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.
Red Sox Select Jud Fabian, OF, Florida
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,684
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 22, 2021 12:27:49 GMT -5
I have zero issue with the player setting a demand and sticking to It. Nevertheless, under this system, the player should not expect that he will fall to a team that shares that valuation. Really, the only one harmed by the player taking that position is the player, as he goes another year without being drafted. The team just gets an equivalent pick next year. This system is stacked in favor of the teams, and current union members have little incentive to use collective bargaining to help out nonmembers. Yeah and in my mind I am worth whatever I think and I am sticking to it regardless of what my employer thinks. Come on!! Sure it is his choice but how in the heck is that the unions fault when he doesn't get it? So some 20 year old kid decides what he is worth and he is the one who is being harmed when he doesn't get what he thinks he is worth. Especially in a sport where so many guys fail. Do you remember years ago when the agents for NFL draftees were getting huge money for their players? It was absolutely terrible!! I think it's more that the Orioles verified to Fabian his worth assuming that was his demand and the Orioles were willing to meet it, and when the Sox didn't share that evaluation he refused to budge off of it. If he doesn't absolutely kill it next season or worse he gets injured, he just refused life altering money the Sox would have offered him and might not see anything near that kind of offer again. It just seems to me it should be more than just getting the bigger $ up front in the draft but the knowledge that playing on a big market team that's competitive the Sox should be able to offer big $ if he wants to be tied up early with a security contract that a young player can sign upon hitting the majors if a team projects them to be a core player or play well in Boston and have his free agent marketability and visibility be worth a helluva lot more than the difference between the $3 million he sought and the $2 million the Sox might have offered him.
|
|
|
Post by rasimon on Oct 22, 2021 13:47:16 GMT -5
Yeah and in my mind I am worth whatever I think and I am sticking to it regardless of what my employer thinks. Come on!! Sure it is his choice but how in the heck is that the unions fault when he doesn't get it? So some 20 year old kid decides what he is worth and he is the one who is being harmed when he doesn't get what he thinks he is worth. Especially in a sport where so many guys fail. Do you remember years ago when the agents for NFL draftees were getting huge money for their players? It was absolutely terrible!! I think it's more that the Orioles verified to Fabian his worth assuming that was his demand and the Orioles were willing to meet it, and when the Sox didn't share that evaluation he refused to budge off of it. If he doesn't absolutely kill it next season or worse he gets injured, he just refused life altering money the Sox would have offered him and might not see anything near that kind of offer again. It just seems to me it should be more than just getting the bigger $ up front in the draft but the knowledge that playing on a big market team that's competitive the Sox should be able to offer big $ if he wants to be tied up early with a security contract that a young player can sign upon hitting the majors if a team projects them to be a core player or play well in Boston and have his free agent marketability and visibility be worth a helluva lot more than the difference between the $3 million he sought and the $2 million the Sox might have offered him. if a player is not sure that he is going to make the majors, then the difference between $2MM and $3MM is significant as this may be his only big payday. If he thinks he is going to be a star, then $1MM difference in signing bonus is nearly insignificant; the right strategy is to try to get to the majors as quick as possible and get to arbitration. The fact that Fabian is hung up on $1MM doesn't say great things about his own outlook on his future. I didn't like the pick anyways, as the strike zone issues scare me - so I'm not too disappointed that he didn't sign.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Oct 22, 2021 13:49:22 GMT -5
The Red Sox have no obligation to pass on the top player on their board and let the Baltimore Orioles get their man. By all accounts they made a good faith effort to sign him. Most people seem to think that the Red Sox disappointing offer was clearly better for Fabian than the only alternative that was available. If everyone looked at the situation and thought he'd likely get $6 million next year, then the reactions on here would be different. Players should honor their pre-draft figures because under typical circumstances they do not have the leverage to significantly increase their demands after the draft. They will just go unsigned. But if say, the Mets third rounder this year took advantage of the Kumar Rocker situation and doubled his demand and actually got the money - then hell yeah, good for him. It's a shame that the draft strips away the negotiating power of amateur players and if I were dictator of the world, this system would not be in place. But this is the game they're stuck playing.Right, my point is that's bad, and instead of just accepting that it's bad, we should point it out. It's unfair to the player who isn't able to earn the money that employers are willing to pay him, and unfair to the team willing to pay a player more than another team. And again, not just willing to pay more because they're richer and able to pay more, but pay more out of a capped pool. In the pre-capped era, Fabian would've gotten his money because there really wouldn't be any reason to not sign a guy over like a $300K difference. But by capping the pool, you're stripping even more leverage away from the players. As far as the Red Sox not doing anything wrong... I dunno. They have no obligation to pay a player as much as another team in a draft system, that's for sure. But drafting kids who have no leverage and pitting them against each other in the way they did stretches the boundaries of ethics at the very least. They knew the bonus demands of Fabian and Hickey and used their lack of leverage against them. That is one of the many things messed up with MLB draft. A player's contract demands should have zero bearing on when said player gets picked. I view it kinda like my kids when they were younger. You get what you get and don't get upset. I don't feel the least bit sorry that the Red Sox didn't sign Fabian.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 22, 2021 15:30:06 GMT -5
I completely disagree that the Red Sox did anything unethical here. If they had drafted him, offered him the bare minimum to get a pick next year and had no intention of signing him, then yeah, that's unethical. But they did the exact same thing with Jay Groome and Jon Denney and both signed, and those are the examples we know. They even offered him over slot, in theory (I can't imagine they didn't at least offer him $2M - I'm sure we'd have heard about it if they lowballed him.)
