|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 16, 2022 14:22:19 GMT -5
What is Rocker’s exact leverage here? If he doesn’t sign how long does he have to go until he can basically sign for free with any team? One of the concerns (of a few, though I’m generally about taking him) would be his bonus demands but I may have been overestimating his position here.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 16, 2022 14:33:37 GMT -5
MLB.com has made it incredibly impossible to figure out how many rounds are drafted on each day. From what I can tell, it's 1st, 2nd and all competitive balance and comp picks on day 1. But you'd think that they would put that somewhere easy to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by bcsox on Jul 16, 2022 15:13:56 GMT -5
So the Sox have just two picks tomorrow night?
|
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 16, 2022 15:25:55 GMT -5
MLB.com has made it incredibly impossible to figure out how many rounds are drafted on each day. From what I can tell, it's 1st, 2nd and all competitive balance and comp picks on day 1. But you'd think that they would put that somewhere easy to see. I still don't see the logic in the ability to trade competitive balance picks with their accompanying cash but not first and second (or and third) rounders with accompanying cash. Bizarre. |
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jul 16, 2022 15:30:05 GMT -5
I still disagree with the idea of having competitive balance picks to begin with. Let alone trading them.
|
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Jul 16, 2022 15:32:44 GMT -5
I still disagree with the idea of having competitive balance picks to begin with. Let alone trading them. What, you don't think the small and scrappy Padres deserve a round A pick this year? |
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jul 16, 2022 15:40:01 GMT -5
I don't think that +.500 teams need extra draft picks and if the same team gets extra picks years in a row then they should probably get relegated. And if you are repeatedly and forcibly given extra picks to counterbalance your incompetence as a franchise then you clearly aren't competent enough to trade said picks to teams that are objectively better than you are.
But I'm a romantic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jul 16, 2022 15:40:30 GMT -5
I still disagree with the idea of having competitive balance picks to begin with. Let alone trading them. What, you don't think the small and scrappy Padres deserve a round A pick this year? I don't know much about their market size or whatever they use to determine these things but it would defeat the purpose to take away these picks if a smaller-market team actually decided to go for it and spend money, like the Friars have. They need to encourage more of that.
Maybe they should re-evaluate how they determine who gets what picks (e.g. how big is your team's local TV deal?) but you can't change the system in mid-CBA.
|
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Jul 16, 2022 15:42:04 GMT -5
I don't think that +.500 teams need extra draft picks and if the same team gets extra picks years in a row then they should probably get relegated. And if you are repeatedly and forcibly given extra picks to counterbalance your incompetence as a franchise then you clearly aren't competent enough to trade said picks to teams that are objectively better than you are. But I'm a romantic. I think you can either have the pick, or the revenue sharing cash that comes out of the Sox/NYY/NYM/LAD pockets |
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jul 16, 2022 15:59:59 GMT -5
I don't think that +.500 teams need extra draft picks and if the same team gets extra picks years in a row then they should probably get relegated. And if you are repeatedly and forcibly given extra picks to counterbalance your incompetence as a franchise then you clearly aren't competent enough to trade said picks to teams that are objectively better than you are. But I'm a romantic. The relegation system in European soccer is tantalizing but at the same time, it's an anti-parity machine -- you wind up with the same half dozen top teams winning the league every season.
Going back to 1995, the same five clubs have won every Premier League championship, with the exception of Leicester City in 2016, who were a 5000:1 payout, exactly because storybook runs like that, let alone by even the sixth or seventh team, are so rare. (It's actually the same four teams, with Liverpool also only winning once in that time, like Leicester City.) I'm not going to look at the Italian or Spanish or German or other leagues but I bet they're all pretty similar in this regard.
