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 umassgrad2005 on Jun 26, 2017 18:54:58 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. That's just not true. You really believe all the players that signed did so "for what they believed is a fair value"? The majority would have thought they got not enough. Players get money based on leverage and talent, not just talent. High school players have an unfair amount of leverage. There's a reason why there are very few good seniors. Juniors sign at a very high rate, because they lose all leverage.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 26, 2017 19:09:51 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. I wasn't replying to you about slots and money, but James. My idea is simple, a draft were everyone has equal leverage and is drafted on talent. You set a certain amount and divide it up, like every other draft. Overall how do the players lose leverage? No team has gone over the 5%. So take every picks total value, plus 5% and set your slot values. The players as a draft group get the same about of money. The players overall lose no leverage. The high school players are just equal now. You sign for slot value or go overseas. You declare for draft or go to college.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 26, 2017 21:27:09 GMT -5
"You set a certain amount and divide it up." - Meaning what? Each team gets a draft budget? How is that any different than what exists right now?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 26, 2017 23:16:08 GMT -5
Just like the NBA and NFL set slot money for each pick. No more draft pool. No more overslot or underslot deals.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 27, 2017 0:27:15 GMT -5
Please explain how that would be better for Cole Brannen.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 27, 2017 1:02:20 GMT -5
Please explain how that would be better for Cole Brannen. Why does a system need to be better for Cole Brannen to be a better system? High school players crazy high leverage is what's wrong with the current system. Followed by College players that can return to college. A standard draft like the other sports use doesn't give any group of players extra leverage and larger paydays. You declare for the draft and are part of one big group. The players as a group don't lose leverage. Just certain groups, while other groups gain some. You get drafted based off one thing and one thing only your talent level. If the Red Sox loved Brannen they still draft him at same spot, but he doesn't get as much money. Instead the guys in lower rounds get more money.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 27, 2017 7:09:43 GMT -5
Why does a system need to be better for Cole Brannen to be a better system? I'm not really asking that a new system be "better" to Cole Brannen. I'm asking that it be not worse. Your system would have gotten him paid $400K or so less money for absolutely no reason. Just so we're totally clear here, potential employees being able to decide how much money skipping college is worth is a bad system to you? Cole Brannen, Jay Groome, Alex Scherff and other should have to take the job, then accept whatever they are paid - even if that is less than they would have taken to go to college? If skipping college was worth $1.3 million to Brannen, and the Red Sox wanted him and were willing to pay him $1.3 million, but since he declared for the draft he HAS to take $400K less. That's a terrible idea. If a college kid thinks skipping college is worth $1 million dollars and not $800K, he should be able to accept $1 million and decline $800K. This seems self-evident to me. So everyone who has an option to do something else is what is wrong with the system? You're making a pretty good oligarch, my man. Again, like Chris explained three times, college seniors are not getting screwed by their lack of leverage. In general, college seniors are still in the draft because they are less good - the BA Top 500 list backs that up. Mark Appel is the exception, and being a college senior certainly didn't screw him - he moved up to #1 overall and got paid like it. You're fixing a problem that doesn't exist in order to screw everyone who has the option of not signing a contract they don't want to. Jordan Wren didn't get screwed by the pool system. In a slotting system he'd have been taken in the 38th round and gotten the same money. Heck, maybe he doesn't get drafted at all. Suppose all of the players were made free agents. The best players would get more money than they currently get, and the mid-range and lower picks would get exactly the same. This is begging the question, isn't it? You're presupposing that other draft forms are "standard." Or that having a draft at all is "standard." Anyway, the NFL treats players like garbage. Taking away all of the leverage from employees shouldn't be a goal. This second paragraph is just a reiteration of the previous paragraph. My comments apply the same.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 27, 2017 12:15:27 GMT -5
Not for no reason. I clearly explained the reason. Players get picked by talent level, like every other draft.
A high school player should decide if he wants to go pro or go to college. He then gets pick and paid by his talent level. Having the same leverage as every other player in the draft. A fair system to all players. If the $400,000 was a deal breaker he goes to college.
In a normal draft, were certain players don't have extra leverage. Players in rounds 6-10 get paid there full slot money. So while Brennan gets less, other players get more. Let's assume our picks in rounds 11-13, get pick in rounds 8-10. Those players now get full slot money, plus 5%. Do that for all teams. A ton of players get more money. You keep focusing on one player and not all the players. I'm sure Colon, Hanna and Benge would love the extra money.
