Read More...The issue of redheadedness and athletic performance took center stage before the 2011 NFL draft, when Sports Illustrated’s Peter King interviewed an anonymous head coach who questioned Texas Christian University product Andy Dalton’s ability to lead a team from the quarterback spot. The scout’s objections were based less on Dalton’s arm strength, pocket presence and his Wonderlic score than his hair color.
“Has there ever been a redheaded quarterback in the NFL who’s really done ...
Login to Join (1 members)
{/exp:tag:subscribed}Page rendered in 0.7948 seconds, 143 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Matt Clement of Alexandria posted on June 06, 2012 at 08:45 AM # hit 0 | hit 0The rules are dumb, but they save the owners money. So here we are.
I assume undrafted seniors become free to sign with anyone.
There is a 100k cap on undrafted free agents. So I guess a college senior that you hope to sign for 20k has some leverage to try to get a team up to 100k, but if he goes unsigned he can never get more than that.
Now that I think about it the fact that college seniors can go beyond the July 13th deadline creates a murky situation. Say you have a slot at 420k and you plan to sign the player for 20k and use the extra for other players. If he doesn't sign on July 13th he is still eligible to sign and so a team still has his entire 420k slot. But can they use it for other players? Let's say they give someone else that 400k and still hope to get the kid signed for 20k. If he doesn't sign, then they don't actually have that extra money. I guess that could be the 5% overage that doesn't lead to a loss of a pick. More likely both sides are heavily incentivized to get a deal done by the deadline.
I don't think it's terribly impressive that teams figured out how to game the system with college seniors. To some extent teams have been doing that in rds 5-10 for years. The key ability to make that happen was that the slots were dramatically increased. Whether they intended it or not, the larger caps created an easy pool of "extra" money to tap into. The initial stories about the pools were hysterical because they missed the fact that the slots were increased so much.
If this system was put into place with the old caps it would have been a much different story. With the higher slots they've reduced and fixed costs somewhat and taken the edge of very aggressive teams like the Sox being able to basically double the value of their draft class or for teams to make single fallers like Porcello or Castellanos huge deals. But the ability to take a several hundred thousand slot and pay a HS kid 1 M is still there as long you move the extra slot money around.
The hysterics about the awful ramifications of the deal always seemed quite overblown to me. Now maybe I'm being sucked in by the fact that the fisr draft class under these new rules is relatively weak and a stronger class will be a different story, but I think in terms of the industry as a whole there won't be any huge negative consequences as a result of the changes.
UFA's can sign for more than 100K - the overage counts against the team's bonus pool.
The slot increases were significant compared to MLB's previous "guidelines", but the money in aggregate is less than what clubs were actually spending. (as you know, philly, i'm just clarifying)
I do agree that there are unlikely to be huge negative consequences. Baseball will lose some two sport guys, some preps will opt for college, some juniors will stay in school an extra year, and draft results will look goofy in a different way than that they previously did. Not so bad.
That's about as good a summation as any.
I have sneaking suspicion that the distortions will be a little less severe than under the old CBA, but we should definitely be in wait and see mode.
BA has a list of the seniors picked in the 1st 10 rds. There were 61 give or take. Unfortunately they don't state how many are usually taken, but it's not zero. And the distribution is interesting.
Tor, Bos, NYY and Tex all took five or more. Was, Cubs and StL took 3. Everybody else was 0-2. I'd guess that those 23 teams didn't alter their distribution all that much. These rules were designed to reign in big market teams (Bos, NY, Cubs) and/or aggressive teams (Was, Tor). So they had to do goofy things and will probably get a little less talent. Whether that's good, bad or disastrous depends on your pov I guess. If some of the other teams end up picking up some of that lost talent, then it's net neutral or close to it for the sport as a whole.
I am not 100% sure about this but I don't think so. I'm fairly certain the Mexican League has some sort of agreement with MLB to honor each others' contracts and what not. A player could play in one of the independent leagues for a year and then be a free agent, as did J.D. Drew. Don't take this as gospel though, I'm sure that someone else knows more about this than I do.
