The Pope's Bootlick is more an happy to perpetuate any system that causes the poor to suffer. How we are enlightened through their suffering! But of course let's talk about the Yankees, the real oppressors here, who shamefully want to lavish these peasants with soul-threatening windfalls. Rich men and camels and needles and all of that. Fight the good fight you disingenuous lout.

Most of the focus on this thread is on the international draft, and I think some good points are being raised. But the concessions seem ludicrous. Wouldn't quicker arbitration be terribly expensive, particularly for small market clubs that try to grow their own players? I can't imagine why they would sign off on this.

If the MLBPA wants a concession, why not a salary floor? I can't imagine MLB thinks its good from a PR stand point to have the Astros running a barebones operation right now.

MLBPA doesn't want a salary floor, because they believe it opens the door for a cap. They are possibly right in this and so definitely right to avoid a salary floor. Raising the minimum salary is the alternative they would go for.

I think buscones will still get a healthy chunk of cash, if less than before. Players will still want to be showcased, trained... That said, diminishing their influence is clearly part of the motivation here (though, ultimately, it's about cost control).

The loss of talents from baseball is largely about substitution effects. As bonuses fall, some potential players will pursue other things (contributed to the increased popularity of basketball in PR).

Team academies may stick around - to train their foreign signees. It's not like they'd want to bring everyone over to the US from day one (or would have the visas to do so) + they may want to leverage existing facilities.

Randy, I don't think players will allow the foreign "pools" to get as low as you're predicting.

Randy, I don't think players will allow the foreign "pools" to get as low as you're predicting.

If MLB offers to lower the time to arbitration, I bet the MLBPA would agree to a $100 limit on international draft bonuses.

Randy, I don't think players will allow the foreign "pools" to get as low as you're predicting.

Concur. They didn't negotiate down the total slotting for US draftees. Teams are spending more now than before, it's just distributed differently among the MLB teams.

They didn't negotiate down the total slotting for US draftees. Teams are spending more now than before, it's just distributed differently among the MLB teams.

That's not accurate. They spent $208m last year, 12% less than 2011.

55 - Heh.
As a corollary to snapper's note, the addition of bonus pools did not hugely diminish foreign spending - I think that's a signal as to what MLB is preparing to do (maybe diminished slightly, but not significantly).^

Part of why I like hard slots if you're going to have a int'l draft anyway, is:
* it reduces the power of advisors, which should result in their getting a smaller cut
* this isn't a population with as a rich of an set of potential options as US draftees - teams may want the ability to offer more money w/ the current draft to get a guy to pass on college/further college/other sports ... here, it'd be about money now v. potentially waiting to improve your draft position for many kids. (It also should push some kids to the US college system, which has benefits.)


^ coke to jj'86.

That's not accurate. They spent $208m last year, 12% less than 2011.

And up from 2010 ($196M), 2009 ($189M) and 2008 ($188M).

2011 was a fluke year as it was the last chance for teams to splurge. The caps were set above the long-term average.

I thought last year there were still no bonus limits for international signings or the penalties for going over the limit were greatly reduced?

(It also should push some kids to the US college system, which has benefits.)

Only if those kids can afford to pay for college. Baseball players don't get full scholarships like football/basketball players. from the "Baseball struggles to reach black America" thread:

Under NCAA rules, Division I baseball programs are allowed 11.7 scholarships to divide among a roster of about 35 players. In contrast, football offers 85 full scholarships for a roster of 70 and basketball offers 13 full scholarships for a roster of 15.

I think buscones will still get a healthy chunk of cash, if less than before. Players will still want to be showcased, trained

Agree. I wasn't getting why people compared American agents to buscones upthread. The latter takes on a much bigger role in getting a player a contract. The Buscones as a whole are taking more than they should, but they deserve more than what an agent typically gets.

I also have to think that, if there was a draft, you'd see more of the private, buscone-run academies in the DR.

After all, even with a hard-slotted draft, it's likely that the money gained for a good ballplayer would be far more than they could get, say, working as a farmer or trying to run the family store. However, I shutter to think of what types of abuse the Buscones would do.

I'm sure that, unlike with Puerto Rico where the visas aren't a problem, the academies- at least for some teams- would stay open, partially as a way to scout, partially as a way to get game time in before visa issues are worked out, and partially as a PR move. And I'm sure some teams would try to find a way to "hide" certain players too...

Agree. I wasn't getting why people compared American agents to buscones upthread. The latter takes on a much bigger role in getting a player a contract. The Buscones as a whole are taking more than they should, but they deserve more than what an agent typically gets.

But, in a system with a slotted draft and MLB academies, that bigger role largely goes away.

I thought last year there were still no bonus limits for international signings or the penalties for going over the limit were greatly reduced?

