Any reasonable and prudent owner of a MLB team should be more willing to tolerate the aftershocks of the Porcello signing than the aftershocks of, for example, the Barry Zito signing.

Why doesn't MLB simply mandate rather than suggest signing bonuses? Would the antitrust exemption not cover this? Alternatively MLB could negotiate a sliding bonus scale with the Union, similar to the NBA's rookie salary scale.

It will be interesting to see how MLB reacts if a significant number of 1st rounders don't sign.

Serves these teams right for waiting so long to sign their guys. Take Price - if they'd locked him up before porcello signed, he'd not be able to use Porcello's deal as leverage!

This seems like a game theory problem to me in which all the teams would benefit from taking a hard line against bonus demands but individually would do better by acquiescing. Still, say all these high school pitchers don't end up signing. I'd be surprised if more than one of them went on to be picked in the first round ever again, especially the guys who are going to college. A lot can happen in three years.

I'd be surprised if more than one of them went on to be picked in the first round ever again, especially the guys who are going to college.

Bumgarner and Beavan have already switched their commitments to junior colleges, which would make them eligible again in a year.

I still think that most if not all of these guys will sign, because I don't think that the money will be there for them next year if they don't.

Why doesn't MLB simply mandate rather than suggest signing bonuses?

Because draft picks are still used as compensation for free agents, MLB can't mandate signing bonuses without negotiating with the MLBPA, and the MLBPA won't give in willingly to anything that changes the value of such picks in a way that makes major league teams more reluctant to part with them in exchange for a free agent (which mandated bonuses certainly would).

-- MWE

Anyone hear about Matt Bush, 1st pick in 2004?

Because draft picks are still used as compensation for free agents, MLB can't mandate signing bonuses without negotiating with the MLBPA, and the MLBPA won't give in willingly to anything that changes the value of such picks in a way that makes major league teams more reluctant to part with them in exchange for a free agent (which mandated bonuses certainly would).

Small market clubs should petition MLB to get rid of FA compensation anyway. It seems to benefit the teams in contention more than it benefits the teams coming off losing records.

Anyone hear about Matt Bush, 1st pick in 2004?

he had 16 ks and one walk in 7 ip the Ariz League
he then hurt his elbow in his first class A outing

Small market clubs should petition MLB to get rid of FA compensation anyway. It seems to benefit the teams in contention more than it benefits the teams coming off losing records.

The union would LOVE that
1: No draft pick compensation means the only thing you give up to sign an FA is $
2: No draft pick compensation and MLB can mandate draft slot bonuses- and some of teh money saved on signing draftees will find its way to union members

It seems to benefit the teams in contention more than it benefits the teams coming off losing records.

(I've done this once before but it seemed appropriate...)

Like the Rangers?

And the Giants?

I suppose San Diego technically counts as "in contention", though they've been hovering around .500 until this year.

Like the Rangers?

And the Giants?

I suppose San Diego technically counts as "in contention", though they've been hovering around .500 until this year.

Yes, the Rangers were in contention last year. I'm not sure why the Giants had so much compensation, I guess they had a bunch of old free agents last year. And the Padres won the division last year, so I'm not sure why you brought them up. Point is, it helps teams that can afford to hang on to free agents by the end of the year, which is typically not the teams at the bottom of the standings.

it helps teams that can afford to hang on to free agents by the end of the year

Actually, it helps teams that bring in to-be free agents for the stretch drive.

-- MWE

Why doesn't MLB simply mandate rather than suggest signing bonuses? Would the antitrust exemption not cover this? Alternatively MLB could negotiate a sliding bonus scale with the Union, similar to the NBA's rookie salary scale.


They did get busted for collusion on FA salaries. I'm not sure what the legal reasoning was at the time but it certainly suggests the anti-trust exemption is less than invincible.

Actually, it helps teams that bring in to-be free agents for the stretch drive.


Actually it helps teams who bring up these players because, unless they're incompetent, they KNOW that the next owner is getting draft picks and that value is reflected in the trade price.

They did get busted for collusion on FA salaries. I'm not sure what the legal reasoning was at the time but it certainly suggests the anti-trust exemption is less than invincible.

They got "busted" for collusion because it violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement's anti-collusive action provision, not because the collusion was a violation of anti-trust laws. (Historical aside: the anti-colluding language was placed in the CBA at the insistence of management, not MLBPA, when O'Malley got ticked off that Koufax and Drysdale had a joint hold-out.)

Actually, it helps teams that bring in to-be free agents for the stretch drive.

Like Houston?

(Historical aside: the anti-colluding language was placed in the CBA at the insistence of management, not MLBPA, when O'Malley got ticked off that Koufax and Drysdale had a joint hold-out.)