The one thing I don't understand is why pundits keep saying things like this:
Unless I'm missing something, these new rules give substantial additional leverage to college seniors who are drafted from R1 to R10. Smart college seniors will simply wait until the deadline, knowing the deadline doesn't apply to them. I'm sure the vast majority of the drafted seniors up to R10 were pre-draft deals, but those aren't really binding (or legal). If these seniors banded together (or even acted intelligently at the individual level), they could wreak havoc with some teams' strategies. None of that "extra" slot money can safely be spent unless the senior signs first (and for below slot).
But if their respective team spends their money while counting them as a 10K sign, where's the leverage for the senior? They say sign me for X or else you'll lose my entire slot? Well, if we sign you for X, we'll lose most of the money we were saving for overslots anyway, so what's the point? Go pound sand.
If you are drafted, a team owns your rights for a year. Then you re-enter the draft. You are subject to the draft every year until you are completely undrafted.
Several players have done something similar to what you suggested - just in an indy league, not the Mexican League. Luke Hochevar, JD Drew, and Aaron Crow are the more notable examples. All had to re-enter the draft.(Drew was not made a FA as #9 suggests, he was drafted by the Cardinals)
That's the point: The teams really can't spend above-slot money until the below-slot player has signed, or else the team would be in jeopardy of exceeding the spending caps.
I'm not suggesting a senior drafted with a $200,000 slot number has leverage to get the full $200,000. But the new system, by attaching actual values to players/slots, gives seniors far more leverage than they had a year ago, when teams could make "take it or leave it" offers without any adverse consequences.
and Matt Harrington.
Travis Lee (and I think 4 others) were declared free agents at one point without having to re-enter the draft, but they closed that route off after that.
Most of these seniors just want a chance to play pro baseball. There is the occasional James Ramsey type who is a good enough prospect to have a little negotiating power, but the vast majority of these seniors are nobodies. They are the kind of guys who would have gone in the 25th round last year. Their options are sign now, or never, ever play pro baseball.
The rule was amended to give teams a warning if they didn't submit a contract within 15 days, and a 15 day window of submitting a contract after that warning.
I'd say it's bad for the HS pitcher who either goes to college and gets hurt and ends up never getting a signing bonus, or the one who takes the crappy signing bonus in Round 8 and gets hurt rather than taking a higher bonus under the old rules.
Not a pitcher, but Kenny Diekroger turned down a $2 million offer out of high school, regressed in college, and was taken in the fourth round this year by the Royals where I imagine he'll have to settle for slot money.
Right. I figure that's why we saw so many marginal types tabbed, rather than more guys in the Dugas/Tucker class (a grade or two below Ramsey/Lopez, but more than roster filler). Fussing around at bonus time has either been obviated through a pre-draft handshake (which I imagine most guys would honor) or makes it likely that you won't get a fair shake upon signing - and the opportunity may be worth more to them than 40% of slot.
I don't know. If I'm turning down $$ I want the exposure and competition of a big time college. I'd also want the scholarship to be worth some bucks.
Isn't the slotting going to have a significant effect on the number of African-Americans playing? And in the direction that MLB is supposed to be against? A disproportionate number of two-sport stars (compared to MLB draftees as a whole) are black. Same goes for high school draftees as compared to college draftees.
If you go to a big time college you're committed for 3 years before re-entering the draft. Junior college is a 1 year commitment.
Also I think if you are a known in high school, you will remain known no matter where you go. Bryce Harper had no problems getting exposure at College of Southern Nevada.
29: Yeah, that kid's school season was cancelled due to illness or something. Alaniz? The O's signed Glynn Davis for decent money (100-125K?) out of a small juco as a NDFA after he showed 80 speed in summer ball two or so years back.
Well let's all finally mark their accomplishments with a unanimous "Drat".
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.