:04:56 GMT -5
Though isn't that what every other system does? You declare and take what you get if you get drafted?
I know it's a bad idea, and addresses a problem that doesn't fully exist, but I hate the senior sign thing, I hate players getting drafted out of order. I'd even favor a hard slot system, which would effectively do that, because teams know a prospects number, and wouldn't draft anyone that wouldn't sign. Would eliminate a lot of the games, and ensure kids are drafted in order. I've also tried to theorize how separating high school and college drafts would affect things.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 26, 2017 10:13:18 GMT -5
I know it's a bad idea, and addresses a problem that doesn't fully exist, Well okay then. At least we agree. I don't get why drafting players "out of order" is a problem. You sign and trade for players "out of order" too. Team building isn't a fantasy draft. When you have pieces in place you can rearrange other ones. Why, realistically, does it matter that Diaz gets picked in the 15th round and Wren in the 10th? It doesn't change Diaz's money. The draft system already compromises the leverage of these kids. Hard slotting or a "declaration" system would just make it worse, unnecessarily. What isn't working about the system? What isn't fair? Because it isn't as awful to its players as the NFL system? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 26, 2017 10:21:26 GMT -5
That's going to discourage high school players from declaring for the draft. MLB would be silly to do that, I think.
Other leagues' drafts are different because they're completely different animals. Consider the NBA's 2 rounds (in which second-round picks have a hard time cracking lineups), the NFL's 7 rounds, and the NHL's 7 rounds (in which many of the players taken late are essentially draft-and-follows, if I recall correctly) compared to the 40 rounds of the MLB draft in which teams sign at least 15 or so players on the low end and approach 30 or so on the high end. When you're trying to sign that many players, the last thing you want to do if you're MLB is limit the number of players in the pool of available players.
|
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Jun 26, 2017 10:44:01 GMT -5
That's going to discourage high school players from declaring for the draft. MLB would be silly to do that, I think. Other leagues' drafts are different because they're completely different animals. Consider the NBA's 2 rounds (in which second-round picks have a hard time cracking lineups), the NFL's 7 rounds, and the NHL's 7 rounds (in which many of the players taken late are essentially draft-and-follows, if I recall correctly) compared to the 40 rounds of the MLB draft in which teams sign at least 15 or so players on the low end and approach 30 or so on the high end. When you're trying to sign that many players, the last thing you want to do if you're MLB is limit the number of players in the pool of available players. I agree that it would be a bad idea to require players to declare for the dreaft because the major league teams see an advantage in having the opportunity to communicate with and tempt high school and draft-eligible college players in real world conversations after two important variables have been resolved--the organization for which they might be playing and the money. However, the poster's suggestion about players being required to declar might be unwise in your opinion, but calling out a poster as offering "silly" opinions is unwarranted. Wearing pig masks instead of batting helmets is silly. Being required to declare for the draft is perhaps not in the best interest of MLB or the players. |
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jun 26, 2017 10:46:05 GMT -5
I'm not 100% opposed to the idea of players having to "declare" for the draft but it would cause more HS players to go to college. Unless you're perceived as being a top 2 talent you'd think most drafts would be college guys from the 3rd round on.
You'd also think this would make for some weaker drafts over the next 2-3 years but eventually the draft would be loaded with talent more so on the college side.
|
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Jun 26, 2017 10:47:00 GMT -5
I'd say in NHL/NBA they are underpaid. I'd guess that relative value of top 3 picks in NHL and then NBA are higher than any other sport. MLB value takes so long to realize, that for most draftees they get close to nothing and then stay broke until reaching MLB.
This line of conversation probably gets too far off topic, but as someone in a multi-year contracted indentured servant/apprentice industry, I appreciate the insulting pay scale/compensation afford minor league players.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jun 26, 2017 10:48:03 GMT -5
I really have absolutely no idea but inherently I believe college talent taken in the top 5 likely pans out more often than HS talent in the top 5?
