Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, June 07, 2007

2007 Draft (Day 1) Thread - 2 PM EDT on ESPN2 and MLB.com

UPDATE: Baseball America - Draft 2007: First-Round Review

“I’m just glad it promotes the sport,” Gammons said after a Wednesday night rehearsal in The Milk House with fellow Draft commentators Karl Ravech and Steve Phillips. “There were years when the clubs would announce their first-round picks, then not tell you for a week and a half who was taken in the other rounds.

“It just shows that baseball really got what they never got before, which is to promote young talent. David Stern did that with the NBA. Bud Selig is doing that now, with guys like (Jose) Reyes and (David) Wright. They said, ‘Wait a minute, we should be selling our young players, too.’ Throw a guy like (Grady) Sizemore in there, too. Today’s group of players under 27 is the best of any in that age group in the last 35 years. Without a doubt. Now young talent is really being showcased.”

MLB.com: Draft is game’s big day, growing bigger

A catch-all thread for the day’s activities.

NTNgod Posted: June 07, 2007 at 07:23 AM | 537 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: amateur

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.

Page 1 of 6 pages  1 2 3 4 5 6 > 
   1. Halofan Posted: June 07, 2007 at 07:29 AM (#2395925)
Will it get higher ratings than the Stanley Cup on NBC?
   2. Xander Posted: June 07, 2007 at 07:30 AM (#2395926)
This is gonna be awesome.
   3. NTNgod Posted: June 07, 2007 at 07:38 AM (#2395928)
Because Boras is scaring off some of the teams ahead of them, a player or two who might normally be off the board could be available... Do [the Brewers] make a bold move and select a Boras client with tremendous talent or go for a safer, easier-to-sign player who might not be as special?

"That's a decision we have to make," said general manager Doug Melvin, who sat in on the team's draft meetings at a downtown hotel this week..."We may be bold. We haven't decided yet."
...
But if the Brewers ever are going to take a chance, this would be the year. Because of a high number of compensation picks after the first round and the forfeiture of their second-round pick to St. Louis for signing free agent Jeff Suppan, the Brewers don't select again until No. 101 in the third round.

That gap could embolden the Brewers to take a chance with one of Boras' players.
...
"That's a risk you maybe take. We've discussed it, but we haven't determined it yet," said Melvin. "Would we take a player at the risk of not signing him? Then you'd get another player next year.

"If you're at least getting a player next year it might be worth the gamble to take a guy and negotiate, see if you can convince them this is the place to sign. We're not saying we won't take a Boras guy."
MIL J-S: Which way - bold or safe?

BOLD! BOLD! Weiters! Weiters!
   4. Balkroth Posted: June 07, 2007 at 07:55 AM (#2395930)
Will it get higher ratings than the Stanley Cup on NBC?


People watch hockey?
   5. NTNgod Posted: June 07, 2007 at 07:55 AM (#2395931)
At pick #2 and the Royals: KC Star: Royals avoiding Boras
The Royals focused on four high school players Wednesday night in narrowing their choices for selection with the second overall pick in today’s draft.

Third baseman Josh Vitters appeared to top a list that also consisted of shortstop Matt Moustakas, right-hander Jarrod Parker and catcher Devin Mesoraco.
...
“We’re going to select a player,” general manager Dayton Moore said, “who has a realistic view of his value."
...
That explains why the club’s list does not include right-hander Rick Porcello, who is represented by Scott Boras and is believed to be seeking a deal in excess of $8 million.
   6. NTNgod Posted: June 07, 2007 at 07:59 AM (#2395932)
At pick #3 and the Cubs: Chicago Tribune: Rogers - For Cubs, it's no wild Moose chase (RR)
Moustakas is listed at 6 feet, 185 pounds. He's only 18 years old but certainly hits like a grown-up. He's the guy the Cubs should select in Thursday's amateur draft, even though the difficult Scott Boras represents him.
...
On the eve of the draft, it wasn't clear which way the Cubs would go. Indiana gas man Jarrod Parker—he of the unnatural fastball—and Josh Vitters, like Moustakas a high school infielder from California, were being heavily discussed, according to sources.
...
But the thing that almost definitely scares the Cubs away from Wieters is that he's looking for a three- or four-year major-league contract in the vicinity of $10 million total.

It remains unclear if the Cubs can take on obligations beyond 2007 as Tribune Co. takes itself private. Lawyerly language to that regard appears to be what suspended the talks between Carlos Zambrano and the Cubs in April. With an Aug. 15 deadline to sign picks—another new twist this year—the Cubs would be taking a big risk selecting Wieters.
   7. NTNgod Posted: June 07, 2007 at 08:05 AM (#2395933)
At pick #4 and the Pirates: PIT Post-Gazette: Pirates pick 4th, but they may have limited options
Vitters, 6 feet 2, 195 pounds, from Cypress, Calif., has an outstanding bat and should develop into a power hitter. Baseball America, famed for its ranking of prospects, has Vitters No. 1 among high school players in its "best pure hitter" and "closest to the majors" categories.

That, of course, is why the Cubs like him and could snatch him from the Pirates... So, what if the Pirates don't have a chance at Vitters and decide to pass on Wieters?
...
That could leave the Pirates to pick from Missouri State left-hander Ross Detwiler, Clemson left-hander Daniel Moskos and high school outfielder Jason Heyward.

