BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Kilgore: Stan Kasten says the system is broken

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Kilgore: Stan Kasten says the system is broken

After the whipped cream and joy faded away, Nationals President Stan Kasten used the platform of signing Bryce Harper to once again reiterate his contempt for baseball’s current system for signing draft choices. Three straight years, the Nationals have been down to the wire trying to sign their first draft pick. It reached the point of absurdity this year, with literally dozens of players signing on the final day.

“I’m confident it will only be in place one more year,” Kasten said. “Because it is just silly, to think the industry operates this way. There’s no reason for it. And the worst part? The worst part is we’ve now institutionalized taking young talent at their prime development age, and now we say, ‘Go sit on the shelf for this season.’ That’s the worst thing of all. It doesn’t help the talent. It doesn’t help the teams. If nothing else, that law needs to be fixed.”

The belief within baseball is that the next collective bargaining agreement—which will take effect in 2012—will include new rules governing how teams sign draft picks that mirrors what the NBA has: a hard-and-fast slotting system. If you get taken with pick X, you make X amount of money. Period.

Thanks to DeMola DeMoolah.

Repoz Posted: August 17, 2010 at 10:38 AM | 88 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: business, nationals, prospect reports

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. StillFlash Posted: August 17, 2010 at 10:52 AM (#3617961)

I don't think we need hard slots, but move the deadline up, say two weeks after the end of the College World Series. Get them under contract and out on the field while it's still early in July.

2. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: August 17, 2010 at 11:22 AM (#3617965)

How about we just get rid of the draft altogether and let local minor league teams develop young players and then sell them to major league teams. Unbridled capitalism! it works for the rest of the world. It's hard to take MLB seriously when they cry about how difficult it is to artificially depress what a player is worth.

3. The importance of being Ernest Riles Posted: August 17, 2010 at 11:34 AM (#3617968)

If you get taken with pick X, you make X amount of money

So for X=10...if you get taken with pick 10, you make 10 amounts of money? Whatever an amount is, it seems like under this system you get more money for being taken later. That doesn't seem right to me.

4. Chris Needham Posted: August 17, 2010 at 11:38 AM (#3617971)

The sad thing is that with some of the literalists around here, you can never be sure whether something like #3 is joking! :)

5. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: August 17, 2010 at 11:44 AM (#3617975)

The sad thing is that with some of the literalists around here, you can never be sure whether something like #3 is joking! :)

Ha. How many Primates do you think are the Dwight Shrutes of their office?

6. Guapo Posted: August 17, 2010 at 11:48 AM (#3617976)

So for X=10...if you get taken with pick 10, you make 10 amounts of money? Whatever an amount is, it seems like under this system you get more money for being taken later. That doesn't seem right to me.

That's easy. They're going to restructure the draft so that the worst players are picked first.

7. Lassus Posted: August 17, 2010 at 11:55 AM (#3617977)

That's easy. They're going to restructure the draft so that the worst players are picked first.

The Mets would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

(I mean, I don't think Harvey is a bad player, but at this point in our season, I just couldn't let this go. if Harvey had actually in reality turned out to be an invisible rabbit made up by Matt Cerrone, I wouldn't have been surprised.)

8. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: August 17, 2010 at 12:32 PM (#3617985)

Question. What is the downside to hard money slots?

9. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 17, 2010 at 12:40 PM (#3617993)

[8] For clubs, overpaying for top picks in a weak draft; for players, getting underpayed if they slip a few slots because they happen to be in a draft is very strong (or because some teams are very dumb with the earlier picks).

10. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: August 17, 2010 at 12:43 PM (#3617996)

Question. What is the downside to hard money slots?

If they're going to do hard money slots, they should let teams trade their picks.

11. Textbook Editor Posted: August 17, 2010 at 12:47 PM (#3617999)

#10-Agree. Why MLB doesn't see that the trading of picks would drastically increase interest in the draft/MLB in general is a mystery to me.

12. Rants Mulliniks (formerly Cold Prosimian) Posted: August 17, 2010 at 12:50 PM (#3618000)

but move the deadline up, say two weeks after the end of the College World Series.

Buck Martinez had this exact suggestion during a Jays broadcast a week or so ago. I agree, its a waste of time and talent to spend the whole summer in negotiations.