If the MLB draft was more predictable, it might spark more interest and viewership as well. Not that more interest in the draft would be what would convince the MLB to go that route, I don't believe that.
|
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Jun 26, 2017 10:51:32 GMT -5
I don't think Chris was calling me silly... it's a bit of a silly idea I'm just positing and thinking through. I've been on this site for 10 years I realized the other day, and know how certain people tend to react to things they disagree with. If you provide reasoning/questions, and don't come from a place of animosity (pretty much everyone here seem like good guys), it's all just internet fodder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 26, 2017 11:05:14 GMT -5
That's going to discourage high school players from declaring for the draft. MLB would be silly to do that, I think. Other leagues' drafts are different because they're completely different animals. Consider the NBA's 2 rounds (in which second-round picks have a hard time cracking lineups), the NFL's 7 rounds, and the NHL's 7 rounds (in which many of the players taken late are essentially draft-and-follows, if I recall correctly) compared to the 40 rounds of the MLB draft in which teams sign at least 15 or so players on the low end and approach 30 or so on the high end. When you're trying to sign that many players, the last thing you want to do if you're MLB is limit the number of players in the pool of available players. I agree that it would be a bad idea to require players to declare for the dreaft because the major league teams see an advantage in having the opportunity to communicate with and tempt high school and draft-eligible college players in real world conversations after two important variables have been resolved--the organization for which they might be playing and the money. However, the poster's suggestion about players being required to declar might be unwise in your opinion, but calling out a poster as offering "silly" opinions is unwarranted. Wearing pig masks instead of batting helmets is silly. Being required to declare for the draft is perhaps not in the best interest of MLB or the players. I was not calling the poster's opinion silly. There was nothing silly about the post to which I was responding, and hopefully my post didn't come off that way to posters who don't tend to look for the worst in posts by site staff members. I was saying that it'd be silly for MLB to discourage players from entering the draft pool, a side effect that wasn't the point of the post. I really have absolutely no idea but inherently I believe college talent taken in the top 5 likely pans out more often than HS talent in the top 5? If the MLB draft was more predictable, it might spark more interest and viewership as well. Not that more interest in the draft would be what would convince the MLB to go that route, I don't believe that. Personally, I don't think predictability is why the draft sparks less interest than other drafts (at least in terms of how I understand your point). It's that players are less well known than draftees in the NBA and NFL drafts and that they, in most cases, aren't making it to the majors until 2-4 years after the draft except for rare exceptions. Honestly, the equivalent to the MLB draft in football and basketball is probably college recruiting, not the professional league draft, and I think you have about the same audience for all three. College baseball doesn't have nearly the audience that college football or basketball has and likely never will - although you could do a deep dive and argue that if high school players all went to college like those leagues, you'd get more interest, which is an interesting tangent we probably shouldn't get into in this thread). |
|
|
|
Post by SALNotes on Jun 26, 2017 13:50:12 GMT -5
You guys probably remember this, a couple of yrs ago Lucius Fox went home to Bahamas after graduating HS in South Florida so he could sign as an International Free Agent rather than go through the draft to increase the signing bonus.
It worked and I thought at the time we would see more of that and yet (as far as I know) no other players have done this. I realize it takes a special set of circumstances that most players won't meet but South Florida and Southern California are melting pots and MLB draft hot beds. Seems there would be a few candidates every yr.
Curious, did MLB pass a rule to prevent another Lucius Fox situation? Or is it that on one else is taking advantage of the loophole?
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 26, 2017 14:13:17 GMT -5
I know it's a bad idea, and addresses a problem that doesn't fully exist, Well okay then. At least we agree. I don't get why drafting players "out of order" is a problem. You sign and trade for players "out of order" too. Team building isn't a fantasy draft. When you have pieces in place you can rearrange other ones. Why, realistically, does it matter that Diaz gets picked in the 15th round and Wren in the 10th? It doesn't change Diaz's money. The draft system already compromises the leverage of these kids. Hard slotting or a "declaration" system would just make it worse, unnecessarily. What isn't working about the system? What isn't fair? Because it isn't as awful to its players as the NFL system? In the NFL system players aren't penalized for staying in school. When I look at the 4 major sports groups, MLB is by far the one that treats players the worst. The other 3 simple draft players based on talent and they get paid accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 26, 2017 14:22:40 GMT -5
That's going to discourage high school players from declaring for the draft. MLB would be silly to do that, I think. Other leagues' drafts are different because they're completely different animals. Consider the NBA's 2 rounds (in which second-round picks have a hard time cracking lineups), the NFL's 7 rounds, and the NHL's 7 rounds (in which many of the players taken late are essentially draft-and-follows, if I recall correctly) compared to the 40 rounds of the MLB draft in which teams sign at least 15 or so players on the low end and approach 30 or so on the high end. When you're trying to sign that many players, the last thing you want to do if you're MLB is limit the number of players in the pool of available players. The NBA system didn't stop high school players from declaring even when a bunch went in 2nd round. A bunch of players don't want to go to college. Heck even if it did, after 3 years you would just have a lot more college players in draft. Also in football they bring in around 30 sometimes more rookies a year to training camp. On average there are more rookies in football than baseball, so I don't get your point there. I actually really like the idea of high school players declaring for draft and if they do they can't go to College. |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 26, 2017 14:27:23 GMT -5
NFL players have no leverage at all to negotiate. They're paid based on slot, not on talent. They literally go to college for three to four years, declare for the draft, sign their first contract, get paid weekly, get good, get a good contract, have a bad year, get cut and get paid nothing on that because contracts aren't guaranteed, fall out of the game at 28 and report brain damage at 32.