You create an easier system for teams. A system that is fair for all players. Teams just pick players based off of talent. Not if they can sign them. Also you would allow players to stay in College if they wanted to for there senior year. They wouldn't lose leverage in a normal system. That's why NFL players stay in school, it doesn't give them less leverage or hurt there draft stock. Would it be a bad thing for Baseball to have more experienced players coming into the league?
The NFL draft doesn't treat players like garbage. It's the same as NBA draft. All players have the same leverage. Declare for draft or stay in college. You get picked and paid according to your talent level. Nevermind your problem with the NFL system isn't even a problem. In the NFL your contracts after your rookie deal are all about the signing bonus. If you don't perform you get cut. That's better than a system in which Sandoval gets paid crazy money for doing nothing. More like the real world. You perform or you get fired. Man I wish my real world job was like Baseball. Sign a big fat contract than no matter how I perform I get that money no matter what. Yea that seems fair, the world would be better off. In the real world you only get paid based off your performance and it makes the world a better place. The NFL doesn't treat it players like garbage. They get paid a ton to play a game they love. No one forced them to play a violent game. They did it for the money.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 27, 2017 12:27:08 GMT -5
The fact that some players might not sign would make them fall in the draft and then they would not get drafted at all once they get past a certain point.
It's never only about talent in baseball drafts. It's also about signability for high school players. No draft setup will ever change that unless they made the minimum draft age 20 or 21 or something similar and made it so that teams held unsigned players' rights for 3 years and gave that one team the right to sign them at any point during that period. And that basically robs all those high school signees' bonuses if they don't pan out.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 27, 2017 13:19:42 GMT -5
You make them declare for draft. You either want to go pro or go to College. None of this let me see where I get drafted and how much money I can get, then make up my mind. You're either in the draft or not in the draft. It's simple. A player like Brennan would know before hand what he was going to get. He declares for the draft or goes to College.
That's the problem with the MLB draft, it should only be about talent. Just like every other draft. So far the only reason people think it's better is because certain players get more at the expense of other players. While creating this huge fiasco of who we can sign. Who gets less, who gets more, who wants to go pro and who wants to go to college. When it should be simple, who are the best players for our team.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 27, 2017 13:30:38 GMT -5
You're repeating your points and didn't respond specifically to mine so I guess we're done here. But I'll just repeat that I strongly and fundamentally think individuals have a right to take into account how much they are going to get paid when choosing their path, and that their path can change if the money does. There are jobs I would take for $200,000 and not for $40,000 and I'm sure the same is true of everyone on this board. If you think a high school kid should have to declare for the draft and forgo college without regard to how much he's going to get paid then I don't know what to tell you. The mindset that employees (or potential employees) having leverage over ownership is a bad thing is one that I cannot wrap my head around.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 27, 2017 22:45:40 GMT -5
You make them declare for draft. You either want to go pro or go to College. None of this let me see where I get drafted and how much money I can get, then make up my mind. You're either in the draft or not in the draft. It's simple. A player like Brennan would know before hand what he was going to get. He declares for the draft or goes to College. That's the problem with the MLB draft, it should only be about talent. Just like every other draft. So far the only reason people think it's better is because certain players get more at the expense of other players. While creating this huge fiasco of who we can sign. Who gets less, who gets more, who wants to go pro and who wants to go to college. When it should be simple, who are the best players for our team. I don't see a net benefit to that system. Besides, if the point is to draft on "talent," that's already debatable, depending on the team choosing. The current system saves teams money by capping spending, but it also preserves the rights of players to both choose their path, and to bet on themselves. Furthermore, it requires teams to think creatively. I like it...it strikes a very good balance, and it makes the draft interesting.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 27, 2017 23:22:04 GMT -5
You're repeating your points and didn't respond specifically to mine so I guess we're done here. But I'll just repeat that I strongly and fundamentally think individuals have a right to take into account how much they are going to get paid when choosing their path, and that their path can change if the money does. There are jobs I would take for $200,000 and not for $40,000 and I'm sure the same is true of everyone on this board. If you think a high school kid should have to declare for the draft and forgo college without regard to how much he's going to get paid then I don't know what to tell you. The mindset that employees (or potential employees) having leverage over ownership is a bad thing is one that I cannot wrap my head around. You go apply for a job and want 100k, but you don't get it because a high school kid got it because the employer paid him 140k so he didn't go to College. Or you both get the Job but he makes way more than you, even though you have more skills and experience. That's more like what's going on in the draft. My system