Then there's Beau Mills, whose father, Brad, coaches with the Boston Red Sox. Beau Mills' name has surfaced in some quarters as the Pirates' first-round pick.
   8. NTNgod Posted: June 07, 2007 at 08:09 AM (#2395934)
At pick #5 is the Orioles: Boras might hear name called when O's draft 5th
That includes Georgia Tech catcher Matt Wieters, who is believed to sit atop the list of potential picks for the Orioles at No. 5. He'll be given serious consideration if he's available, according to multiple sources, even with Boras in the mix.
...
An Orioles official joked that the dollar figures make him uneasy as well, but Wieters remains a favorite within the front office. The official said he would expect the Washington Nationals to grab Wieters with the sixth pick if the Orioles pass on him.
...
As for the cost of signing Wieters, one official said the team still was trying to determine which past selections Boras deems comparable to the catcher. The Orioles hoped to have a better understanding by last night.

Wieters and Canadian right-hander Phillippe Aumont appear to be the top names on the Orioles' board, though they'll also strongly consider Missouri State left-hander Ross Detwiler, who could be taken by the Kansas City Royals with the second pick.
   9. NTNgod Posted: June 07, 2007 at 08:12 AM (#2395935)
Picking right ahead of the Brewers are the Nats: Still Mulling Whom to Get With 6th Pick (RR)
Though some top Nationals executives prefer to take a hitter with the sixth pick, it's possible that Porcello, who will be represented by the notoriously hard-driving Scott Boras, could fall in the draft and be available at No. 6. The club would then have a choice -- take Porcello and risk not being able to sign him, or take another player they like less.
...
Still, several club officials would like to end up with either Vitters or Moustakas.
This better not be a repeat of 2005, when they also picked one slot ahead of the Brewers, and grabbed Zimmerman (who before the draft, I really, really wanted to see fall to Milwaukee - not that Braun was a bad second choice). If they grab Wieters...
   10. NTNgod Posted: June 07, 2007 at 08:20 AM (#2395938)
The Rockies at #8: Rocky Mountain News: Rockies set sights on closer
The Rockies appeared to be leaning toward right-handed closer Casey Weathers of Vanderbilt, a junior college outfielder who has dominated hitters at the major-college level.

His fastball runs 95 mph to 98 mph, complimented by an 89 mph silder.

Also in consideration are left- handed reliever Dan Moskos of Clemson, third baseman Mike Moustakas of Chastworth (Calif.) High School and right-handed pitcher Phillippe Aumont, a high schooler out of Quebec.
   11. NTNgod Posted: June 07, 2007 at 08:22 AM (#2395939)
At #9, the D-Backs: Arizona Republic: Unpredictable draft awaits
The Diamondbacks have Boras clients ranked highly on their board, but they aren't expected to select one, not after giving Boras client, Max Scherzer, their first-round pick from last year, a guaranteed $4.3 million last week.

If they are, in fact, staying away from Boras clients - a talented stable that includes New Jersey prep pitcher Rick Porcello, Georgia Tech catcher Matt Wieters and California prep slugger Mike Moustakas - it would benefit them if the three players are selected among the top eight picks.

Should that happen, the club might be able to choose from a handful of pitchers, including: Canadian prep right-hander Phillipe Aumont, Clemson lefty Daniel Moskos, Indiana prep right-hander Jarrod Parker, Arkansas lefty Nick Schmidt or Vanderbilt right-hander Casey Weathers.
   12. MM1f Posted: June 07, 2007 at 08:31 AM (#2395940)
Perfect Game USA's (a scouting org) mock draft:
http://www.pgcrosschecker.com/draft/2007/notebooks/davidrawnsley/notebook_6607.aspx

Dave Rawnsley, the guy doing it, who will be working on ESPN2 tomorrow, notes that Royals GM Dayton Moore watched Jarrod Parker pitch this week. So Parker is looking like the fall back for pick #2.

This should be fun.
   13. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: June 07, 2007 at 09:43 AM (#2395946)
Is there an article I can read that descibes how the order was set?

I can't work out why we are 55 but read somewhere, that the Lugo signing is the reason.

Thanks in advance, if possible.

Draft starts ar midnight local time, but I'll be up at 5.30 to watch Schiling lose, should be a great day!
   14. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: June 07, 2007 at 11:43 AM (#2395954)
Will it get higher ratings than the Stanley Cup on NBC?
People watch hockey?


Apparently not. A local sports wag was looking at the ratings and Game 2 or 3 had lower ratings than 2 episodes of "Mama's Family" on Ion (former PAX, apparently).
   15. Russ Posted: June 07, 2007 at 11:54 AM (#2395959)
If the Cubs take Vitters and the Pirates pass on Moustakas, I'm going to go completely ape ####.
   16. The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 11:55 AM (#2395960)
"I can't imagine all six teams ahead of us won't sign their players," Melvin said. "We might drop to eighth or ninth at the most. I think three or four of the other clubs are going to want their players and will sign them."
So that means he expects two or three of the top six teams to not sign their draft picks?
   17. Tim Wallach was my Hero Posted: June 07, 2007 at 11:57 AM (#2395961)
« People watch hockey?
Apparently not. »

Americans don't watch hockey. But others do. But you should, it's a fun game. Only in hockey (and maybe soccer) can a guy score in his own net during the last game of the final...