13. Flynn Posted: August 17, 2010 at 12:55 PM (#3618004)

How about we just get rid of the draft altogether and let local minor league teams develop young players and then sell them to major league teams. Unbridled capitalism! it works for the rest of the world. It's hard to take MLB seriously when they cry about how difficult it is to artificially depress what a player is worth.

Do we really want to emulate the competitiveness of European soccer?

Move up the negotiation window and if we go to hard slotting, let teams trade picks. I'm sure the Blue Jays would rather have the Phillies 2010 1st, 2011 2nd and a sandwich pick for Halladay than minor leaguers.

14. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: August 17, 2010 at 12:59 PM (#3618008)

Do we really want to emulate the competitiveness of European soccer?

I don't think it would work out the same. I think the analogy would be better if there were a Euro Super League as there is so much shared money in MLB and there's only 25 roster spots. The Yankees couldn't buy every good player. I think this would be a way to bring back some independence to the minor leagues and make them interesting again, too.

15. The Pequod Posted: August 17, 2010 at 01:02 PM (#3618010)

Question. What is the downside to hard money slots?

I'm in favor of players getting the most money possible, so I don't like the idea of slotting.

I agree, its a waste of time and talent to spend the whole summer in negotiations.

Not even. From what Keith Law says, most of the top players' agents hardly talk to the teams until right before the deadline. And the agreements that are reached aren't announced until right before the deadline because MLB doesn't want other players using them as leverage.

16. TDF, situational idiot Posted: August 17, 2010 at 01:03 PM (#3618013)

Question. What is the downside to hard money slots?

If a non-college senior drops below, say, the top 10 picks, the team then has zero chance of signing him.

To me, you'd have to add a rule similar to football: You have to declare yourself eligible for the draft, and there's no takesy backs.

17. The Pequod Posted: August 17, 2010 at 01:06 PM (#3618015)

The belief within baseball is that the next collective bargaining agreement—which will take effect in 2012—will include new rules governing how teams sign draft picks that mirrors what the NBA has: a hard-and-fast slotting system.

I could be wrong, but I think he's overstating it. Everyone seems to agree that moving the deadline way up is a done deal. I haven't seen so much certainty attached to hard slotting, though.

18. AROM Posted: August 17, 2010 at 01:14 PM (#3618026)

I'm all for hard slots, an end to compensation picks (they benefit the stronger teams to the detriment of competitive balance) and do not support trading draft picks.

If you allow trading of draft picks, Bryce Harper would be a Yankee right now. Think about that.

19. Greg (U)K Posted: August 17, 2010 at 01:17 PM (#3618029)

Ha. How many Primates do you think are the Dwight Shrutes of their office?

I like to think I'm the Creed Bratton of my office. Though I suppose everyone thinks of themselves that way.

I'm probably more like Paul from Cheers

20. Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vest Posted: August 17, 2010 at 01:19 PM (#3618032)

To me, you'd have to add a rule similar to football: You have to declare yourself eligible for the draft, and there's no takesy backs.

Seems to me the NCAA would have to be the one to implement that rule. What's in it for them?

21. AROM Posted: August 17, 2010 at 01:20 PM (#3618033)

As a trade off to the players, I favor cutting eligibility for free agency to 4 or 5 years, eliminating/reducing arbitration, and have an age cap - maybe 30 - for team control.

It is ridiculous that an an extreme case a team can control a player up to age 35 or something - a college player who is kept in the minors as long as possible before option years start, then 3 years optioned, then 6 years in the majors.

22. Bob Dernier Cri

Posted: August 17, 2010 at 01:23 PM (#3618035)

I'm the Roger Sterling of my office.

23. Chris D Posted: August 17, 2010 at 01:28 PM (#3618040)

Does Mr. Kasten think the deadline is too late, in which case MLB should simply negotiate with the PA to move it up, or does he want to promote yet another fake reason for artificially depressing the entry market for players? Players losing time on the field isn't a good reason for hard slotting.

24. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: August 17, 2010 at 01:32 PM (#3618042)

If you allow trading of draft picks, Bryce Harper would be a Yankee right now. Think about that.

Well maybe, but they would have given up something damn valuable to get him like, I dunno, Robinson Cano.

25. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 17, 2010 at 01:37 PM (#3618050)

If you allow trading of draft picks, Bryce Harper would be a Yankee right now. Think about that.

