The Worm is Turning

[lend d money]

It is great to see these major league teams say "I don't think so," to the dillusionary draft picks. It is about time they take a stand and make these kids understand that yes, the team does have other options, and no, they are not held prisoner to you(meaning the draftee). I hope the vast majority of these kids who recently refused contracts fall the way of Matt Harrington. Perhaps, only then, will they(and their agents) realize that a fair offer beats the heck out of saying "would you like fries with that."

 

BTW, I can't help but wonder if these kids can claim collusion in the same manner as the big league guys. Anyone know for sure?

[jwaltz]

Well, none of the kids are in a union. So I don't think they could get together and prove it. The union has all of it's member's negotiations to prove it. It would be very hard for one kid or agent to sue and prove something like that just from their own dealings with teams.

[mothershipconnection]

Now we just need teams to start taking a stand against Boras and maybe we'll see the insanity that is MLB salaries calm down a little, that and implement a salary cap. I for one would really like to see a cap for draftees (maximum amount any player can get regardless of round or position), with the only thing left to haggle over being whether it's a minor or major league deal. It really sucks when bad teams had to pass on Weaver and Drew since they couldn't afford them. Isn't the point of a draft to make the worst teams in the league better? It works in the other sports but not baseball with it's messed-up system.

[colbyjack]

As much as I think players like Verlander & Drew are foolish for turing down the deals they have been offered so far, I can't say that I wish any of these prospects any ill-fate.

 

BTW, I can't help but wonder if these kids can claim collusion in the same manner as the big league guys. Anyone know for sure?

 

It's no secret that collusion is in full effect with big-league clubs in regards to signing draft picks, which is why you have the commissioner's office pressing down so hard trying to influence clubs not to spend insane amounts of money. That's also the reason you've seen bonuses decrease the past couple of years. It certainly isn't happening by accident.

 

Now we just need teams to start taking a stand against Boras and maybe we'll see the insanity that is MLB salaries calm down a little, that and implement a salary cap.

 

While teams can make a stand in the draft, if they make a stand against Boras in what is perceived as a unified effort, than Boras could have a case to sue MLB & it's owner for collusion, as he has done in the past. Fewer teams are giving into Boras' demands, but you are still going to have teams spend on the players he represents. The Tigers were finally the ones to sign Pudge last offseason, and looking at the season he had, maybe he was worth it. A salary cap would be great, but I just don't see it happening as the player's union historically has had too much power and the owners don't have enough to bargain with. For a cap to be put in place I fear MLB would have to lock out the players completely until the players realized they weren't going to get paid until radical changes were made.

 

I for one would really like to see a cap for draftees (maximum amount any player can get regardless of round or position), with the only thing left to haggle over being whether it's a minor or major league deal. It really sucks when bad teams had to pass on Weaver and Drew since they couldn't afford them. Isn't the point of a draft to make the worst teams in the league better? It works in the other sports but not baseball with it's messed-up system.

 

Me too, and that actually was something discussed with the last CBA. Unfortunately, the players & the owners just don't take the draft that seriously. That's not to say it's not valued as one of the most important days of the baseball season by some teams, but little time is spent trying to improve the structure itself. However, and again, what do the owners have to bargain with to get a draft cap put into place? While the players really don't care about the draft, since those players are years away from joining the union, it's still an area in which they have a significant amount of negotiating leverage.

[filthyfrog]

While it's good to see the teams not giving in, it's also a little frightening to see the players not signing reasonable, or even generous, deals. Are they fighting collusion with collusion?

[lend d money]

What if each team was given an equitable, monetary draft ceiling as a result of the next CBA? Do you think this would help matters? In this way, if a large-market team wanted that prized Boras-represented player, they could have him, but at the cost of not being able to afford to sign other picks. They would essentially mortgage their draft on the outcome of fewer players. I haven't given this a great deal of thought, just came to me. But, at the very least, seems to be better than our current "system."

[jwaltz]

Lend, your system is much like how the NFL does it. I think the players union could be convinced to put a draft ceiling in the next CBA. They just have to be shown that if less money is going to the draftees more money will go to the MLB players. Kinda like how the NBA did it. In the NBA rookie contracts are pretty much set by the CBA. The union agreed to this because then there would be more money left over for the veterans. Of course the owners would need to give some kind of assurance that the money not going to the draftees would go to player payrolls. A system like this would definately help compettitve balance as well. The poorer teams would be able to spend more on MLB players and still sign their draft picks. The Brewers could have an extra $1.5-$2mil to spend on their player payroll. While that would be alot, it would help.