Going back the same amount of time, fifteen different teams -- half the league! -- have won the World Series, including a different team in each of the last eight seasons. Maybe the end doesn't justify the means but the end is much more interesting than it is in European soccer.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,201 
|
Post by jimoh on Jul 16, 2022 16:21:59 GMT -5
MLB.com has made it incredibly impossible to figure out how many rounds are drafted on each day. From what I can tell, it's 1st, 2nd and all competitive balance and comp picks on day 1. But you'd think that they would put that somewhere easy to see. It's pretty easy to find. "Sunday night will feature the first and second round, as well as two compensatory and two Competitive Balance rounds. From there, rounds 3-10 will occur on Monday afternoon, with the rest of the class getting squared away on Tuesday afternoon." www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/2022-mlb-draft-time-date-live-stream-how-to-watch-online-top-players-and-eight-key-questions/Sox have three picks Sunday, #24, #41, and #79. |
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jul 16, 2022 16:24:23 GMT -5
The relegation system in European soccer is tantalizing but at the same time, it's an anti-parity machine -- you wind up with the same half dozen top teams winning the league every season.
Going back to 1995, the same five clubs have won every Premier League championship, with the exception of Leicester City in 2016, who were a 5000:1 payout, exactly because storybook runs like that, let alone by even the sixth or seventh team, are so rare. (It's actually the same four teams, with Liverpool also only winning once in that time, like Leicester City.) I'm not going to look at the Italian or Spanish or German or other leagues but I bet they're all pretty similar in this regard.
Going back the same amount of time, fifteen different teams -- half the league! -- have won the World Series, including a different team in each of the last eight seasons. Maybe the end doesn't justify the means but the end is much more interesting than it is in European soccer.
I agree, but I'd rather force sell the team at some point. Something to prevent a decade worth of losing records as well as a bottom of the league payroll. Edit: Not at all realistic but I hope we can appreciate the pipedream that is a team like Baltimore or Pittsburgh getting relegated and spending a year as their own AAA affiliate. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 16, 2022 16:41:20 GMT -5
The relegation system in European soccer is tantalizing but at the same time, it's an anti-parity machine -- you wind up with the same half dozen top teams winning the league every season.
Going back to 1995, the same five clubs have won every Premier League championship, with the exception of Leicester City in 2016, who were a 5000:1 payout, exactly because storybook runs like that, let alone by even the sixth or seventh team, are so rare. (It's actually the same four teams, with Liverpool also only winning once in that time, like Leicester City.) I'm not going to look at the Italian or Spanish or German or other leagues but I bet they're all pretty similar in this regard.
Going back the same amount of time, fifteen different teams -- half the league! -- have won the World Series, including a different team in each of the last eight seasons. Maybe the end doesn't justify the means but the end is much more interesting than it is in European soccer.
I agree, but I'd rather force sell the team at some point. Something to prevent a decade worth of losing records as well as a bottom of the league payroll. Edit: Not at all realistic but I hope we can appreciate the pipedream that is a team like Baltimore or Pittsburgh getting relegated and spending a year as their own AAA affiliate. Billionaires aren't going to watch their franchises fall to 1/100th of their value after relegation without a legal battle which they will win. This doesn't even consider stadium deals that cities hand out. Imagine if the Angels were relegated to AAA. If they decided to hold onto Trout and Ohtani, they play in AAA? This makes absolutely no sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 16, 2022 16:55:09 GMT -5
I agree, but I'd rather force sell the team at some point. Something to prevent a decade worth of losing records as well as a bottom of the league payroll. Edit: Not at all realistic but I hope we can appreciate the pipedream that is a team like Baltimore or Pittsburgh getting relegated and spending a year as their own AAA affiliate. Billionaires aren't going to watch their franchises fall to 1/100th of their value after relegation without a legal battle which they will win. This doesn't even consider stadium deals that cities hand out. Agree. The way to end the tanking is to end the incentive for tanking. I'd take away any "competitive balance" payments, penalize failure and reward success: i.e.; all the teams finishing .500 and over go into an NBA-style lottery for the top X picks of each round. X = the number of teams finishing .500 and over. All the other teams get their own lottery for the rest of each round. And no weighting toward the bottom end for either group. Each team gets one ball, one chance. That is, the .500 teams have just as much of chance of getting the #1 pick as the World Series winners and let chance fall where it may. Owners will either have to spend or trade for talent or suffer the dreck of their own intentional substandard roster construction. Skin. In. The. Game. |
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jul 16, 2022 16:59:21 GMT -5
I clearly said that it wasn't realistic. It would just be satisfying.
|
|