That seems extremely unlikely to me. It is very odd in the slot-money / pick-trading leagues for one of the best teams to have one of the top picks in the draft. Everyone except for the most dumb GMs recognize that top picks at slot-money are the most valuable commodity in the game. I see no reason why baseball GMs would make those sorts of errors.

There's a clear analogy between a top pick in a slot-money system and a top baseball prospect. That prospect has a good chance of producing lots of wins, and his cost is massively constrained relative to his expected value. No baseball team trades their top prospects to the Yankees. They know better, just as they'd know better than to trade their top picks.

I completely agree about compensation picks - the big money teams have all figured out now how to play this system to their advantage.

I may be wrong about this, but my understanding is, first, that once the owners do away with compensation picks, the draft will no longer be a collective bargaining issue, and the owners can do whatever they want with it. And so, second, it's the owners who want to retain the compensation pick system, because it drives down the salaries of free agents.

26. Alex Vila Posted: August 17, 2010 at 01:56 PM (#3618068)

I'm the Roger Sterling of my office.

It beats being the Pete Campbell of your office.

27. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: August 17, 2010 at 01:57 PM (#3618070)

I may be wrong about this, but my understanding is, first, that once the owners do away with compensation picks, the draft will no longer be a collective bargaining issue, and the owners can do whatever they want with it. And so, second, it's the owners who want to retain the compensation pick system, because it drives down the salaries of free agents.

The owners can't do away with compensation picks on their own, it's a collectively bargained issue. But yes, once they are gone (and it seems very likely they will be), they'd be free to do what they like with the draft. But that's a major chit and I don't see the players giving it away for nothing. A 26th roster spot, a higher minimum salary, a shorter wait till free agency are all things I could see them holding out for. If they owners won't budge on any of that, they might just end up with a modified version of the current system with the signing date moved up. Which wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, in my book: what we have now balances the twin goals of talent redistribution and rewarding the players for their talent and hard work. A shift in either direction -- hard slotting or total free agency -- would tip that balance.

EDIT: I kind of missed your main point there: that it's the owners who want to keep compensation and the players would happily get rid of it, effect on draftees be damned. That may be true, I'm not sure, but I would guess the the PA likes being involved in the transition from amateur to pro and would be opposed to any precedent that even smells like a salary cap. Compensation picks really only effect a couple guys a year -- most of the Type A free agents are good enough that the lost pick doesn't really factor in, and most of the teams signing Type As are picking at the end of the first round anyway.

28. just plain joe Posted: August 17, 2010 at 01:58 PM (#3618072)

As a trade off to the players, I favor cutting eligibility for free agency to 4 or 5 years, eliminating/reducing arbitration, and have an age cap - maybe 30 - for team control.

I doubt that the players would favor eliminating or reducing arbitration as that is what drives salaries up faster than free agency.

I agree with several posters above, just eliminate the draft and let teams compete to sign free agents on the open market. The FA draft was never about "leveling the playing field", it was always about holding down the cost of acquiring talent. I would much rather see more money go to the players than stay in the owners' pockets.

29. OsunaSakata Posted: August 17, 2010 at 02:19 PM (#3618095)

But that's a major chit and I don't see the players giving it away for nothing. A 26th roster spot, a higher minimum salary, a shorter wait till free agency are all things I could see them holding out for.

I couldn't see the owners doing this because it makes no sense, but who said the owners made logical decisions? - In exchange for hard slotting and doing away with free agent compensation, MLB expands by two more teams.

30. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Molina Posted: August 17, 2010 at 02:36 PM (#3618114)

First overall draft pick Bryce Harper: 5 yrs, 9.9 million
First overall draft pick Sam Bradford: 6 yrs, 78 million (50 million guaranteed).

Um Stan, how exactly is the system bad for baseball?

31. The Pequod Posted: August 17, 2010 at 02:43 PM (#3618122)

You can't make a one-to-one comparison there (time to the majors, length of career, prime years, etc), although I agree with the general point that MLB teams are getting a great deal.

32. asinwreck Posted: August 17, 2010 at 02:48 PM (#3618125)

First overall draft pick Bryce Harper: 5 yrs, 9.9 million
First overall draft pick Sam Bradford: 6 yrs, 78 million (50 million guaranteed).