Penalties weren't as strong as they will be but they were significant enough that only one team has done so (TB).

Only if those kids can afford to pay for college.

Nature finds a way. It does happen, occasionally, with non-rich kids today... I rambled in the WBC threads about WOSCC, which regularly lands guys from Curacao today - you'd see more of that sort of thing.

I agree with 62. That's another reason I thing hard slots w/ an int'l draft is the way to go - players will not want to be hid.

And I'm sure some teams would try to find a way to "hide" certain players too

No doubt about it.
http://www.prorumors.com/2010/04/rumors/braves-hid-in-backyards-to-scout-jason-heyward-and-jeff-francoeur/

Nature finds a way. It does happen, occasionally, with non-rich kids today

Middle class kids are coming out of undergrad with more debt than most can handle. What makes you think some broke kid from the DR is going to take that risk?

http://www.prorumors.com/2010/04/rumors/braves-hid-in-backyards-to-scout-jason-heyward-and-jeff-francoeur/

Heyward was a top prospect according to everyone, so the Braves really failed at hiding him.

I actually read a bit about how the Dodgers tried to hide Roberto Clemente way back when in an effort to not get him Rule V drafted. Like, they'd purposely sit him whenever there was the slightest suspicion of major scouts being around, and when he did play the manager and front office would always be sure to praise other players more.

What makes you think some broke kid from the DR is going to take that risk?

My understanding is that one way that colleges currently try to compensate for limited athletic scholarships in baseball is by coupling it with need based aid. I bet a lot of these kids have need.
I do not know how that they aren't US citizens comes into play - nor how to deal with frequent gaps in academics and language. (The school I cited above is a juco in the hinterlands of Oklahoma.)
I'm not claiming it would become common - not at all - just more common.

**

Everybody knew about Heyward and Francoeur, as 67 noted.

Here's a NYT article on the school I mentioned.

Heyward was a top prospect according to everyone, so the Braves really failed at hiding him.

A top prospect, but not the guy who should have gone #2 overall that year.

The Braves rated Heyward the best draft-eligible player in the country, ahead of more highly publicized prospects such as Vanderbilt pitcher David Price and high school third baseman Josh Vitters. Somehow, no other club rated Heyward that highly. How could that be? Baldwin smiled wryly when asked that question, paused a moment or two and finally said, "Ummm, what can I say and what can't I? ... Years from now I'll tell you."

The Braves have a cozy relationship with their backyard friends at East Cobb. Since 2000 they have drafted 18 players out of the program. They donate equipment to the organization through their foundation. Braves president and former general manager John Schuerholz sent his son, Jonathan, to play at East Cobb. Atlanta's scouts regularly attend tournaments and workouts there.

"We started really concentrating on East Cobb about 10 years ago," Schuerholz says. "We said, 'This is one of the top amateur programs in the country. Let's make sure we're at the forefront of culling talent out of our own backyard.' We were able to do that for a few years. And all things being equal, we may take the East Cobb player over another player if only because we see them so much and know them so well."

Eugene Heyward believes he knows why other teams were not as high on his son as the Braves: Baldwin and the team quietly downplayed his ability and visibility. They sandbagged the competition. "Roy Clark was a very shrewd man," Eugene says. "They wouldn't update his size information. I believe Jason went to a [showcase event] and was listed at 6'1", 198. Jason was 6'1", 198 maybe two months in his life. The Braves did an excellent job. They lowballed his size.

"Guerry played a part in that. He'd say, 'If you go hit for the Marlins, they're going to pick you.' Guerry is a Braves man. He and Clark and those guys, they did a number."

Says one general manager who passed on drafting Heyward, "The Braves have a history of doing that. [Georgia native Adam] Wainwright's medicals were bad—until it was their turn to pick. They did it with Francoeur and McCann. It's good baseball. They're good at it. You can go ask anybody in baseball and nobody had [Heyward] above Price and Vitters and those guys. He was not in the top five group."

But didn't other teams watch him play? Yes, but in his high school season before the draft, Heyward rarely saw pitches to hit. "I told Jason, 'You have to take your walks,'" Baldwin says. "'You can't change who you are. If scouts aren't smart enough to see that, tough. That's their fault.' He was smart enough not to fall into that trap. Most think, All these people are here to see me hit. They don't want to see me walk."

From SI

For #69 - And as far I know, "need based aid" to most college students is a couple big loans.

What makes you think some broke kid from the DR is going to take that risk?

Because the upside is unlimited and the downside is that you are a slightly older broke kid from the DR?

A top prospect, but not the guy who should have gone #2 overall that year.