There are agents advisors who will put a number out there and wait until the last minute to come down. There are some who absolutely stand by the first number. Here the Fabians did the latter. But in a draft system, I don't think teams absolutely HAVE to let players direct where they want to go, whether for money or other reasons, ethically.
Here, they popped him because they felt there was a huge delta between Fabian and #2 on their board. If they thought it was close, I'm sure they'd have picked the guy that didn't have $3M on the table elsewhere.
That said, I would also never say that draftees getting paid is a bad thing. I don't get that reasoning at all.
|
|
|
Post by saltalamacchia4mvp on Oct 22, 2021 15:32:19 GMT -5
I completely disagree that the Red Sox did anything unethical here. If they had drafted him, offered him the bare minimum to get a pick next year and had no intention of signing him, then yeah, that's unethical. But they did the exact same thing with Jay Groome and Jon Denney and both signed, and those are the examples we know. They even offered him over slot, in theory (I can't imagine they didn't at least offer him $2M - I'm sure we'd have heard about it if they lowballed him.) There are agents advisors who will put a number out there and wait until the last minute to come down. There are some who absolutely stand by the first number. Here the Fabians did the latter. But in a draft system, I don't think teams absolutely HAVE to let players direct where they want to go, whether for money or other reasons, ethically. That said, I would also never say that draftees getting paid is a bad thing. I don't get that reasoning at all. Jon Denney omg 🤢
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Oct 22, 2021 15:38:38 GMT -5
I completely disagree that the Red Sox did anything unethical here. If they had drafted him, offered him the bare minimum to get a pick next year and had no intention of signing him, then yeah, that's unethical. But they did the exact same thing with Jay Groome and Jon Denney and both signed, and those are the examples we know. They even offered him over slot, in theory (I can't imagine they didn't at least offer him $2M - I'm sure we'd have heard about it if they lowballed him.) There are agents advisors who will put a number out there and wait until the last minute to come down. There are some who absolutely stand by the first number. Here the Fabians did the latter. But in a draft system, I don't think teams absolutely HAVE to let players direct where they want to go, whether for money or other reasons, ethically. That said, I would also never say that draftees getting paid is a bad thing. I don't get that reasoning at all. But isn't the key point here that Fabian's number did get met, assuming you believe the Orioles report? The player and agent are saying "this is my number," the Orioles step up and say "great, we can meet that number" (they saved on Cowser), and then we jump in the way and say "sorry about that gentleman's handshake you had with the Orioles, but show me you won't sign for $2M. Your alternative is to go back to school with a ton of risk." You don't think that at least falls into some ethical gray area? Again, I'm not trying to be on the extreme end of a debate, but its hard for me to characterize this situation as being completely ethically appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 22, 2021 15:43:53 GMT -5
I completely disagree that the Red Sox did anything unethical here. If they had drafted him, offered him the bare minimum to get a pick next year and had no intention of signing him, then yeah, that's unethical. But they did the exact same thing with Jay Groome and Jon Denney and both signed, and those are the examples we know. They even offered him over slot, in theory (I can't imagine they didn't at least offer him $2M - I'm sure we'd have heard about it if they lowballed him.) There are agents advisors who will put a number out there and wait until the last minute to come down. There are some who absolutely stand by the first number. Here the Fabians did the latter. But in a draft system, I don't think teams absolutely HAVE to let players direct where they want to go, whether for money or other reasons, ethically. That said, I would also never say that draftees getting paid is a bad thing. I don't get that reasoning at all. But isn't the key point here that Fabian's number did get met, assuming you believe the Orioles report? The player and agent are saying "this is my number," the Orioles step up and say "great, we can meet that number" (they saved on Cowser), and then we jump in the way and say "sorry about that gentleman's handshake you had with the Orioles, but show