As in baseball, there are very few player chosen during the NHL draft that have an impact right after they are taken. Most of them go back to Junior hockey or to the NCAA and just crack the NHL lineup 2-4 years after they were drafted. Despite this, the draft always draws a lot of (Canadian) fans either on TV or directly in the arena where it takes place.
   18. Tim Wallach was my Hero Posted: June 07, 2007 at 12:04 PM (#2395963)
I'm rooting for Aumont, although I would'nt draft him...

He'll be the first Quebec-born player (and first French-Canadian) to be chosen in the first round (that's if you exclude Ntema Ndungidi, who was a sandwich pick), and that's something many people here are very excited about.
   19. Mike Emeigh Posted: June 07, 2007 at 12:11 PM (#2395965)
Is there an article I can read that describes how the order was set?


This one.

Losing Type A free agents draws a draft pick from the signing club as well as a supplemental pick, as before, but losing Type B free agents now gets a team a supplemental pick instead of a pick from the signing club. Type C free agents no longer get any compensation, thus eliminating the supplemental second round.


The compensatory picks for Type A free agents were awarded as follows: if a team drafted in the second half of the first round, they lost their first-round pick. Otherwise, they lost their second-round pick. Teams that signed more than one Type A free agent - the Orioles, Indians, Astros, and Giants - gave up multiple picks, based on how the free agents were ranked. For example, SF signed Zito, Rich Aurilia, and Dave Roberts, who were ranked in that order among the Type A free agents. Because SF drafts #10 in the first round, they got to keep that pick. The A's therefore got the Giants' second-round pick, the Reds their third-round pick, and their Padres the fourth-round pick. The Indians signed Roberto Hernandez and David Dellucci, and Hernandez was ranked higher than Dellucci in the Type A list (believe it or not); thus the Mets got Cleveland's second-round pick and the Phillies their third-rounder. The Astros signed Carlos Lee and Woody Williams; since Houston drafted at #17, they lost their first-round pick to the Rangers and their second-rounder to the Padres.

-- MWE
   20. Mike Emeigh Posted: June 07, 2007 at 12:12 PM (#2395966)
The Red Sox lost their first round pick to the Dodgers because they signed Type A free agent Lugo. They got picks at 55 and 62 for losing Alex Gonzalez and Keith Foulke, both Type B free agents.

-- MWE
   21. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: June 07, 2007 at 12:15 PM (#2395968)
As in baseball, there are very few player chosen during the NHL draft that have an impact right after they are taken. Most of them go back to Junior hockey or to the NCAA and just crack the NHL lineup 2-4 years after they were drafted. Despite this, the draft always draws a lot of (Canadian) fans either on TV or directly in the arena where it takes place.

And puckbunnies
   22. Mike Emeigh Posted: June 07, 2007 at 12:18 PM (#2395972)
So that means he expects two or three of the top six teams to not sign their draft picks?


Not exactly. I think he means that a couple of the teams drafting in front of the Brewers will take players who the Brewers thought would be available to them at #7, so they may have to go down their list to #8 or #9. (which makes it pretty clear, IMO, that the Brewers won't take a player high on that list that drops.)

With the new compensatory draft pick rule, I'm amazed that signability is playing as much of a role in this draft as it appears to be.

-- MWE
   23. T.J. Posted: June 07, 2007 at 12:35 PM (#2395981)
Madison Bumgarner pitches right down the road from me. The high school team he's on has three pitchers who signed with D-1 schools.
   24. Kyle S Posted: June 07, 2007 at 12:51 PM (#2395984)
If the Royals nab Parker at second overall, how far does Porcello fall? I assume that the Cubs will get Vitters, the Pirates will take Beau Mills or the Pennsylvania catcher (*sigh*), the Orioles jump on Wieters... is that someone the Nats would consider taking, or does he slide even further?
   25. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: June 07, 2007 at 01:04 PM (#2395990)
Thanks very much, Mike Emeigh.

Something to sink my teeth into before I go to bed.

Enjoy the day everyone
   26. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 01:13 PM (#2395995)
I've lowered my expectations for the Pirates enough that I've decided I'll be happy as long as they don't take Moskos. Other than that, I really don't care.

Numb.
   27. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 01:36 PM (#2396012)
I did all my Thursday work yesterday so I would have nothing to do today but follow the draft. How big a nerd am I?
   28. The Original SJ Posted: June 07, 2007 at 01:51 PM (#2396034)
Losing Keith Foulke? Didn't he retire?
   29. Boutros Boutros-Beltran Posted: June 07, 2007 at 01:52 PM (#2396037)
omg does baseball ever need a slotting system. The mock draft on MLB.com has Porcello going to the Yankees at 30. Why don't we just scrap the draft altogether and let teams sign whomever they like as free agents. Holy crap am I mad right now.

Here's a novel idea that will never get implemented. Implement a rule that teams can only have 1 minor league team (place for players not in the majors to play or rehab). Let the other minor leagues go back to being independent.
- It would make the draft alot more interesting, because the players you select would be alot closer to the majors and helping your team out (like the NBA / NFL).
- The draft would be shorter and less of a crap shoot so it would actually help competitive balance (if we didn't let Boras tactics ruin it).
- It would make minor league baseball alot more interesting since teams would be more focused on winning than developing players.
   30. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 01:56 PM (#2396043)
Losing Keith Foulke? Didn't he retire?

He did, but not before signing with the Indians.

