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 vermontsox1 on Mar 27, 2020 9:41:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Mar 27, 2020 13:30:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 27, 2020 14:42:55 GMT -5
Can't we just buy guys who don't get drafted for whatever they want? How can MLB restrict dollars for UDFAs!?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 27, 2020 14:52:06 GMT -5
Can't we just buy guys who don't get drafted for whatever they want? How can MLB restrict dollars for UDFAs!? The same way they can force people to enter a draft.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 27, 2020 14:55:37 GMT -5
Can't we just buy guys who don't get drafted for whatever they want? How can MLB restrict dollars for UDFAs!? The same way they can force people to enter a draft. By doing this they are essentially barring a significant amount of people from a workforce. I'm all for dropping MLB's antitrust exemption. It's waaaaay past time.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 27, 2020 15:14:49 GMT -5
It's gross, and the timing makes it moreso.
You'd have to think this really incentivizes pretty good college players (like $200K type dudes) to go to Japan and Korea, right?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 30, 2020 23:28:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Mar 31, 2020 0:25:26 GMT -5
An important note here is that the NCAA is allowing the schools to decide how much money they want to give to the seniors that are losing their final year of eligibility. So someone on a full ride scholarship could potentially only get a 25% scholarship for that extra year of eligibility if the team just can't afford to keep them around and bring recruits in. I'd imagine big programs won't have a problem keeping all of their guys but for smaller programs with smaller budgets I think a higher percentage of seniors would be willing to walk away.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 31, 2020 17:14:38 GMT -5
An important note here is that the NCAA is allowing the schools to decide how much money they want to give to the seniors that are losing their final year of eligibility. So someone on a full ride scholarship could potentially only get a 25% scholarship for that extra year of eligibility if the team just can't afford to keep them around and bring recruits in. I'd imagine big programs won't have a problem keeping all of their guys but for smaller programs with smaller budgets I think a higher percentage of seniors would be willing to walk away. I have a very different take here. The fact that the NCAA isn't making schools count these players' scholarships against the 11.7 limit or their numbers against the roster limits is a huge benefit, not the problem you're describing. Granting the players an extra year of eligibility was always going to cause potential playing time issues, but this is the most generous outcome for the players that I could think of that's reasonable. The NCAA doesn't make schools honor scholarships for all four years, so why would they make them do that now? We're not talking about a large number of student-athletes at each school here. For baseball we're talking what, 3 scholarships total, on average, if a school uses all of its scholarships?
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Apr 1, 2020 2:57:03 GMT -5
An important note here is that the NCAA is allowing the schools to decide how much money they want to give to the seniors that are losing their final year of eligibility. So someone on a full ride scholarship could potentially only get a 25% scholarship for that extra year of eligibility if the team just can't afford to keep them around and bring recruits in. I'd imagine big programs won't have a problem keeping all of their guys but for smaller programs with smaller budgets I think a higher percentage of seniors would be willing to walk away. I have a very different take here. The fact that the NCAA isn't making schools count these players' scholarships against the 11.7 limit or their numbers against the roster limits is a huge benefit, not the problem you're describing. Granting the players an extra year of eligibility was always going to cause potential playing time issues, but this is the most generous outcome for the players that I could think of that's reasonable. The NCAA doesn't make schools honor scholarships for all four years, so why would they make them do that now? We're not talking about a large number of student-athletes at each school here. For baseball we're talking what, 3 scholarships total, on average, if a school uses all of its scholarships? I think you're overlooking the monetary aspect of it, even if it's just three full scholarship guys. Most non-revenue sport programs operate on a pretty tight budget, outside of the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12. To keep three extra scholarship players on the team in addition to the scholarship players coming in gets really expensive, really quickly. Three scholarships, food, gear (a very underrated component here - teams order their gear a year out so in a lot of cases teams might not have enough for everyone), and most importantly travel expenses. Those add up really quickly over the course of a season. Like I said before, for the big schools I don't see it being much of a problem. But for smaller schools and for most of the schools in the Pac-12 with smaller budgets, I think it's definitely possible we see a higher percentage of seniors leave because those programs just can't get the money to offer full aid.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Apr 1, 2020 3:02:24 GMT -5