me you won't sign for $2M. Your alternative is to go back to school with a ton of risk." You don't think that at least falls into some ethical gray area? Again, I'm not trying to be on the extreme end of a debate, but its hard for me to characterize this situation as being completely ethically appropriate. Just to be clear (you might know this but others might not), Groome had a deal with San Diego and Denney had a deal with the Royals, also at the next pick, so I was using apples to apples situations. In a vacuum, yeah, that is in a bit of a gray area perhaps. But the alternative is to let players dictate what team they go to, right? Isn't that defeating the purpose of the draft? Agree it's not quite the same as the other hypothetical situation. But that's why I said what they offered is also relevant. And as I've speculated previously, if Fabian says he'll sign for 2.5m, I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have at least tried to make it work.
|
|
hank
Rookie
Posts: 101
|
Post by hank on Oct 22, 2021 15:53:12 GMT -5
To me the win win is we took someone else. Fabian gets his $ from one of the worst franchises in baseball and the Red Sox get a player that signs, quite possibly a better player since Fabian may be a strike out machine if he ever gets to the majors. As it is, I think it's ethical for us to have taken him when we did because we're not obligated to pay more than a million over slot just because the Orioles want to do it. The Red Sox didn't make the rules of the draft.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 22, 2021 18:33:23 GMT -5
I completely disagree that the Red Sox did anything unethical here. If they had drafted him, offered him the bare minimum to get a pick next year and had no intention of signing him, then yeah, that's unethical. But they did the exact same thing with Jay Groome and Jon Denney and both signed, and those are the examples we know. They even offered him over slot, in theory (I can't imagine they didn't at least offer him $2M - I'm sure we'd have heard about it if they lowballed him.) There are agents advisors who will put a number out there and wait until the last minute to come down. There are some who absolutely stand by the first number. Here the Fabians did the latter. But in a draft system, I don't think teams absolutely HAVE to let players direct where they want to go, whether for money or other reasons, ethically. That said, I would also never say that draftees getting paid is a bad thing. I don't get that reasoning at all. But isn't the key point here that Fabian's number did get met, assuming you believe the Orioles report? The player and agent are saying "this is my number," the Orioles step up and say "great, we can meet that number" (they saved on Cowser), and then we jump in the way and say "sorry about that gentleman's handshake you had with the Orioles, but show me you won't sign for $2M. Your alternative is to go back to school with a ton of risk." You don't think that at least falls into some ethical gray area? Again, I'm not trying to be on the extreme end of a debate, but its hard for me to characterize this situation as being completely ethically appropriate. I really don't. In a competitive system where teams are trying to get the best deal vis-a-vis both players and other teams and players are trying to get as much money as they can and go to their preferred teams, the statement that "I won't sign for less than $X" is more often posturing than statement of fact. In that kind of environment, the Red Sox can't just take every draftee at his word.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Oct 22, 2021 19:01:41 GMT -5
But isn't the key point here that Fabian's number did get met, assuming you believe the Orioles report? The player and agent are saying "this is my number," the Orioles step up and say "great, we can meet that number" (they saved on Cowser), and then we jump in the way and say "sorry about that gentleman's handshake you had with the Orioles, but show me you won't sign for $2M. Your alternative is to go back to school with a ton of risk." You don't think that at least falls into some ethical gray area? Again, I'm not trying to be on the extreme end of a debate, but its hard for me to characterize this situation as being completely ethically appropriate. I really don't. In a competitive system where teams are trying to get the best deal vis-a-vis both players and other teams and players are trying to get as much money as they can and go to their preferred teams, the statement that "I won't sign for less than $X" is more often posturing than statement of fact. In that kind of environment, the Red Sox can't just take every draftee at his word.