Here's a novel idea that will never get implemented. Implement a rule that teams can only have 1 minor league team (place for players not in the majors to play or rehab). Let the other minor leagues go back to being independent.
- It would make the draft alot more interesting, because the players you select would be alot closer to the majors and helping your team out (like the NBA / NFL).
- The draft would be shorter and less of a crap shoot so it would actually help competitive balance (if we didn't let Boras tactics ruin it).
- It would make minor league baseball alot more interesting since teams would be more focused on winning than developing players.


Wouldn't this just cause a ton of players to be in the big leagues who have no business being there? Kinda like the bonus baby days of the 50s? And to solve what? The need for fans to see immediate impact? I'd also think it would increase the costs teams have to pay draftees since they would make a quicker impact.
   31. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 01:57 PM (#2396045)
"Losing Keith Foulke? Didn't he retire?"

He did, but not before he signed with the Indians as a free agent.
   32. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 02:04 PM (#2396049)
Jinx!
   33. Boutros Boutros-Beltran Posted: June 07, 2007 at 02:10 PM (#2396057)
Well I didn't say it was a good idea. There is just a lot of talk recently about making the draft more of an interest to fan's and it won't ever happen because it's just too much like throwing darts. I'd trade anything for a system though where a team could take the best available player instead of the best available player "with a realistic view of his value". oh I'm so mad.
   34. Hurdle's Heroes (SuperBaes) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 02:14 PM (#2396059)
With the new compensatory draft pick rule, I'm amazed that signability is playing as much of a role in this draft as it appears to be.

With the new, very soon deadline to sign draft picks, sign and follow is not an option late, but signability is huge. Boras was ready to let Matsuzaka go back to Japan in order to change the posting system; you think he won't hesitate to let Wieters or Porcello take it on the chin as a protest to the August 15th signing date?
   35. Randy Jones Posted: June 07, 2007 at 02:17 PM (#2396060)
I'd trade anything for a system though where a team could take the best available player instead of the best available player "with a realistic view of his value". oh I'm so mad.

That's incredibly easy to do. Eliminate pre-FA arbitration and make players FA's after 3 years of MLB service(like NBA and NFL players). This would seriously devalue draft picks, so signing bonuses would go down a lot. Of course, this would totally screw over lower revenue teams, but hey, you said anything.
   36. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 02:21 PM (#2396063)
One system that might actually work: Pay all minor-league players the same amount of money, whether they're a NDFA or the top overall pick, with either equal signing bonuses for everybody or none at all. You could scale it so that the overall amount of money paid out would be the same (possibly scaled to gross league revenue), and while agents would scream, it would probably help a lot more players than it hurt.
   37. Randy Jones Posted: June 07, 2007 at 02:28 PM (#2396069)
One system that might actually work: Pay all minor-league players the same amount of money, whether they're a NDFA or the top overall pick, with either equal signing bonuses for everybody or none at all. You could scale it so that the overall amount of money paid out would be the same (possibly scaled to gross league revenue), and while agents would scream, it would probably help a lot more players than it hurt.

This would just result in every pick projected to go in the top few rounds demanding a major league contract.
   38. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 02:37 PM (#2396077)
I have a hard time understanding why the Royals are balking so much at Scott Boras' pay demands. Let me get this straight - they just spent $55 million on a guy that produced the numbers of a #4 starter, hoping he would turn into a #1 starter like Jason Schmidt or Chris Carptenter. But they won't spend the $2-4 million extra it would take to land Matt Wieters or Rick Porcello. Huh?
   39. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 02:40 PM (#2396080)
"This would just result in every pick projected to go in the top few rounds demanding a major league contract."

No, I mean a uniform salary for all minor leaguers. Even if you're on the 40-man, you still don't make ML money until you're called up.
   40. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 02:43 PM (#2396086)
No, I mean a uniform salary for all minor leaguers. Even if you're on the 40-man, you still don't make ML money until you're called up.

First round draftees don't make huge salaries (unles they have MLB contracts), do they? They just get a crapload in signing bonuses.
   41. Boutros Boutros-Beltran Posted: June 07, 2007 at 02:43 PM (#2396087)
I have a hard time understanding why the Royals are balking so much at Scott Boras' pay demands. Let me get this straight - they just spent $55 million on a guy that produced the numbers of a #4 starter, hoping he would turn into a #1 starter like Jason Schmidt or Chris Carptenter. But they won't spend the $2-4 million extra it would take to land Matt Wieters or Rick Porcello. Huh?


Yeah, it's baffling me too. They are comparing Porcello to Beckett. I know high school righties are the biggest risk in the draft, but you can't afford to pass on a guy like this. He's probably alot more likely to pan out than any other high school righty in the draft. You have only a few chances to draft this high, don't turn your #2 pick into a #3 or #10 pick because you are too cheap to sign the second best player.
   42. Brian Posted: June 07, 2007 at 02:49 PM (#2396093)
You have only a few chances to draft this high, don't turn your #2 pick into a #3 or #10 pick because you are too cheap to sign the second best player.

Don't worry, the Royals will have plenty of chances to draft in the top few spots.
   43. Mike Emeigh Posted: June 07, 2007 at 02:49 PM (#2396094)
The Royals have apparently settled on Vitters.

-- MWE
   44. Randy Jones Posted: June 07, 2007 at 02:50 PM (#2396095)
No, I mean a uniform salary for all minor leaguers. Even if you're on the 40-man, you still don't make ML money until you're called up.

Except that then the union will get involved as they cover everyone with a major league contract, don't they? In which case, this is a no go from the start.
   45. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 02:54 PM (#2396098)
"First round draftees don't make huge salaries (unles they have MLB contracts), do they? They just get a crapload in signing bonuses."