Don't be like the NFL.
How in the world would a "declaration" system be good for a player like Brennan, who got paid above slot because there was a team out there who thought he was worth it? A player who is willing to skip college for $1 million but not for $500K can't make that choice? Instead he has to "declare" for the draft, take whatever the slot he's drafted at, and isn't eligible to go to college because he got drafted 20 picks later than he hoped? That's terrible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 26, 2017 14:42:45 GMT -5
The college seniors aren't being penalized by the draft slotting system though. You're more aware of their bonuses because they "matter," but the slotting system isn't what's leading to the bonuses being so low. College seniors have no leverage in the MLB draft because they have had the chance to be drafted at least twice already, and for the most part, the best players have already entered the pros in one of those opportunities. College seniors who are worth selecting early do get picked early and get commensurate bonuses.
Look at the Red Sox 2016 class and the college seniors they drafted or signed as free agents, by round:
7. Ryan Scott, $10k
9. Matt McLean, $10k
19. Kyle Hart, $5k
20. Nick Lovullo, $5k
24. Hunter Smith, $25k
26. Jared Oliver, $10k
UDFA. Steven Reveles, $1k
The year before, no senior got more than $10k from the Red Sox, regardless of draft position.
The fact that the slotting system led to Scott and McLean getting selected much earlier than they otherwise would have did nothing to what their bonus would have been. If anything, they gained leverage, because they could have sabotaged the club's entire draft by re-negotiating their bonus after being selected, right?
NFL players aren't penalized for staying in school because the system requires them to stay in school until they're juniors anyway. Many more players worth drafting early decide to stay in school in the NFL. If, say, Brendan McKay decided to go back to Louisville for his senior year and then enter the draft next year, he'd still get paid if he maintained his draft stock. Look at Mark Appel.
EDIT: The MLB draft system looks silly (uh-oh, there's that word again) because it leads to weird outcomes in picks in the 7th-10th rounds. That offends the average fan's sensibilities. I get that. But a declaration system wouldn't fix that. What would fix that would be either hard slotting or a cap on the entire draft instead of just the first 10 rounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 26, 2017 14:43:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 26, 2017 16:26:31 GMT -5
So you really think they get paid by slot and not talent? In any other draft you get picked because of your talent at that pick. The talent and slot level match, not in baseball. That's be real this is only a stepping stone system and it shows. The end game for Baseball is a hard slotting system, like the 3 other major sports in this Country.
No matter how you spin it the system isn't fair. Players get over drafted to free up money, which means other players get under drafted. Why should a high school player have more leverage than a college player? I'm all for players having leverage, but it needs to be fair. By declaring for draft like in NBA and NFL the leverage is equal for all players.
Senior college players have no leverage. You can name a few all you want. Sure maybe a few have some leverage, but not really. What else are they going to do? Turn down money and do what? Go play overseas or in an independent league?