Yeah, but if they manage to suppress his ranking from 2nd to 9th, that still doesn't really help a team picking 14th. They got Heyward because Milwaukee and Colorado made bad reach-picks.

I'm getting away from what "should" be the gist of this thread - I don't foresee a big influx of Dominican or Venezuelan students. But...

In the two year old link I posted (again, juco, not a 4-year college. Jucos make more sense here because of redraftability, lower costs, and different academic standards):
D1 jucos cover tuition and room and board
D2 covers tuition, not room and board
D2 schools allow for 24 scholarships (contrast that to D1).
Room and board at this D2 school is $1875/semester. Int'l students are not eligible for pell grants. The kid would need to find a way to get to the school and would presumably need to work in order to afford other living expenses (I presume they could find a way to work under their visa), but this seems like a viable model both for schools and kids (provided that they can get identified).

****

If you're good enough to be ranked 9th nationally - teams have watched the #### out of you - you couldn't have been hidden.

Yeah, but if they manage to suppress his ranking from 2nd to 9th, that still doesn't really help a team picking 14th. They got Heyward because Milwaukee and Colorado made bad reach-picks.

I'm not sure where you're getting 9th from. Even if Milwaukee and Colorado make good picks, the only other team showing much interest in Heyward that high was the Marlins.

And I think you guys are taking the definition of "hiding" to the extreme. The Braves could sandbag a stateside kid that should by all accounts have been easy to scout, teams sure as hell are going to ramp that up in the Carribean come draft time.

BA ranked him 9th pre-draft. [ link ]

There are gradations of hiding, sure. Its use here, however, is beyond the pale.

That said, it's very reasonable to think that the Braves had more knowledge of kids in the East Cobb program than other clubs - simply because they consciously focused efforts on enhanced regional scouting, it's a longstanding part of their philosophy.

BA ranked him 9th pre-draft

And still had him projected to go 14th, with only the Marlins (at 12) being an earlier possibility. I don't know how that doesn't scream to you that teams are lacking important information. Mix that with the quotes above, including from Heyward's father himself, I don't see how you can think the Braves weren't in on preventing teams from acquiring that info.

Fine, they didn't prevent other teams from being able to see him, so I won't refer to it as hiding. But they did a damn good job at controlling the information about him, and at some point even promoting misinformation.

And still had him projected to go 14th, with only the Marlins (at 12) being an earlier possibility. I don't know how that doesn't scream to you that teams are lacking important information.

So, does that means that other instances where their pre-draft rankings don't match up with their mock drafts are instances of players hiding guys or doing a damn good job of controlling information about them?

Also, as to information control - even I knew back then that Heyward didn't weigh 198, even if that's what BA listed him at, and I'm just a dude in his parents' basement (metaphorically). The posted bit takes claims at face value that I think are overstated.

It's hard to take a position on this news without a lot more information than a couple tweets and some rumors at MLBTR. Are we talking one worldwide draft or two drafts? Are all players eligible or would some or all of Cubans, Japanese, Koreans, and Mexicans be exempted? Would 16-year-old foreign players be eligible but not 16-year-old Americans and Canadians? Would players have to register or even declare for the draft, or could they be hidden? Will there be a cap on the bonuses of undrafted players?

All of the above aside, just from an administrative standpoint, it seems almost laughable that the same people who allowed the 2011 Onelkis Garcia draft-day fiasco to occur (and then needed 6-plus months to resolve it) now believe they're ready and able to administer a worldwide draft covering tens of thousands of eligible players.

On the concessions:

The minimum will be going up regardless so that's not much of a concession. Earlier arbitration is something I expect the MLBPA to fight for -- I don't think they have a choice now that teams seem to have finally figured out how much value they get out of pre-FA players. The compromise will probably be an escalating minimum based on service time -- which might actually screw over young fringe players in favor of older fringe players.

But that's pretty much what I think happens without the MLBPA giving up much. You might have to sweeten the pot to get an international draft.

The compromise will probably be an escalating minimum based on service time -- which might actually screw over young fringe players in favor of older fringe players.

Wouldn't it do the opposite? It seems like a lot of older fringe players would get passed over in favor of young fringe players, since the latter would be cheaper.

a massive increase in minor league salaries.

I agree this would be an acceptable thing to get in return. A reduction in bonuses coupled with a tripling of salaries in the Dominican Summer League could be an improvement for both owners and players while hurting only the agents.

The Pope's Bootlick

Heh. Classy. And this, this idiocy, is straight from Higgs Bosun of a man who openly admires George Steinbrenner.

I agree this would be an acceptable thing to get in return. A reduction in bonuses coupled with a tripling of salaries in the Dominican Summer League could be an improvement for both owners and players while hurting only the agents.