Perhaps I'm not explaining it well. Let me try again.

You add up the cumulative total of all salaries and signing bonuses paid to new draftees/NDFA signings/minor-league players last year, and figure out what % that is of MLB gross revenues to establish a baseline. Then, you divide that money equally among all players in the minors. You can either not pay signing bonuses to anybody and have it all paid out as pure salary, or you can pay a small (uniform) bonus to all players who were just drafted or are signing as a free agent with a team in the organized minors for the first time.
   46. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 02:55 PM (#2396099)
The Royals have apparently settled on Vitters.

Last year the reports were the Royals had settled on Brad Lincoln. Sometimes I think the Royals are running around like a chicken with its head cut-off on draft day. I don't even think they know who they're taking.
   47. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 02:57 PM (#2396100)
"Except that then the union will get involved as they cover everyone with a major league contract, don't they? In which case, this is a no go from the start."

Maybe not. You'd have to negotiate any changes with the union anyway, since it'd affect the draft, and if they've got good negotiators they'll be open to most proposals as long as you're willing to offer them something significant back in return.

Personally, I think the union would be more than willing to bargain away the rights of people who aren't actually members yet, in exchange for some tangible consideration for themselves (higher minimum salaries in MLB, better pensions, etc.).
   48. 1k5v3L Posted: June 07, 2007 at 02:57 PM (#2396101)
The Royals have apparently settled on Vitters.


An owner in my NL only keeper league won't be happy. He also has Ryan Dent and Justin Jackson
   49. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 03:00 PM (#2396106)
I mean, it's not like too many lifelong benchies in MLB right now are thrilled about the idea of someone like Porcello becoming a multi-millionaire out of high school. Jealousy is a powerful wedge.
   50. Kyle S Posted: June 07, 2007 at 03:10 PM (#2396115)
Vlad, you communist! All that does is redistribute money from Porcello to bad players. There are much easier ways of accomplishing your goal without destroying the link between compensation and performance/talent - just use the NBA's slotting system, for instance.
   51. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 03:20 PM (#2396125)
"All that does is redistribute money from Porcello to bad players."

Which isn't necessarily such a bad thing, IMO. The bad players are going to need it more, down the road.

"There are much easier ways of accomplishing your goal without destroying the link between compensation and performance/talent"

Ah, but what we have right now isn't a link between compensation and performance/talent, either. What we have right now is a link between compensation and perceived performance/talent. Not the same thing. If a 24th-round pick comes in and tears up the Pioneer League, it's not going to have any real effect on his paycheck the next season.
   52. Mike Emeigh Posted: June 07, 2007 at 03:21 PM (#2396127)
It is clear that an NBA-style slotting system won't fly in the current labor climate, until and unless MLB gives up draft pick compensation for teams losing free agents.

-- MWE
   53. billyshears Posted: June 07, 2007 at 03:23 PM (#2396130)
Talent, even unproven talent, has value. I see nothing wrong with allowing players to recoup the market value for their talent. If spending money on the draft was an inefficient use of resources, I would expect the Giants to be a better team. At it's core, unless you have a vested interest in keeping salaries down (or unless you just want your small market team to have a better chance at the top players), being offended at the size of the bonuses that drafted players receive smacks of old-fogeyism.
   54. Greg Schuler Posted: June 07, 2007 at 03:32 PM (#2396138)
The MLBPA only looks after the welfare of players on 40 man rosters and those with MLB experience in the minors. Unlike hokcey, there is no union for minor league players that don't fall under those exceptions. The MLBPA is only involved in the draft because of the free agent compensation rules. If MLB removed that, they could do what they wanted without having to collectively bargain (as they do now with the draft).

As for some of the suggestions - well, let's just say that owners have through the years tried what some have suggested (since the draft was started, anyway). During the 1970s and 1980s, drastic cuts were made in the number of affiliated minor league teams. The owners are quite happy to cut costs (getting rid of the complex leagues, for example) and would love to force slotting on incoming draftees.

Why not just eliminate the draft altogether? Go back to the ivory hunter days of Hugh Alexander adn Sinister Dick Kensella.
   55. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 03:33 PM (#2396140)
It is clear that an NBA-style slotting system won't fly in the current labor climate, until and unless MLB gives up draft pick compensation for teams losing free agents.

Which I'd love to see anyway, because its kinda turned the draft into a joke.
   56. cardsfanboy Posted: June 07, 2007 at 03:53 PM (#2396155)
I love the draft pick compensation, think that it is a bit of strategy that a good gm can use to his advantage. I don't see why slotting would eliminate that bit of strategy though.
   57. JC in DC Posted: June 07, 2007 at 03:57 PM (#2396158)
Will televising the draft, in people's opinions, lead to other things, like allowing trading of picks, that enhance the interest in the lottery in other sports?
   58. Dewey, Crackpot and Soupuss Posted: June 07, 2007 at 03:57 PM (#2396159)
Why not just eliminate the draft altogether?

I strongly advocate this, for many reasons.
   59. Mike Emeigh Posted: June 07, 2007 at 03:59 PM (#2396162)
I don't see why slotting would eliminate that bit of strategy though.


The tradeoff that MLB would have to give the MLBPA in order to get NBA-style slotting would be the elimination of draft pick compensation.