doesn't take away the High Schools players right to go to College if he doesn't think he will get the money he wants. Brennan would have known the general area he was going to be picked. It just takes away his extra leverage. That's it. Why should only one group of players get to change there path if the money isn't right? I can't wrap my head around you wanting one set of players to have a crazy high amount of leverage over all the other players. You keep making this into employees vs. employer leverage. Its only for a set group of employees, the other employees lose leverage. Overall the employees as a group lose no leverage. The Group gets the same amount of money. In the old system you would be right, not the new system with a set draft pool that no team will go over. In the old system, high school players could get a team like Boston to blow past there draft pool, while not costing other players money. That was a net win for the employees vs. employers. You just keep looking at the benefit to one group of players like Brennan and not the other players that get a net negative effect.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 27, 2017 23:28:39 GMT -5
You make them declare for draft. You either want to go pro or go to College. None of this let me see where I get drafted and how much money I can get, then make up my mind. You're either in the draft or not in the draft. It's simple. A player like Brennan would know before hand what he was going to get. He declares for the draft or goes to College. That's the problem with the MLB draft, it should only be about talent. Just like every other draft. So far the only reason people think it's better is because certain players get more at the expense of other players. While creating this huge fiasco of who we can sign. Who gets less, who gets more, who wants to go pro and who wants to go to college. When it should be simple, who are the best players for our team. I don't see a net benefit to that system. Besides, if the point is to draft on "talent," that's already debatable, depending on the team choosing. The current system saves teams money by capping spending, but it also preserves the rights of players to both choose their path, and to bet on themselves. Furthermore, it requires teams to think creatively. I like it...it strikes a very good balance, and it makes the draft interesting. My system, well the system used in NFL and NBA saves teams money by capping draft and allows players to choose their path and bet on themselves. If you think it makes the draft more interesting, I can see that. I don't like it, but I can certainly see that. That has to be the best answer I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 28, 2017 9:32:32 GMT -5
You're repeating your points and didn't respond specifically to mine so I guess we're done here. But I'll just repeat that I strongly and fundamentally think individuals have a right to take into account how much they are going to get paid when choosing their path, and that their path can change if the money does. There are jobs I would take for $200,000 and not for $40,000 and I'm sure the same is true of everyone on this board. If you think a high school kid should have to declare for the draft and forgo college without regard to how much he's going to get paid then I don't know what to tell you. The mindset that employees (or potential employees) having leverage over ownership is a bad thing is one that I cannot wrap my head around. You go apply for a job and want 100k, but you don't get it because a high school kid got it because the employer paid him 140k so he didn't go to College. Or you both get the Job but he makes way more than you, even though you have more skills and experience. That's more like what's going on in the draft. My system doesn't take away the High Schools players right to go to College if he doesn't think he will get the money he wants. Brennan would have known the general area he was going to be picked. It just takes away his extra leverage. That's it. Why should only one group of players get to change there path if the money isn't right? I can't wrap my head around you wanting one set of players to have a crazy high amount of leverage over all the other players. You keep making this into employees vs. employer leverage. Its only for a set group of employees, the other employees lose leverage. Overall the employees as a group lose no leverage. The Group gets the same amount of money. In the old system you would be right, not the new system with a set draft pool that no team will go over. In the old system, high school players could get a team like Boston to blow past there draft pool, while not costing other players money. That was a net win for the employees vs. employers. You just keep looking at the benefit to one group of players like Brennan and not the other players that get a net negative effect. You keep coming back to the unfair leverage that HS draftees have in the MLB draft, but the end result is not that HS players are systematically overpaid while college players and systematically underpaid. In the new capped pool system, the amount that guys get paid still tends to be roughly commensurate with where teams seee them talent-wise. Teams know HS players' numbers and will draft them if they're willing to pay that number or pass if they won't. Teams also do a lot of planning to make sure players don't "hijack" drafts. The end result is that almost everyone drafted in the first ten rounds gets signed, and players generally are signed to a number that roughly reflects their talent level.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jun 28, 2017 10:52:19 GMT -5
To add to the argument against hard slotting and draft declaration: an additional consideration is the lack of team available NCAA baseball scholarships. The current limit for each D1 team is 11.7, which is obviously less than needed. So, you'll get a lot of talented HS kids who are willing to sign for a certain dollar figure decide not to declare because of the fear that they will not be drafted at a slot for their desired money. Which then leads to a lot more kids trying to go to college where scholarships aren't available. The talented kids will get the scholarships while the less talented kids won't even get partial scholarships, and may have to go to different schools where coaching or opportunity is less than desired.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 28, 2017 12:29:08 GMT -5