The standard DSL salary is less than $3,000 for three months, so it would need to increase by a lot more than triple before the above would be a net win for players.

I'm assuming MLB will continue academies, like they are doing in inner-city America.

Do many players come out of those American academies? Aren't they more of a PR effort to stir up interest and get kids into school or Babe Ruth/American Legion programs? Those programs don't exist in the DR. Will teams continue to fund DR academies when other teams can swoop in and draft "their" prospects? I wouldn't count on it.

The draft, in all its forms, is motivated by a desire to reduce labor costs. Competitive balance is just a smoke screen.

Do many players come out of those American academies? Aren't they more of a PR effort to stir up interest and get kids into school or Babe Ruth/American Legion programs?

No and yes.

Those programs don't exist in the DR. Will teams continue to fund DR academies when other teams can swoop in and draft "their" prospects? I wouldn't count on it.

It's a common misunderstanding, but the so-called academies in the D.R. and VZ are populated almost entirely by players who are already under contract with the team rather than places at which young players are taught the game over months or years. As such, I'd expect little or no change when it comes to the number or operation of the current MLB team facilities in the D.R. and VZ.

Heh. Classy. And this, this idiocy, is straight from Higgs Bosun of a man who openly admires George Steinbrenner.

Imagine if Mr. Steinbrenner utilized his vast resources and influence to cover up for Luis Polonia and Mel Hall. Then you'd surely admire him as a moral paragon.

And it's "boson" not "bosun".

I believe the urban academies have just recently opened like in the last five years...

Wouldn't it do the opposite? It seems like a lot of older fringe players would get passed over in favor of young fringe players, since the latter would be cheaper.

No. The current system gives teams a huge incentive to pick the $400,000 AAA reliever/bench guy over the $2 M veteran reliever/bench guy. If the ML minimum goes 750/1.5/2.5 for years 1,2,3 then there's little/no financial advantage to employing the young guy over the reliable vet. It also lowers the return on draft picks/prospects potentially leading to teams being more willing to surrender draft picks to sign an FA ... but that effect is probably pretty minimal. (I doubt they'll be able to get it up to $2.5 M but anything will cut into that return. $750/1/1.5 might be doable.)

The huge return on a Mike Trout will always be there under any system that resembles the current one so there's little the Union can do about that. But the Union may be concerned about the old guys who are still having decent seasons (e.g. 2011 Derrek Lee) but not getting any interest. The only way to protect fringe veterans is to make the old/young returns more equivalent ... and obviously the Union would rather do that by raising the salaries of young players than by forcing veterans to either retire or offer to work at competitive wages.

There were plenty of good baseball reasons not to give 2012 jobs to Lee, Renteria, Rowand, Miles, Vlad, OCab and Ordonez ... and some of them did get spring training invites ... but those decisions are even easier if we're talking about a $400,000 roll of the dice vs. a $1-2 M roll of the dice.

No. The current system gives teams a huge incentive to pick the $400,000 AAA reliever/bench guy over the $2 M veteran reliever/bench guy.

But why is the "$2M veteran reliever/bench guy" being paid $2M if there's no market for him and/or no graduated minimum salary based on service time?

The huge return on a Mike Trout will always be there under any system that resembles the current one so there's little the Union can do about that. But the Union may be concerned about the old guys who are still having decent seasons (e.g. 2011 Derrek Lee) but not getting any interest. The only way to protect fringe veterans is to make the old/young returns more equivalent ... and obviously the Union would rather do that by raising the salaries of young players than by forcing veterans to either retire or offer to work at competitive wages.

Fringe veterans would be protected if the choice was to pay a young guy $1M or a veteran $1M. But how would fringe veterans be protected if a graduated minimum requires teams to pay veterans more than younger players? A graduated minimum would bring back the same problem outlined in the first quote above.

In the current free for all system of purchasing lottery ticket international players, the big winners are the agents. The big losers are the poorer MLB teams.

I'm not sure that this is true at all, particularly with the current spending quotas in place. Yeah, theoretically the big spending teams could corner the market, but in practice the smarter small market teams also did quite well for themselves. If this article is correct about the league being willing to trade off the 6th year of team control or substantially raise the minimum salary, then those tradeoffs are going to disproportionately hurt small market clubs far more than the international amateur free for all ever did.

In fact, if those are the tradeoffs on the table, then I'm not really sure what MLB's goal is here. It's hard to imagine that international FAs are a bigger financial drain on teams than doubling rookie salaries or losing that last season of arbitration (which might be close to full FA price in most cases, but provides the hidden benefit of extra leverage in pre-FA extension deals). As Walt Davis states above, it would be a boon to the fringe veteran, who suddenly isn't THAT much more expensive than the rookie alternative, but I don't see why the league would care about that.