-- MWE
   60. Dewey, Crackpot and Soupuss Posted: June 07, 2007 at 04:14 PM (#2396171)
Will televising the draft, in people's opinions, lead to other things, like allowing trading of picks, that enhance the interest in the lottery in other sports?

I don't see draft picks becoming a valuable trade commodity, even if it is allowed. Baseball draft picks aren't expected to step in and begin contributing immediately, the way they do in football and basketball, so they're not going to engender as much interest.

I could see it happening every once in a long while, if some amateur is just blowing everyone away (like Mark Prior in 2001), but guys like that are pretty few and far-between.
   61. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 04:18 PM (#2396172)
You think they might settle for partial elimination, Mike? Removing the loss of picks for signing FAs, but still award compensatory picks for losing FAs?
   62. Shibal Posted: June 07, 2007 at 04:20 PM (#2396173)
Just my opinion here, but the compensation for not signing a draft pick is being way overlooked here. Draftees have lost an incredible hammer with this rule change...why would the Royals vastly overpay slot for the #2 pick when they'll have the #3 pick next year? Will Vitters reach the majors and be more productive than some of the stud college hitters eligible next year? I doubt it.

Teams that are picking high will be able to draft a 'signability' guy, make a take it or leave it offer, and take the draft pick the next season if the player decides to leave it. No big loss if he doesn't take it. A good deal if he does.

I expect the news out of this draft will be the much small signing bonuses offered by teams, and come August 15th Scott Boras will be gleefully derided by the media as having lost much of his mojo.
   63. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 04:22 PM (#2396174)
You think they might settle for partial elimination, Mike? Removing the loss of picks for signing FAs, but still award compensatory picks for losing FAs?

I wouldn't mind seeing free agency decoupled from the draft altogether, and instead going back to allowing teams losing free agents to choose from a small pool of minor leaguers (no stud prospects or anything) from the team that signed their free agent.

Can't see the union ever going for that though.
   64. The Original SJ Posted: June 07, 2007 at 04:28 PM (#2396176)
Will televising the draft, in people's opinions, lead to other things, like allowing trading of picks, that enhance the interest in the lottery in other sports?

I can't see the how the trading of draft picks and the FA compensation system can coexist.
   65. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: June 07, 2007 at 04:32 PM (#2396177)
The tradeoff that MLB would have to give the MLBPA in order to get NBA-style slotting would be the elimination of draft pick compensation.
...which-can't-happen-w/o-mgmt-losing-control-over-some-traditional-negotiated-aspects-of-the-cba.
thus,it-can't-happen.

[note,i-can't-use-my-spacebar.every-time-i-do,it-opens-heretofore-unused
ms-outlook-and-sometimes-puts-my-computer-in-standby-mode.very,very-annoying.]
   66. Sparkles Peterson Posted: June 07, 2007 at 04:42 PM (#2396186)
If we all agree that the draft is one of the more efficient ways to get talent into your system, and I think we do, then it follows that changes to the system aren't really needed. Certain front offices just need to be less short-sighted. I hate seeing a player drop to the Yankees too, but they have less of an advantage in player acquisition here than they do anywhere else.
   67. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 04:53 PM (#2396199)
I think the Royals have been linked to 8-10 players now.

BA: Royals taking Moustakas

Jim Callis, on his way to a Chicagoland studio to participate in ESPN’s draft coverage, reports the Royals appear to have settled on Mike Moustakas with the No. 2 overall pick. That would slide Josh Vitters to the Cubs at No. 3. The Royals looked like they were on Vitters at 2 last night, but they now have changed their minds. Indiana prep righty Jarrod Parker is the odd man out in this scenario, dropping from the Cubs at 3, probably to the Diamondbacks at 9 or Giants at 10. He won’t get past the Marlins at 12.
This leaves the Orioles as the biggest question mark in the first five picks. Stay tuned.
   68. Tike Redman's Shattered Dreams (shayborg) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 04:56 PM (#2396201)
Just my opinion here, but the compensation for not signing a draft pick is being way overlooked here. Draftees have lost an incredible hammer with this rule change...why would the Royals vastly overpay slot for the #2 pick when they'll have the #3 pick next year? Will Vitters reach the majors and be more productive than some of the stud college hitters eligible next year? I doubt it.

That was my thought exactly. If you're the Pirates why not draft Wieters or Porcello? What do you have to lose??
   69. JPWF13 Posted: June 07, 2007 at 04:57 PM (#2396204)
The tradeoff that MLB would have to give the MLBPA in order to get NBA-style slotting would be the elimination of draft pick compensation.

-- MWE


May be, may be not, I don't think the MLBPA really cares all that much about guys before they become members-
very many people in the Union may see the bonuses paid top draft picks as money that theteams are going to spend on players- and would therefore be going to them if they weren't going to draft picks-
also many players in the MLBPA never received a huge signing bonus and do not make more than a million or 2 a year and may therefore resent someone fresh out of school who "hasn't paid there dues" making so much money.

Of course the Union will want something from MLB in order to make a "concession"- and perhaps elimination of draft pick compensation would be the ideal "somthing" from their point of view
   70. Mike Emeigh Posted: June 07, 2007 at 04:59 PM (#2396205)
MLB will conclude tonight's drafting at 8:30 PM ET; they will finish the round that is in progress but will not start another round after that time. They'll go tomorrow until they complete 50 rounds.