That's funny. But if Koufax and Drysdale teaming up is colluding, how is a union not colluding?

I have always thought the draft is overrated and forces the club into a corner. It's original idea was to keep bonuses low. That changed by the early 1990's and if the draft was abolished teams wouldn't be held to ransom by the players and their agents. Teams would have the option of telling Player A if he doesn't want to sign for X, then they will move on to Players B,C etc.

In addition if the talent of a certain year was suspect (eg. Matt Bushes year) then teams wouldn't overpay for suspect talent just because that player gets chosen in a certain slot in the draft.

Yes certain teams will have more resources to acquire talent but it would put more emphasis on quality scouting. While some teams would have more resources they would only have so many farm team rosters to fill.

While a free agent situation isn't perfect it would be a better situation than the current system for the MLB clubs. Maybe the better idea would be to put a cap on each team for signing bonuses each year under that system?

That's funny. But if Koufax and Drysdale teaming up is colluding, how is a union not colluding?

I'd think that a union is there to protect all the players, but it also protects management. There's a set of rules between management and the union that can't be broken, and gives management some concessions that they couldn't get without the union (like the draft, long term deals).

how is a union not colluding?


Union's as collective bargaining agencies are specifically exempted from the Sherman Act.

That's funny. But if Koufax and Drysdale teaming up is colluding, how is a union not colluding?

The anti-collusion thing that baseball got rapped for in the 1980's was a direct result of that - they asked the players not to do that in response to Koufax/Drysdale and the players agreed, as long as the owner's didn't either.

The reason why the draft was put into place is so that the best teams (which back then was normally the Yankees then others) would not be able to buy their way to championships by signing all the best prospects. And that appears to have worked, besides the late 90's, no team has really dominated the World Series since the draft began. If you took away the draft today, the Yankees would, for example, be able to offer $5M to every top prospect each year (and there is only 1-5 "sure things" each year), whereas most teams probably can't afford to pay more than $5M for ONE prospect, and thus the Yankees would get more than their share of the top prospects.

My thoughts on this, and I've never been able to think it through to see if it might work but it's a start, is to pool players picked in a range and the teams in that pool would be allowed to sign any of the players in the pool, but only one of them. Maybe it could be every 5 picks (with adjustments for the supplemental rounds where the number of picks vary). That gives more freedom to the draftees, but unless they want to get stuck with the worse team in the grouping, they have some incentive to sign lower with another team. As well, the teams might bid higher for the most desirable player to avoid getting stuck with the "worse" (or least best :^) player.

As I noted, haven't thunk it out, but it just seems to me that the more competitive a situation, the better it should be, as that's how economics work in general. And pooling would prevent the best teams from picking off the best draft prospects. Or maybe pooling is only done for the top picks, top 5 maybe, or pools of 5 for the whole first round only. In any case, it creates a competitive situation, with supply and demand, instead of just a one-to-one negotiation, similar to a musical chairs situation where you don't want to get caught with no chair (or in this case, the chair you didn't want).

Thus there would be less inclination to pass on a Rick Porcello, as you theoretically still have a chance to sign someone else in your pool and stick some other team with Porcello, though I suppose that could push up bonuses for the other guys, particularly if all 5 guys in the pool are Boras clients. Like I said, haven't worked out the kinks.

If you took away the draft today, the Yankees would, for example, be able to offer $5M to every top prospect each year (and there is only 1-5 "sure things" each year), whereas most teams probably can't afford to pay more than $5M for ONE prospect, and thus the Yankees would get more than their share of the top prospects.

This already happens internationally.

This already happens internationally.

Andruw Jones isn't a Yankee, Vlad Guerrero didn't arrive in the majors as a Yankee. There are other examples I could list if I had the time. And although the circumstances are somewhat different, Dice K isn't in pinstripes last time I checked.

Also, just because they sign players for big bonuses doesn't mean they will come to fruition in the majors (Hensley Meulens, The Fat Toad)

Andruw Jones isn't a Yankee, Vlad Guerrero didn't arrive in the majors as a Yankee. There are other examples I could list if I had the time. And although the circumstances are somewhat different, Dice K isn't in pinstripes last time I checked.


I didn't say they got all the top players, I said they got all the top prospects. Obviously this doesn't ensure anything, since prospects can flops. But it sure does mitigate their risk.

As far as Dice-K, yea, the Red Sox are just Yankee-light.

Baseball America: Clubs Will Feel Porcello Aftershocks

I am hoping the clubs that feel it are Minnesota, Cleveland, Kansas City and the White Sox.