Um Stan, how exactly is the system bad for baseball?

Scott Boras might agree with ol' Stan there.

33. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 17, 2010 at 02:48 PM (#3618127)

First overall draft pick Bryce Harper: 5 yrs, 9.9 million
First overall draft pick Sam Bradford: 6 yrs, 78 million (50 million guaranteed).

This doesn't in any way alter your point, so I'm only using your post as a jumping-off point.

When, exactly, did the NFL's owners snooker us into reporting non-guaranteed money as part of a salary? No one reports salaries by including the incentives in the overall total, even though incentives are things that the owner has agreed to pay under certain circumstances, whereas nonguaranteed money is far less secure. Bradford's contract was $50M, it was not $78M.

34. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: August 17, 2010 at 02:50 PM (#3618128)

First overall draft pick Bryce Harper: 5 yrs, 9.9 million
First overall draft pick Sam Bradford: 6 yrs, 78 million (50 million guaranteed).

Bradford's expected to step in and be his team's starting quarterback, no?

Harper might never see the majors. You're comparing apples to oranges.

35. Flynn Posted: August 17, 2010 at 02:51 PM (#3618133)

It beats being the Pete Campbell of your office.

Considering what Pete just dragged in through the front door, I'd hope more of us are Pete Campbells.

36. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 17, 2010 at 02:56 PM (#3618142)

Considering what Pete just dragged in through the front door, I'd hope more of us are Pete Campbells.

Eh, he managed to play his own father-in-law, using his wife's pregnancy as leverage. Father-in-law had it coming, maybe, but I didn't see anything to be emulated in that scene.

So Pete gets to head off to a business lunch with his father-in-law and the drunks that run his company. I know which side of that glass door I'd rather be on.

37. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: August 17, 2010 at 02:57 PM (#3618143)

I would guess the the PA likes being involved in the transition from amateur to pro and would be opposed to any precedent that even smells like a salary cap.

The Players' Association happily bargains away the rights of amateur players all the time. They represent the interest of current major-leaguers, not future major-leaguers.

Ever since the 1960s, the trend has been towards more rights and privileges for veterans, fewer for prospects. I don't see that trend reversing itself, whatever Scott Boras and Stan Kasten want.

38. AROM Posted: August 17, 2010 at 02:59 PM (#3618148)

Harper might never see the majors.

I'd say the odds of that are pretty low. How many heavily hyped #1 overall picks, who are not pitchers, failed to make the majors? Let's exclude signability #1's like Matt Bush.

But your point that he should not be compared to a guy immediately joining the starting lineup is valid.

39. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: August 17, 2010 at 03:03 PM (#3618154)

The history of QB's drafted #1 overall is kinda spotty, no? Yeah, Bradford will step into the starting lineup, but that has as much to do with the NFL being nutty than Bradford actually deserving it.

40. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: August 17, 2010 at 03:04 PM (#3618156)

Ever since the 1960s, the trend has been towards more rights and privileges for veterans, fewer for prospects. I don't see that trend reversing itself, whatever Scott Boras and Stan Kasten want.

What rights and privileges did prospects have in the 60s that they don't have today and how did the PA bargain them away?

41. OsunaSakata Posted: August 17, 2010 at 03:08 PM (#3618158)

Let's assume in the future the owners are free to set a slotting schedule for draft picks. An amateur player's only choice is to take it or leave it. So happy with his new found power, Bud sets the bonus for the first overall pick at $500,000 and it goes down from there. What are the forces that would limit how low the bonuses could go?

42. AROM Posted: August 17, 2010 at 03:09 PM (#3618159)

#1 overall to never play in the majors:

Brien Taylor, Steve Chilcott, Matt Bush. One pitcher and 2 guys who were not considered the best actual talent available. I know that with Bush, not 100% on Chilcott but I wonder how many other teams would have taken him ahead of Reggie Jackson. Fewer than I though. Tim Beckham isn't up yet, and is not playing that well in the minors, but too early to call it.

Worst #1 position players who did play in the majors:
Danny Goodwin
Dave Roberts
Al Chambers
Shawn Abner
Tim Foli

Not sure where the hype put these guys, if any were considered can't miss prospects like Griffey/A-Rod/Strasburg or merely the best available in a down year. Goodwin was probably the most hyped, being drafted #1 in two separate years. A catcher who couldn't catch by the time he got to the big leagues. I suppose Goodwin is the extreme downside of Harper's potential.

