|
Post by julyanmorley on Dec 27, 2021 18:40:00 GMT -5
The draft is an elaborate salary suppression scheme. We can observe teams acting like picks are quite valuable and being eager to sign all their early draftees. The Fangraphs prospect valuation model says that a typical team will find themselves the day after the draft having spent most of their early draft picks on players who aren't even worth their slot bonus.
It's more likely that their model is making a big mistake than every team is acting irrationally and the second round ought to be filled with players either not signing or signing for way under slot. You've said this a number of times re: Fangraphs. Sorry if I missed this elsewhere, but care to show why you think this? For example, the link below values 45 FV players at $4-6M, all the way down to 40 FV players at $1-2M. blogs.fangraphs.com/putting-a-dollar-value-on-prospects-outside-the-top-100/Now, there are some guys on their Board who signed this year for over $1M and they rate as 35+ FV guys, but I'm sure the response to that is "the team signing the player disagrees," no? There's just a disconnect between what you're saying and what I understand of how they value guys, so I'm trying to reconcile that. I missed that they have a separate 40+ valuation tier. Sp, their model is saying that there's a bunch of value in the first couple rounds, a bunch of fair'ish bonuses, and a handful of overpaid players. Then in rounds 3+ you're looking at lots of guys not worth their bonus. Some predictions their model makes: - In a world where the draft is abolished and players are free to negotiate with every team with no cap on spending, if teams are rational, then the tippy top guys would definitely get paid more and everyone else would get about the same or less. - Teams and the player's association should value the QO draft picks as being worth maybe $250k and nobody should care much about the tag. - Rational teams should commonly use much less than their full bonus pool as there just isn't enough value at slot recommendations to go around
In reality, I believe teams think they are profiting big time every time they draft someone and sign them for slot, and so FG's model fails a basic sanity check.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 28, 2021 10:17:06 GMT -5
You've said this a number of times re: Fangraphs. Sorry if I missed this elsewhere, but care to show why you think this? For example, the link below values 45 FV players at $4-6M, all the way down to 40 FV players at $1-2M. blogs.fangraphs.com/putting-a-dollar-value-on-prospects-outside-the-top-100/Now, there are some guys on their Board who signed this year for over $1M and they rate as 35+ FV guys, but I'm sure the response to that is "the team signing the player disagrees," no? There's just a disconnect between what you're saying and what I understand of how they value guys, so I'm trying to reconcile that. I missed that they have a separate 40+ valuation tier. Sp, their model is saying that there's a bunch of value in the first couple rounds, a bunch of fair'ish bonuses, and a handful of overpaid players. Then in rounds 3+ you're looking at lots of guys not worth their bonus. Some predictions their model makes: - In a world where the draft is abolished and players are free to negotiate with every team with no cap on spending, if teams are rational, then the tippy top guys would definitely get paid more and everyone else would get about the same or less. - Teams and the player's association should value the QO draft picks as being worth maybe $250k and nobody should care much about the tag. - Rational teams should commonly use much less than their full bonus pool as there just isn't enough value at slot recommendations to go around In reality, I believe teams think they are profiting big time every time they draft someone and sign them for slot, and so FG's model fails a basic sanity check.
Not sure how you get that on the second bullet. Adding a third-round pick is the chance to add a FV 40 or better player, which alone is worth $1-2M, plus more money for the bonus pool that can get spread around. As far as the rational teams wouldn't spend on the draft thing, I'm not sure why it isn't rational to spend as much of the "free money" you can to add as much talent as possible to the system. Players improve. It's an investment. You're treating the valuation piece as though it's set and cannot change going forward. I just think there's some kind of disconnect between what those FG valuations mean and how you're interpreting it. I can't figure out what it is though.
|
|