I have a very different take here. The fact that the NCAA isn't making schools count these players' scholarships against the 11.7 limit or their numbers against the roster limits is a huge benefit, not the problem you're describing. Granting the players an extra year of eligibility was always going to cause potential playing time issues, but this is the most generous outcome for the players that I could think of that's reasonable. The NCAA doesn't make schools honor scholarships for all four years, so why would they make them do that now? We're not talking about a large number of student-athletes at each school here. For baseball we're talking what, 3 scholarships total, on average, if a school uses all of its scholarships? I think you're overlooking the monetary aspect of it, even if it's just three full scholarship guys. Most non-revenue sport programs operate on a pretty tight budget, outside of the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12. To keep three extra scholarship players on the team in addition to the scholarship players coming in gets really expensive, really quickly. Three scholarships, food, gear (a very underrated component here - teams order their gear a year out so in a lot of cases teams might not have enough for everyone), and most importantly travel expenses. Those add up really quickly over the course of a season. Like I said before, for the big schools I don't see it being much of a problem. But for smaller schools and for most of the schools in the Pac-12 with smaller budgets, I think it's definitely possible we see a higher percentage of seniors leave because those programs just can't get the money to offer full aid. Actually, I want to offer a correction but don't want to edit because it all needs to be there. The gear, food, travel expenses, all that does fall under the team budget. But I'm 99% sure the scholarship money comes from the athletic department as a whole and not necessarily from the "team budget" (obviously, each program is allotted a certain amount of money for scholarship given the limits but it is sourced from the overall athletic department budget). Therefore, it isn't just three scholarships per baseball team. It's every full scholarship spring sport athlete you need to weigh it against. Because the school is paying for all of those. So then it becomes a "what have you done for me lately" kind of deal. For example, take Oregon State. Pac-12 school so probably won't have the budget for all of the scholarship athletes but their baseball program is one of the best programs, so the baseball players may be a safe bet. On the other hand, take USC. They have a good baseball program, but it isn't as good as most of their other spring sports (beach volleyball, golf, track) so baseball might be lower on the totem pole. There's also the chance that the schools decide to go purely altruistic and offer maybe 60% to all of them. Just a few different scenarios there, and FWIW I agree that this is a pretty reasonable deal for both sides. But I think at a lot of schools monetary restrictions are going to leave some odd men out, so I would predict a good percentage of seniors don't return.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 1, 2020 8:09:33 GMT -5
I guess I'm wondering what you wanted the NCAA to do about that though. Like, I don't think you're wrong that this could happen, but I think it would've been worse to, say, require programs to guarantee previous scholarship commitments to the returning seniors.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Apr 1, 2020 11:49:26 GMT -5
I guess I'm wondering what you wanted the NCAA to do about that though. Like, I don't think you're wrong that this could happen, but I think it would've been worse to, say, require programs to guarantee previous scholarship commitments to the returning seniors. Oh, I don't think it's a bad thing. I'm just saying that, from a draft perspective, I still think there will be senior signs available, even if some do go back to school. Overall I think the NCAA did about as much as they could've been expected to.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Apr 1, 2020 12:57:28 GMT -5
I guess I'm wondering what you wanted the NCAA to do about that though. Like, I don't think you're wrong that this could happen, but I think it would've been worse to, say, require programs to guarantee previous scholarship commitments to the returning seniors. Oh, I don't think it's a bad thing. I'm just saying that, from a draft perspective, I still think there will be senior signs available, even if some do go back to school. Overall I think the NCAA did about as much as they could've been expected to. That might be a first
|
|
|
Post by dirtdog on Apr 2, 2020 21:11:04 GMT -5
So how can a system that needs an infusion of talent benefit from this modified draft format. Any ideas?
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 13,961
|
Post by cdj on Apr 2, 2020 23:54:52 GMT -5
So how can a system that needs an infusion of talent benefit from this modified draft format. Any ideas? Yeah, draft well. What I’ll also say is that I don’t think they are lacking talent in the lower minors. It would be nice to add some, but every team is in the same boat so it’s whatever to me
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Apr 15, 2020 9:34:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 16, 2020 8:07:04 GMT -5
If you're ever going to do the "pick someone you have no intention of signing in order to get a monster bonus pool the next year" this is probably the year to do it. Given the lack of chance to show themselves this year and the paltry bonus pool numbers, lots off incentives for those interesting guys who wouldn't be in the top half of the first round to head to a JuCo for a year.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 16, 2020 10:31:25 GMT -5
It's supposed to be a deep draft though. Like, I've been hearing about Crow-Armstrong for a couple years now, it feels like. Maybe it's the unique name, but at any rate, if you can add a player you like this year, then you do it, I think.
There's also the chance that you whiff on that extra bonus pool next year and now you've got another prospect bubble in the system that's going to kill you in 4 or 5 years. Recall the year the Rays had 12 of the first 89 picks and came away with "only" Blake Snell... with their 7th pick of the draft.