You go apply for a job and want 100k, but you don't get it because a high school kid got it because the employer paid him 140k so he didn't go to College. Or you both get the Job but he makes way more than you, even though you have more skills and experience. That's more like what's going on in the draft. My system doesn't take away the High Schools players right to go to College if he doesn't think he will get the money he wants. Brennan would have known the general area he was going to be picked. It just takes away his extra leverage. That's it. Why should only one group of players get to change there path if the money isn't right? I can't wrap my head around you wanting one set of players to have a crazy high amount of leverage over all the other players. You keep making this into employees vs. employer leverage. Its only for a set group of employees, the other employees lose leverage. Overall the employees as a group lose no leverage. The Group gets the same amount of money. In the old system you would be right, not the new system with a set draft pool that no team will go over. In the old system, high school players could get a team like Boston to blow past there draft pool, while not costing other players money. That was a net win for the employees vs. employers. You just keep looking at the benefit to one group of players like Brennan and not the other players that get a net negative effect. You keep coming back to the unfair leverage that HS draftees have in the MLB draft, but the end result is not that HS players are systematically overpaid while college players and systematically underpaid. In the new capped pool system, the amount that guys get paid still tends to be roughly commensurate with where teams seee them talent-wise. Teams know HS players' numbers and will draft them if they're willing to pay that number or pass if they won't. Teams also do a lot of planning to make sure players don't "hijack" drafts. The end result is that almost everyone drafted in the first ten rounds gets signed, and players generally are signed to a number that roughly reflects their talent level. Look at our draft this year. 10 pick, 3 high school players all sign for overslot. 7 college guys all sign for slot or under slot. Everyone on here was shocked they needed to go overslot to sign Brennan and Esplin. They had to because of there leverage. The results tell a different story than what you are trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 28, 2017 12:38:19 GMT -5
To add to the argument against hard slotting and draft declaration: an additional consideration is the lack of team available NCAA baseball scholarships. The current limit for each D1 team is 11.7, which is obviously less than needed. So, you'll get a lot of talented HS kids who are willing to sign for a certain dollar figure decide not to declare because of the fear that they will not be drafted at a slot for their desired money. Which then leads to a lot more kids trying to go to college where scholarships aren't available. The talented kids will get the scholarships while the less talented kids won't even get partial scholarships, and may have to go to different schools where coaching or opportunity is less than desired. I just don't think that happens. Maybe in the first year, but overall the players that want to go pro will make the jump. They just won't have extra leverage to get paid more. There are a massive amount of College Baseball teams in this Country. Just look at Kobi Simmons in the NBA draft. A former top recruit that has a ton of upside. He was advised to go back to school. He could have been a first round pick down the road. Instead he declared for draft knowing there was a good chance he doesn't get drafted. The money didn't matter he wanted to go pro. You see this every year.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 28, 2017 12:43:27 GMT -5
You keep coming back to the unfair leverage that HS draftees have in the MLB draft, but the end result is not that HS players are systematically overpaid while college players and systematically underpaid. In the new capped pool system, the amount that guys get paid still tends to be roughly commensurate with where teams seee them talent-wise. Teams know HS players' numbers and will draft them if they're willing to pay that number or pass if they won't. Teams also do a lot of planning to make sure players don't "hijack" drafts. The end result is that almost everyone drafted in the first ten rounds gets signed, and players generally are signed to a number that roughly reflects their talent level. Look at our draft this year. 10 pick, 3 high school players all sign for overslot. 7 college guys all sign for slot or under slot. Everyone on here was shocked they needed to go overslot to sign Brennan and Esplin. They had to because of there leverage. The results tell a different story than what you are trying to say. Just looking at this year's Red Sox draft tells an incomplete story. Plenty of college players are getting overslot bonuses and plenty of high school players are getting underslot bonuses this year. Just go look at the draft signing tracker. www.mlb.com/draft/tracker/round-1If you want to just look at the Sox, they gave plenty of college players overslot bonuses last year. The year before Jagger Rusconi signed for slot out of HS. I'm done debating this because I think the point's been made pretty clearly by now by several posters, but just wanted to make the above point. I'll just say that I think you're assigning a lot of what can be attributed to players' relative talent level to something that matters far less than you think it does in a player's school status. If you lined up the Red Sox draftees this year by bonus, it'd correlate roughly with the players' relative talent level, with the exception of Schellenger, who essentially didn't pitch this year. I'd point out that hard slotting could have actually hurt him rather than helped him, as he likely would've fallen a lot further and would have had to return to school. If he pitches healthy next year and has a good year, great, but it's also possible he doesn't and risks getting even less than the $175k he got this year. Hard slotting probably makes his choice one between signing a much lower bonus and going back to school, rather than taking $175k, getting his career started, and minimizing the risk.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 28, 2017 13:00:06 GMT -5