Again though, it's not as simple as "I won't sign for less than $X." It's "I have a deal lined up for $X and we won't be signing for less." The former happens all the time and its why elite HS prospects drop to Day 3 but are often selected with little-to-no hope of signing said player. The latter prevents the player from signing their best deal and forces the player (and perhaps more importantly the agent) to make a tough call in signing a lesser deal at the cost of the agent's word which they rely on for future negotiations. That might not make much of a difference to you though with regard to the ethics of it all, and I'm happy to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by edge4414 on Oct 22, 2021 19:37:55 GMT -5
I really don't. In a competitive system where teams are trying to get the best deal vis-a-vis both players and other teams and players are trying to get as much money as they can and go to their preferred teams, the statement that "I won't sign for less than $X" is more often posturing than statement of fact. In that kind of environment, the Red Sox can't just take every draftee at his word.
Again though, it's not as simple as "I won't sign for less than $X." It's "I have a deal lined up for $X and we won't be signing for less." The former happens all the time and its why elite HS prospects drop to Day 3 but are often selected with little-to-no hope of signing said player. The latter prevents the player from signing their best deal and forces the player (and perhaps more importantly the agent) to make a tough call in signing a lesser deal at the cost of the agent's word which they rely on for future negotiations. That might not make much of a difference to you though with regard to the ethics of it all, and I'm happy to agree to disagree. So you basically want to dismantle the draft system. All the top player in the draft has to do is ask for an amount over slot and the make a deal with the NYY for example and your saying the team drafting 1st shouldn't draft him unless they are willing to meet that number. When teams like the Orioles make that deal it is contingent on the player lasting until their pick and both sides are well aware of that. Let's say Leiter wanted 1,000,000 over slot and the Red Sox called him and said they could make that happen. So the 1st 3 teams ethically shouldn't draft him unless they also would pay 1 mil over slot. Sorry, but that is not how the system works nor was it intended to work that way.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 22, 2021 19:44:15 GMT -5
Obviously Fabian cares more about his signing bonus than becoming a great MLB player. Where do you get more respect?
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,988
|
Post by jimoh on Oct 23, 2021 6:02:36 GMT -5
It's exciting to get all these fresh new takes on Fabian.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Oct 23, 2021 9:27:57 GMT -5
Again though, it's not as simple as "I won't sign for less than $X." It's "I have a deal lined up for $X and we won't be signing for less." The former happens all the time and its why elite HS prospects drop to Day 3 but are often selected with little-to-no hope of signing said player. The latter prevents the player from signing their best deal and forces the player (and perhaps more importantly the agent) to make a tough call in signing a lesser deal at the cost of the agent's word which they rely on for future negotiations. That might not make much of a difference to you though with regard to the ethics of it all, and I'm happy to agree to disagree. So you basically want to dismantle the draft system. All the top player in the draft has to do is ask for an amount over slot and the make a deal with the NYY for example and your saying the team drafting 1st shouldn't draft him unless they are willing to meet that number. When teams like the Orioles make that deal it is contingent on the player lasting until their pick and both sides are well aware of that. Let's say Leiter wanted 1,000,000 over slot and the Red Sox called him and said they could make that happen. So the 1st 3 teams ethically shouldn't draft him unless they also would pay 1 mil over slot. Sorry, but that is not how the system works nor was it intended to work that way. I mean you basically just described how the system does work, at least for players that are able to get above slot deals. See here, but some key excerpts: What the Red Sox did in drafting Fabian without a deal (especially when he already had a deal in place) is an anomaly. Thats why Fabian was only one of three unsigned picks in the first 10 rounds including Rocker whose issue was around bonus adjustment in response to his medicals. Let me give a single example. Bubba Chandler signed with the Pirates for $3M in the 3rd round. Do you think teams passed on Chandler's talent (ranked 21st overall by MLB) and thats why he dropped to pick #72? No. Interested teams called his agent, got his number, and subsequently passed if they were unable to meet it. I guarantee he agreed to that $3M figure with PIT in between Day 1 and Day 2. In fact, just before the 2nd round began, Callis offered his (informed) predictions and had predicted PIT was going to draft Chandler at #37. They didn't need to draft him in the beginning of the 2nd round though...he lasted a full additional round until the 3rd round because his agent was able to set his number and teams knew that if they couldn't match that figure, he wouldn't be signing with them. What BOS did rarely happens. Its why Fabian is upset. Its why Fabian didn't sign. With regard to Denney and Groome, I don't recall reports that we didn't meet the $ demands of the deals they had in place with KC and SD, respectively. Maybe the SD deal with Groome was rumored for slightly higher? I can't honestly remember. I don't see it as an issue if we step in front of a deal but offer similar $ terms. In Fabian's case, we pretty clearly came in well below the BAL deal....and yes, thats frustrating for the player and agent.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Oct 23, 2021 10:35:39 GMT -5
I'm probably one of the few who doesn't really have a problem with Fabian's decision and line of thinking here, for a few reasons. One, while I think the Sox have a good player dev staff, there's a very real argument that he's going to get better coaching at Florida given that Florida is one of the premier programs in the country and they've been working with him for the past three years. Two, and as sad as it is it's the reality, is that at Florida he's going to be better taken care of in terms of housing, food, travel, everything. Even if he gets the exact same bonus that he would've gotten this year, I don't really blame him for wanting to take advantage of Florida's resources and continue to develop. I don't think you can really say definitively that this move is even decreasing his chances of making the majors, it's just impossible to know how certain guys will respond to certain coaching.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Oct 23, 2021 10:56:40 GMT -5
I have zero issue with what the Sox did. It was (I think) all in good faith. From the team's perspective, they have a lot of moving parts with all the draftees and what they can get them signed for. Perhaps, based on their experience, when all these guys give their demands, historically (hypothetically) they know they can often get them signed for a bit less. They also don't know exactly who will be available later and what their specific demands will be. I think they believed they could either free up enough $$ to get him signed for $3mill - or very close to it - or otherwise get him signed for $2mill.
You can't let other teams dictate your drafting strategy. Teams need to do what's best for them, in good faith. It's a very imperfect system and unfortunately the kids don't typically have the upper hand.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Oct 23, 2021 11:17:56 GMT -5
It does seem unfair to players that a team gets a comp pick if they don’t sign a guy. It takes a lot of the urgency out of it. Even when Fabian was drafted, people on this board saw it as ”no lose” for the team. But not for him!
If teams get comp picks, then players should be free agents. That is, there should be a period of time when they negotiate exclusively, but at the end, it seems unfair that one side gets compensated and the other doesn’t.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Oct 23, 2021 11:26:27 GMT -5
It does seem unfair to players that a team gets a comp pick if they don’t sign a guy. It takes a lot of the urgency out of it. Even when Fabian was drafted, people on this board saw it as ”no lose” for the team. But not for him! If teams get comp picks, then players should be free agents. That is, there should be a period of time when they negotiate exclusively, but at the end, it seems unfair that one side gets compensated and the other doesn’t. I mean, the whole point is to make it so the draftees get less money. The system is working as intended. There is no one with power that has any interest in fighting to change this. Scott Boras will give some scathing interviews and that's about where it ends.
Maybe at some point MLB just never gets anybody with a college football scholarship and it's a national embarrassment, but we're not at that point yet.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Oct 23, 2021 11:48:10 GMT -5
What if they just dropped the draft? Why can they do international pools but not domestic? What if they had annual pool money and a period of amateur signings? You want to go all in for Bryce Harper? Go ahead. But you’ll get fewer players.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 23, 2021 12:07:12 GMT -5
What if they just dropped the draft? Why can they do international pools but not domestic? What if they had annual pool money and a period of amateur signings? You want to go all in for Bryce Harper? Go ahead. But you’ll get fewer players. Given that it's pretty much certain an international draft is coming in this next CBA, this isn't really the best comp.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Oct 23, 2021 12:10:26 GMT -5
I can't think of any big reason why that system would especially favor either the teams or the players.