Is the chance that the plan gets you an extra Logan Allen or even Ty Buttrey, as opposed to a Nick Northcut or Alex Scherff, worth it? I'm not sure.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Apr 16, 2020 11:45:24 GMT -5
Can't we just buy guys who don't get drafted for whatever they want? How can MLB restrict dollars for UDFAs!? The same way they can force people to enter a draft. Before the draft, when leagues went down to class "C" and "D" even and there were hundreds of kids in some systems. A small handful of teams.. Such as the NYY and Brooklyn, later LAD had better talent stuck within their systems than some teams fielded on their own MLB rosters, so that is 1 plus for a draft. Those teams paid the biggest bonuses for the best talent with no draft, so kids signed with them and it would happen again with no limits as anyone knows who can think in almost every case. This so called slotting is another matter.. Drafting mostly eliminates a small handful of teams from signing all the best talent, but capping what each kid can get is wrong and something Calvin Griffith, Charlie O'Finley would have sought. The type of owners the game used to like to push out during the 70's for penny pinching ways that is now in style. My thinking is it is due to too many teams of dubious financial means that flat out don't need to exist.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 16, 2020 11:58:37 GMT -5
He wasn't advocating for or against a draft. He was saying that MLB can set rules by which its member organizations abide.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 16, 2020 12:14:23 GMT -5
It's supposed to be a deep draft though. Like, I've been hearing about Crow-Armstrong for a couple years now, it feels like. Maybe it's the unique name, but at any rate, if you can add a player you like this year, then you do it, I think. There's also the chance that you whiff on that extra bonus pool next year and now you've got another prospect bubble in the system that's going to kill you in 4 or 5 years. Recall the year the Rays had 12 of the first 89 picks and came away with "only" Blake Snell... with their 7th pick of the draft. Is the chance that the plan gets you an extra Logan Allen or even Ty Buttrey, as opposed to a Nick Northcut or Alex Scherff, worth it? I'm not sure. But would you rather have Crow-Armostrong vs. an extra 3 million next year in a draft that's going to to have all that extra opportunity to move money around? Done well, they could easily have something like $5 million to offer players after round 10 next year to spread around to tough-sign Class of '21 high school players plus those Class of '20 ones who don't get picked and go the JuCo route. Seems like there'd be a lot of opportunities to spread money around and build real depth. Is it worth doing that to take the risk on getting The One Guy this year, even in a deep draft? Thinking of it in NFL draft terms, it'd be like trading a 2020 first-round pick to trade up with something like dozens of picks the following year. And another part of it comes down to specficially who is available at #17.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 16, 2020 22:20:12 GMT -5
I'm confused, but what is the extra opportunity next year? Very possible I'm missing something, but next year's draft could potentially be limited to 20 rounds as well, and I'm sure that would come with the same limitations on UDFAs.
I'm just skeptical of the strategy unless you're picking way in the back of the draft. Take the Jays, who didn't sign Phil Bickford at #10, turned their extra bonus money essentially into the trio of Jeff Hoffman, Max Pentecost, and Sean Reid-Foley the next year. You're trading one lottery ticket for other, different lottery tickets. Maybe you wind up with one extra, but I'm not sure it's worth it for the bubble it potentially creates. If we were talking 4 extra lottery tickets? OK then, but you're really only getting one more in a system with a hard cap.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 17, 2020 7:56:13 GMT -5
My feeling is that a lot of Class of 2020 HS players are going to go the JuCo route rather than sign given the smaller bonus pools and lack of opportunity to establish themselves this year. That's going to lead to a bumper class that's essentially 50% deeper because you get that HS Class of 2020 along with the regular Class of '21 and college juniors that you'd normally have.
The Blue Jays essentially played it straight when they lost Bickford - they signed Hoffman, Pentecost, and and Reid-Foley all at slot. Basically the Blue Jays couldn't sign Bickford and got the #11 pick the next year... but then just used the pick to draft a player who ended up not working out. They didn't spread any money around. If they'd signed Bickford in '13 their 2014 draft would've looked exactly the same except for Pentecost. Strategically, I think it makes more sense to use a second first round pick on a signability guy - not a 10K college senior or anything like that, but someone who will sign for second round money, play the second and third round pretty much straight, and then divert the savings rounds to draft three or four other $750K-$1 million types. I look at it as trading a first round pick to get three or four extra second round-type talents in a draft that I think the 80th best player will be the equivalent of the 60th best player in other years.
I should also be clear that I think it's very unlikely to happen. And the Red Sox shouldn't do it if there's a guy the Sox really love at #17 this year or if I'm wrong about a lot of the high school talent waiting for next year.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 17, 2020 12:13:24 GMT -5
Yeah if guys bail on this draft and you're getting poor value at 17, then definitely punt. 100% agree.
|
|
|