-- MWE
   71. Boutros Boutros-Beltran Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:03 PM (#2396208)
Talent, even unproven talent, has value. I see nothing wrong with allowing players to recoup the market value for their talent. If spending money on the draft was an inefficient use of resources, I would expect the Giants to be a better team. At it's core, unless you have a vested interest in keeping salaries down (or unless you just want your small market team to have a better chance at the top players), being offended at the size of the bonuses that drafted players receive smacks of old-fogeyism.


I just want my small market team to have a better chance at the top players.
   72. JPWF13 Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:06 PM (#2396210)
That was my thought exactly. If you're the Pirates why not draft Wieters or Porcello? What do you have to lose??


a year...
Actually if I was Porcello I wouldn't want to sign with Pittsburg at any price, but that's another issue.
Let's say Pitt does draft Porcello- and offers him The KC Hochevar deal (minus the MLB contract part- you can't put a HS pitcher on your 40 man)
add 5 % for inflation after Boras says no.

then what?
you get an extra #1 NEXT year- at #5- if Porcello doesn't sign
they could also anonymously email Porcello links about Matt Harrington... (hell they may not have to- someone may do it for them)
   73. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:07 PM (#2396211)
"I just want my small market team to have a better chance at the top players."

I, too, want my small-market team to have a better chance at the top players.
   74. The Artist Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:11 PM (#2396215)
I, too, want my small-market team to have a better chance at the top players.

Yeah, but your small market team is run by Dave Littlefield.
   75. bfan Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:12 PM (#2396217)
"Actually if I was Porcello I wouldn't want to sign with Pittsburg at any price..."

Reminds me of when Todd Van poppel told the then awful Braves organization not to draft him because he would not sign with them, leading them to draft one Chipper Jones. As a Braves fan, I can only say "Thank you Todd Van Poppel".
   76. JPWF13 Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:19 PM (#2396223)
Reminds me of when Todd Van poppel told the then awful Braves organization not to draft him because he would not sign with them, leading them to draft one Chipper Jones. As a Braves fan, I can only say "Thank you Todd Van Poppel"


In 1990 the Braves were terrible, but then Cox then demoted himself to manager and the Braves hired Schuerholz as GM

McClatchy and Littlefield still run the Pirates... and apparently will continue for the foreseeable future.

If even just Littlefield was gone- and his repalcement was an unknown quality- thenI'd say sure sign with Pittsburg- its' a crapshoot anyway
Without changes Pitt's not a crapshoot right now- the organization sucks rocks
   77. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:23 PM (#2396226)
"Yeah, but your small market team is run by Dave Littlefield."

Unfortunately, not even collective bargaining can solve the Littlefield problem.
   78. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:24 PM (#2396227)
Though maybe silver bullets and holy water...
   79. PreservedFish Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:24 PM (#2396228)
If I was good enough to be the best high school pitcher in the nation, I would probably also have enough faith in my own ability that I wouldn't worry too much about an organization messing me up.
   80. Kyle S Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:27 PM (#2396231)
Vlad, your organization has a fine chance at the top players. It has consistently drafted in the first half of the first round for the last 15 years. Just because your organization chooses to spend money on Derek Bell and Jeromy Burnitz instead of 'signability' picks doesn't mean it "has no chance." You are usually one of my favorite posters, but in this thread I think you come off sounding whiny.

Teams that "have no chance" at getting top players are those that pick outside of the first round (or at the tail end of it).
   81. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:30 PM (#2396238)
"You are usually one of my favorite posters, but in this thread I think you come off sounding whiny."

Aw, let me ##### a little. My team's about a half-hour away from sticking itself with Dan Moskos.
   82. Sparkles Peterson Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:31 PM (#2396239)
Would you worry about the team putting a terrible defense and bullpen to support you, with an offense that gives you no run support so that you eventually hit free agency with an inflated ERA and a terrible win/loss record?
   83. Kyle S Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:34 PM (#2396242)
Aw, let me ##### a little. My team's about a half-hour away from sticking itself with Dan Moskos.

I am sorry about that. I cheer for the Pirates too (my father grew up in Grove City) and am frustrated that they're about to pass up a top talent like Wieters or Porcello in favor of some cheap crappy player like Moskos. It sucks.
   84. billyshears Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:34 PM (#2396243)
If I was good enough to be the best high school pitcher in the nation, I would probably also have enough faith in my own ability that I wouldn't worry too much about an organization messing me up.

How much faith would you have in your labrum though?
   85. PreservedFish Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:36 PM (#2396246)
Yes, but that's just what happens with the draft. If you're a top prospect, you get picked by an awful team. You can't worry about it too much. Anyone that uses Boras-tactics to drop in the draft is doing it for money, not to get on a better team.
   86. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:36 PM (#2396247)
That said, it'd probably be more accurate to say, "I want my small-market team to have a better chance of taking the top players." They probably won't do so (through greed and incompetence) unless external forces compel them to do so in some fashion.

I dunno. I just think it's bad for the sport to have teams as consistently dumb and pathetic as the Pirates in the league. It kind of cheapens it for everybody else.
   87. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:38 PM (#2396249)
"It sucks."

True dat.

I was also pulling for the socialist solution up above because I think it'd be a workable proxy for a minor-league players' union, which doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon (although it should).
   88. PreservedFish Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:38 PM (#2396251)
How much faith would you have in your labrum though?

Perfect faith. Try telling Mr. Top Prospect that he's going to get injured if he pitches for the Pirates, but won't get injured on the Red Sox, and he'll laugh at you.
   89. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:40 PM (#2396253)
"Try telling Mr. Top Prospect that he's going to get injured if he pitches for the Pirates, but won't get injured on the Red Sox, and he'll laugh at you."