Any draft system that doesn't allow teams to pick the best players with there picks is broken and stupid. A system that gives more leverage to certain groups of players is just stupid and makes no sense. I get the sense that you might like this system because it's different and adds a layer of intrigue. That doesn't mean it's a better system that's more fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 26, 2017 16:36:13 GMT -5
So you really think they get paid by slot and not talent? In any other draft you get picked because of your talent at that pick. The talent and slot level match, not in baseball. That's be real this is only a stepping stone system and it shows. The end game for Baseball is a hard slotting system, like the 3 other major sports in this Country. No matter how you spin it the system isn't fair. Players get over drafted to free up money, which means other players get under drafted. Why should a high school player have more leverage than a college player? I'm all for players having leverage, but it needs to be fair. By declaring for draft like in NBA and NFL the leverage is equal for all players. Senior college players have no leverage. You can name a few all you want. Sure maybe a few have some leverage, but not really. What else are they going to do? Turn down money and do what? Go play overseas or in an independent league? Any draft system that doesn't allow teams to pick the best players with there picks is broken and stupid. A system that gives more leverage to certain groups of players is just stupid and makes no sense. I get the sense that you might like this system because it's different and adds a layer of intrigue. That doesn't mean it's a better system that's more fair. Every player signs for what they believe is a fair value. They are not forced to sign. How is that not fair? College seniors are the exception, but they also pretty much are never going to be major league players either, which is why they made it to their senior year. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 26, 2017 17:48:31 GMT -5
So you really think they get paid by slot and not talent? In any other draft you get picked because of your talent at that pick. The talent and slot level match, not in baseball. That's be real this is only a stepping stone system and it shows. The end game for Baseball is a hard slotting system, like the 3 other major sports in this Country. No matter how you spin it the system isn't fair. Players get over drafted to free up money, which means other players get under drafted. Why should a high school player have more leverage than a college player? I'm all for players having leverage, but it needs to be fair. By declaring for draft like in NBA and NFL the leverage is equal for all players. Senior college players have no leverage. You can name a few all you want. Sure maybe a few have some leverage, but not really. What else are they going to do? Turn down money and do what? Go play overseas or in an independent league? Any draft system that doesn't allow teams to pick the best players with there picks is broken and stupid. A system that gives more leverage to certain groups of players is just stupid and makes no sense. I get the sense that you might like this system because it's different and adds a layer of intrigue. That doesn't mean it's a better system that's more fair. So I don't want to look like I'm picking your post apart, because that's not what I'm trying to do, but you have a lot of stuff in here to respond to: "So you really think they get paid by slot and not talent?" - This is literally the opposite of what I was saying, but less "talent" than a negotiation based on player talent and leverage, yes. Look at this year's bonuses. End game is hard-slotting - I agree the owners would probably prefer that. I have no idea what this has to do with my post and why you're acting like I disagree with you on this when it hasn't been a part of the conversation. "In any other draft you get picked because of your talent at that pick. The talent and slot level match, not in baseball."; "Players get over drafted to free up money, which means other players get under drafted." - Again, you aren't really explaining why this actually matters or is a problem. Other than offending our sensibilities of how a draft "should" work, what's the problem? Do you think Alex Scherff cares more about being drafted after Brett Netzer or about getting $225k more in his bonus? Do you think Garrett Benge cares more about being drafted in the 13th round behind Sterry, Nishioka, and Wren, or about getting $120k more in his bonus? Why does it matter that the picks are "out of order" if, in theory, the players are getting the same bonuses they'd get anyway? "Senior college players have no leverage. ...." - Are you trying to say that NFL or NBA seniors have leverage that MLB seniors don't? I'm not following you there. I'd argue they don't have any more leverage - they're just generally more talented in the other sports. A college senior taken in the first round of the NBA draft or say 3rd round of the NFL draft has no MLB comp in terms of the players you're talking about. The highest-ranked college senior on PG's draft rankings (it's what I had handy that actually listed redshirt juniors as such rather than seniors) was #172 - in other words, a sixth-round pick in a "proper" draft. The draft slotting system didn't lead to them ranking the college seniors low - they're not as good as seniors in other sports. As for what they can do - yes, they can go play indy ball like Max Scherzer did, then become free agents. Or, if they refuse to agree to a price and don't get drafted, they can immediately become free agents after the draft. "Any draft system that doesn't allow teams to pick the best players with there picks is broken and stupid." - Would you prefer a system of hard caps that limits the negotiation leverage of players completely? I thought your point was that it wasn't fair that some players didn't have leverage? It's better to take it away from everyone? That's how you fix the problem you describe in this sentence. "A system that gives more leverage to certain groups of players is just stupid and makes no sense." - This draft system does not inherently give college seniors less leverage than other draft systems do, which is the point we're trying to make. They have no leverage in any draft. It's just that in sports where you must declare, if a player decides to wait to enter until he's a senior, that's his prerogative, and he might be better than the typical college senior in baseball. "I get the sense that you might like this system because it's different and adds a layer of intrigue." - No. I'm just trying to explain to you what the system does because I don't think you understand which of your observations can be attributed to certain draft rules. "That doesn't mean it's a better system that's more fair." - Better how and fair to whom? I'm still not sure what you're advocating for here. |
|
|