[colbyjack]

I'm not so sure that would work out either, because you're still likely going to hurt the bad teams that have high draft picks that aren't afraid spending money on those draft picks (like the Brewers). Not necessarily in the first round, but in almost every round. Look at how much bonuses are in the beginning of the second round vs. those towards the end of the round. It's a difference of several hundred thousand dollars.

 

Now, could you create a ceiling based on slot placement? Sure, but what happens to a team that has extra picks because they lost free agents? Do you assign a slot value to those picks and add that onto their ceiling?

 

And even if you do that, what would make that so different from what is already happening, having the commissioner's office dictate what teams should be paying for each pick otherwise suffering a penalty which could include a fine? Plus, each team approaches the draft completely different. You have the small-market Brewers that have invested quite a bit into the draft the past several years, and then you have the small-market Expos that have looked for bargain picks with their top picks. The Giants & Mariners sign free agents almost so they don't have to worry about budgeting for a first round pick, while the mighty Yankees typically have been more conservative when it comes to the draft. Not only are there team trends, but some teams may change their approach drastically from year to year. The Twins in 2000 reached for Adam Johnson with the 2nd overall pick because they didn't want to pay an insane bonus for any of the players that were available. The next year they gave Joe Mauer $5+ million.

 

The whole structure is so unique I don't think a team-imposed ceilnig would work, basically because I don't think you would really see any change. Teams already aren't going to draft players like Drew & Weaver for so many different reasons, but largely because they do know they have their own budget ceiling that they have to adhere to.

 

And I'm not so sure the structure is that out of whack. Who are the players over the last several years that haven't gone where they were supposed to? Drew & Weaver this year, JD Drew, Drew Henson, Rick Ankiel, Ryan Anderson, Matt Harrington, Scott Kazmir, Joe Borchard, Bobby Brownlie & Jeff Francoeur come to mind. Borchard, Henson & Francoeur are tough to include because they had football careers to contend with, and even then Borchard & Henson haven't panned out and Franceour hasn't even made it yet. JD Drew didn't fall that far the second time he was drafted in '98. Harrington obviously has been a bust, the Space Needle's career was wrecked by a bum shoulder and Rick Ankiel is coming back but certainly was derailed for a long time. Kazmir could be a stud, while the jury is still out on Brownlie, Weaver & Stephen Drew.

 

My point is that some of these players aren't worth the trouble because their talent may not match their expectations. When players are worth the money, they usually don't fall that far. Remember in 2001 when a lot of people pointed to how the draft went basically as it should based on talent with the top 5 players going in the top 5 picks: Joe Mauer, Mark Prior, Dewon Brazelton, Gavin Floyd, Mark Teixeira? When the talent has warranted the signing bonus to match the demand, players usually don't fall that far. Delmon Young, Rickie Weeks & BJ Upton can all make the same claim.

 

It's somewhat similar to the free agent market. Carlos Beltran, a Boras client, is going to make a killing on the free agent market this offseason, as well as he should given the season he had. Kevin Millwood, another Boras client, likely will have a hard time finding what he may be looking for since his season wasn't that great. While Millwood should find a good home, it may take him longer to do so because there are several other players out there on the market that are just as good as he is.

[RobertR]

Yeah there clearly is collusion going on, but it really only affects a handful of draftees in the first round, unlike free agency collusion which affected hundreds of players. I've no doubt that a lawsuit could be fought and won, but the reward doesn't seem worth it.

 

I suspect that MLB could gain a draft cap by proposing a salary floor to the union. Other than Tampa, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and Kansas City it's tough to see who would really be opposed. Of course, the legality of that would be up for grabs. The Union might have to grant first rounders membership in order to make it legal.

 

I don't expect much of a downward push for bonus money. You have to be somewhat competitive with bonus money to football, basketball, and even hockey for that rare multi-sport star that comes around. Still, if MLB could control costs a bit more, then maybe we'd see the worst teams getting the best players which is the whole intent of the draft.

 

Robert