I think he means faith that you won't get hurt working out with the Long Island Ducks before the next draft, or won't blow up your arm for the greater glory of Wichita State.
   90. Dr Love Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:42 PM (#2396255)
Dialing....

- It would make minor league baseball alot more interesting since teams would be more focused on winning than developing players.


No it won't, major league teams will always put development over winning at the minor league level. I work for an AHL team and late in the season our parent organization signed one it's top prospects and assigned him to us. He wasn't ready, but they played him--with significant minutes--over players who gave them a better chance of winning in the playoffs. His presence in the lineup drastically altered our special teams, which were our bread and butter during the regular season, and that ultimately doomed us in the playoffs. If winning on the minor league level was the focus, he wouldn't have played but a game or two in the playoffs, if at all. Yeah, it's just one player and one team but that's the way it is in the minors. Lowering the number of levels a player can develop at would only further escalate the focus on developing over winning. Your top hitting prospect not doing well? Now you can't send him down a level so you're options are bench him--which you're not going to do because of the money you've invested in him, or continue to play him, which is what would happen.

It would make the draft alot more interesting, because the players you select would be alot closer to the majors and helping your team out

Huh? How would the amount of minor league teams affect the readiness of a prospect? If a player is not ready, he's not ready, regardless of if there's 1 minor league team or 4.
   91. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:56 PM (#2396267)
Will MLB bring in Jets fans to boo each pick?
   92. philly Posted: June 07, 2007 at 05:59 PM (#2396273)
If I mention, before the show starts, that the TV coverage sucks and the announcers are idiots, can we move on to actually discussing the players and the teams?

Nevermind.
   93. Sparkles Peterson Posted: June 07, 2007 at 06:00 PM (#2396274)
Huh? How would the amount of minor league teams affect the readiness of a prospect? If a player is not ready, he's not ready, regardless of if there's 1 minor league team or 4.


Well, the draft would be shorter and teams would go after polished college picks or the occasional HS superstar that's by consensus a year or two away from the majors. Not that I see that as an improvement myself...
   94. Rafael Bellylard: A failure of the waist. Posted: June 07, 2007 at 06:01 PM (#2396275)
Will MLB bring in Jets fans to boo each pick?


It's in Orlando, which means there are probably more Jets fans locally than Rays fans.
   95. PreservedFish Posted: June 07, 2007 at 06:02 PM (#2396276)
You know, watching the MLB.com draft preview, I'm reminded that a few years ago it used to be a very common and easy joke to mock how awful the MLB.com website was. But now they put together a pretty awesome product - what with video of hundreds many prospects, a great gamecast listing pitching speeds, comprehensive post-game reports, easy to access video archives of games, up to date 25 man rosters, etc.
   96. The Kentucky Gentleman, Mark Edward Posted: June 07, 2007 at 06:03 PM (#2396277)
I guess it's not a real surprise, but this looks *exactly* like the NFL Draft setup.
   97. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 07, 2007 at 06:03 PM (#2396278)
That's cool they brought some of the draftees. I wasn't expecting that.

Daryl Strawberry is there and was called a "dignitary".
   98. Mike Emeigh Posted: June 07, 2007 at 06:04 PM (#2396280)
Here we go....

-- MWE
   99. McCoy Posted: June 07, 2007 at 06:04 PM (#2396281)
Jim Callis should have shaved.
   100. McCoy Posted: June 07, 2007 at 06:06 PM (#2396282)
Definitely different then the NBA or NFL draft. All the top picks don't dress up.
Page 1 of 6 pages  1 2 3 4 5 6 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JPWF13
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogJohn Torres: Baseball must bag sickening farewell tours
(34 - 2:27pm, Apr 20)
Last: JE (Jason Epstein)

NewsblogNYT: Sandomir: When Swastikas, on Caps, Meant Luck
(11 - 2:26pm, Apr 20)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogBryce Harper benched for 'lack of hustle' despite quad injury
(86 - 2:25pm, Apr 20)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogChase Utley is the hottest hitter in baseball and has a shot at .400
(66 - 2:22pm, Apr 20)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogPirates Acquire Ike Davis From Mets
(44 - 2:17pm, Apr 20)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogNY Times: Who Made That Relief Pitcher?
(2 - 2:16pm, Apr 20)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogA's, Doolittle agree to 4-year extension
(5 - 2:14pm, Apr 20)
Last: Danny

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(370 - 2:09pm, Apr 20)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for April 20, 2014
(8 - 2:07pm, Apr 20)
Last: Rickey! In a van on 95 south...

NewsblogTim Federowicz has rough night behind the plate - True Blue LA
(9 - 2:03pm, Apr 20)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogRaissman: After cheating scandal, former Mets GM Steve Phillips back calling the shots
(8 - 1:59pm, Apr 20)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(105 - 1:47pm, Apr 20)
Last: Good cripple hitter

NewsblogZander Hollander, Sports Trivia Shepherd, Dies at 91
(5 - 1:32pm, Apr 20)
Last: Publius Publicola

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1744 - 1:29pm, Apr 20)
Last: Publius Publicola

NewsblogA’s Jed Lowrie “flabbergasted” by Astros’ response to bunt
(24 - 1:27pm, Apr 20)
Last: STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.9475 seconds
52 querie(s) executed