The international system is pretty icky and corrupt though and they're apparently moving to a draft. I can imagine in America you'd get under the table deals where 16 year olds quit their high school baseball team (maybe their advisor has a nice baseball academy) and then they sign for 250k on 12:01 AM the day they're eligible. I'm not sure everyone would be comfortable with stuff like that happening. MLB has also has this fantasy that their draft will one day be an NFL draft level event.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Oct 23, 2021 12:10:49 GMT -5
What if they just dropped the draft? Why can they do international pools but not domestic? What if they had annual pool money and a period of amateur signings? You want to go all in for Bryce Harper? Go ahead. But you’ll get fewer players. Given that it's pretty much certain an international draft is coming in this next CBA, this isn't really the best comp. I don’t think there is any chance. But big picture there are models that would be fairer to labor. I laugh as I write it… as someone above said, this model works the way it is intended… hamstringing amateurs.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 23, 2021 12:15:04 GMT -5
So you basically want to dismantle the draft system. All the top player in the draft has to do is ask for an amount over slot and the make a deal with the NYY for example and your saying the team drafting 1st shouldn't draft him unless they are willing to meet that number. When teams like the Orioles make that deal it is contingent on the player lasting until their pick and both sides are well aware of that. Let's say Leiter wanted 1,000,000 over slot and the Red Sox called him and said they could make that happen. So the 1st 3 teams ethically shouldn't draft him unless they also would pay 1 mil over slot. Sorry, but that is not how the system works nor was it intended to work that way. I mean you basically just described how the system does work, at least for players that are able to get above slot deals. See here, but some key excerpts: What the Red Sox did in drafting Fabian without a deal (especially when he already had a deal in place) is an anomaly. Thats why Fabian was only one of three unsigned picks in the first 10 rounds including Rocker whose issue was around bonus adjustment in response to his medicals. Let me give a single example. Bubba Chandler signed with the Pirates for $3M in the 3rd round. Do you think teams passed on Chandler's talent (ranked 21st overall by MLB) and thats why he dropped to pick #72? No. Interested teams called his agent, got his number, and subsequently passed if they were unable to meet it. I guarantee he agreed to that $3M figure with PIT in between Day 1 and Day 2. In fact, just before the 2nd round began, Callis offered his (informed) predictions and had predicted PIT was going to draft Chandler at #37. They didn't need to draft him in the beginning of the 2nd round though...he lasted a full additional round until the 3rd round because his agent was able to set his number and teams knew that if they couldn't match that figure, he wouldn't be signing with them. What BOS did rarely happens. Its why Fabian is upset. Its why Fabian didn't sign. With regard to Denney and Groome, I don't recall reports that we didn't meet the $ demands of the deals they had in place with KC and SD, respectively. Maybe the SD deal with Groome was rumored for slightly higher? I can't honestly remember. I don't see it as an issue if we step in front of a deal but offer similar $ terms. In Fabian's case, we pretty clearly came in well below the BAL deal....and yes, thats frustrating for the player and agent. Bubba Chandler fell because he had more leverage due to the football commitment, and likely because teams didn't deem him likely to sign for a number that they thought him worth. The Red Sox selected Fabian because they thought there was enough of a gap between him and the next best option that they were willing to not sign him and punt the pick into next year rather than take whomever they had next. I have no problem with that. The system isn't set up to work differently. I don't get the difference with Chandler. If the Red Sox had taken Chandler and not signed him because they wouldn't pay him $3m, what's the difference? They're in theory costing him the same $3m, right? Fabian's advisor went ahead and "made a deal" without a guarantee that his player would even get to the Orioles. Isn't that just as much on the agent for getting his guy's hopes up? L Like I said, my point is I don't begrudge any party involved here for how this went down. I hope Fabian balls out and gets his money. I know the team does too. Also, they definitely didn't meet what the Padres were going to pay Groome. I don't quite recall the Denney situation but believe that was the case there as well.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 23, 2021 12:19:40 GMT -5
Obviously Fabian cares more about his signing bonus than becoming a great MLB player. Where do you get more respect? Caring about a $1M difference in his signing bonus is completely reasonable when he's going to be paid below the poverty line for the next 3 years or so. It's not like he's sitting the season out - he'sls returning to one of the top collegiate programs in the country.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 23, 2021 12:29:08 GMT -5
Just lock in slot values like every other draft. It's crazy, the MLB does so many different things compared to the other leagues like NBA, NFL and NHL. Then increase the amount after 10th round to $500,000. That way top players get picked by talent, not what they'll sign for. That means greatly increase the Slot money for rounds 3-10, obviously round 10 has to be slightly above $500,000.
This should fix a bunch of issues and be a nice gift to the players. Oh darn minor league players aren't part of the players union. So it likely means very little. Trying to fix baseball is so crazy hard because everything is so crazy compared to others sports. You can't find good long-term solutions, just more crazy bandaid fixes that will just cause more issues in time.
|
|
|