This will go to 50 pages if you don't just let him get the last word.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 28, 2017 13:11:43 GMT -5
To add to the argument against hard slotting and draft declaration: an additional consideration is the lack of team available NCAA baseball scholarships. The current limit for each D1 team is 11.7, which is obviously less than needed. So, you'll get a lot of talented HS kids who are willing to sign for a certain dollar figure decide not to declare because of the fear that they will not be drafted at a slot for their desired money. Which then leads to a lot more kids trying to go to college where scholarships aren't available. The talented kids will get the scholarships while the less talented kids won't even get partial scholarships, and may have to go to different schools where coaching or opportunity is less than desired. I just don't think that happens. Maybe in the first year, but overall the players that want to go pro will make the jump. They just won't have extra leverage to get paid more. There are a massive amount of College Baseball teams in this Country. Just look at Kobi Simmons in the NBA draft. A former top recruit that has a ton of upside. He was advised to go back to school. He could have been a first round pick down the road. Instead he declared for draft knowing there was a good chance he doesn't get drafted. The money didn't matter he wanted to go pro. You see this every year. I'm sorry, but you're very wrong that there are plenty of baseball scholarships to go around. There are 297 Division I programs plus 4 transitioning up. That's 3521.7 scholarships. That's 880 per class year, although certainly that would be skewed more to the freshman through junior classes given the number of juniors that get drafted (although you'd also have some redshirt juniors too). But let's ballpark it and say there are 1000 freshman baseball scholarships. There are 128 FBS football programs, and they have 85 scholarships. That's 10,880 scholarships. Divided evenly among the classes, that's 2,720 scholarships. Again, you're probably skewing away from the seniors, but that's roughly 3,000. There are also 109 scholarship-granting FCS schools with 63 scholarships each, so that's another 6,867. Split 4 ways that's roughly 1,717, and we can probably say the skewing is less of a thing there. So call it over 4,500 scholarships for incoming Division I football players. There were 253 selections this year in the NFL draft. There are, I think, 333 Division I basketball programs that give scholarships (No Ivy or Patriot League teams). 13 each. So 4,329 there, which isn't too much more than baseball. Of course, there are only 60 players drafted to the NBA every year, many of them freshman or sophomores. But all that said, something I just looked at and didn't really realize fully. There were 271 high school players drafted of the 1,215 picks made in the draft this year. There were 281 drafted last year out of 1,216 picks. 165 of them didn't sign. So last year, there were roughly 116 high school players who signed out of 924 players signed. Folks can do with those numbers as they will.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jun 28, 2017 13:25:58 GMT -5
This will go to 50 pages if you don't just let him get the last word. Maybe move it.. Takes up nearly 2 full pages and still shows no signs of abating.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 28, 2017 13:35:07 GMT -5
You keep coming back to the unfair leverage that HS draftees have in the MLB draft, but the end result is not that HS players are systematically overpaid while college players and systematically underpaid. In the new capped pool system, the amount that guys get paid still tends to be roughly commensurate with where teams seee them talent-wise. Teams know HS players' numbers and will draft them if they're willing to pay that number or pass if they won't. Teams also do a lot of planning to make sure players don't "hijack" drafts. The end result is that almost everyone drafted in the first ten rounds gets signed, and players generally are signed to a number that roughly reflects their talent level. Look at our draft this year. 10 pick, 3 high school players all sign for overslot. 7 college guys all sign for slot or under slot. Everyone on here was shocked they needed to go overslot to sign Brennan and Esplin. They had to because of there leverage. The results tell a different story than what you are trying to say. Look at the actual amount of money each player got relative to their pre-draft rankings, not whether they got relative to where they were picked.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 28, 2017 13:51:18 GMT -5
Look at our draft this year. 10 pick, 3 high school players all sign for overslot. 7 college guys all sign for slot or under slot. Everyone on here was shocked they needed to go overslot to sign Brennan and Esplin. They had to because of there leverage. The results tell a different story than what you are trying to say. Look at the actual amount of money each player got relative to their pre-draft rankings, not whether they got relative to where they were picked. I am doing just that. Houck and Brennan were both pick right about where there ranking had them. Houck gets slot, Brennan gets overslot. Look at our #6 and #7 picks. Our #6 pick was picked right about were he was ranked and signed for underslot. Esplin wasn't on any top 500 and got overslot.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 28, 2017 14:07:44 GMT -5
Yeah good for them. They signed a contract that both the team and the player deemed fair.
|
|
|