43. AROM Posted: August 17, 2010 at 03:11 PM (#3618161)

What rights and privileges did prospects have in the 60s that they don't have today and how did the PA bargain them away?

Pre 1965-
Before they signed: Right to choose their team and negotiate signing bonuses that matched the highest salaries of superstar veterans.
After they signed: None at all.

44. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: August 17, 2010 at 03:11 PM (#3618162)

What rights and privileges did prospects have in the 60s that they don't have today and how did the PA bargain them away?

Before the Amateur Draft, amateur players could sign with any team they wanted, for whatever amount they could bargain for. They had perfect freedom. The draft eliminated all of that.

45. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: August 17, 2010 at 03:12 PM (#3618165)

I've only read the excerpt, not the FA but... isn't Kasten only referring to the deadline (too late), not hard slotting?

46. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: August 17, 2010 at 03:20 PM (#3618174)

I've only read the excerpt, not the FA but... isn't Kasten only referring to the deadline (too late), not hard slotting?

TFA doesn't really elaborate. The article's poorly written - it doesn't explain what, specifically, Kasten's complaining about, other than "the system".

47. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: August 17, 2010 at 03:22 PM (#3618179)

Let's assume in the future the owners are free to set a slotting schedule for draft picks. An amateur player's only choice is to take it or leave it. So happy with his new found power, Bud sets the bonus for the first overall pick at $500,000 and it goes down from there. What are the forces that would limit how low the bonuses could go?

You'd start losing many of the top athletes to other sports. Frustration would rise to the point where you'd see the draft challenged in court and possibly eliminated. You might even see a competing league formed and pay top dollar for big name talent, à la the USFL.

48. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: August 17, 2010 at 03:30 PM (#3618186)

Before the Amateur Draft, amateur players could sign with any team they wanted, for whatever amount they could bargain for. They had perfect freedom. The draft eliminated all of that.

True, but they were then subject to the reserve clause, an unlimited number of options, and had no minor league free agency. I'm pretty sure none of them had agents. The living, working, and traveling conditions were much, much worse. And since the PA didn't have any say in the creation of the draft, how this is an example of them bargaining away the rights and privileges of non-members?

49. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: August 17, 2010 at 03:30 PM (#3618187)

Frustration would rise to the point where you'd see the draft challenged in court and possibly eliminated.

That's already been attempted with the NFL - it didn't work. And the NFL doesn't have an anti-trust exemption, the way that MLB does.

As long as the MLBPA signs off on it, and the negotiations between MLB and the MLBPA are done in good faith, the courts would be fine with it.

50. Flynn Posted: August 17, 2010 at 03:32 PM (#3618189)

Eh, he managed to play his own father-in-law, using his wife's pregnancy as leverage. Father-in-law had it coming, maybe, but I didn't see anything to be emulated in that scene.

Considering his father in law gave him Clearasil so Pete would knock up his daughter, I'd say he definitely had it coming. Was it ruthless? I suppose. But he's just doubled his company's billings and the animosity will last as long as it takes the baby to come out.

51. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: August 17, 2010 at 03:35 PM (#3618194)

That's already been attempted with the NFL - it didn't work. And the NFL doesn't have an anti-trust exemption, the way that MLB does.

You could potentially see that exemption eliminated. I think MLB is very, very reluctant to have these issues taken to court.

52. Bob Dernier Cri

Posted: August 17, 2010 at 03:38 PM (#3618199)

There seems to be some sentiment that the draft screws prospects out of what they could demand on the free market. But are there recent examples of players who actually earned really significant compensation (by rendering really valuable major-league service) but somehow never got paid what they deserved? I think that the system ends up fairly compensating players on the whole – even if it does so by paying them in retrospect. At the moment, some guys are underpaid for the pre-arb service they render, and others are way, way overpaid for showing some potential as amateurs and then washing out of the majors. But most guys who earn anything at all in the majors are pretty well-paid for it. Ryan Howard is going to have to build a money bin for the retrospective moolah he's getting as a reward for those few underpaid years at the start of his career.

The young guy who's probably delivered the most value per dollar in recent years is Josh Hamilton, who indeed has been underpaid for what he's delivered for the whole of the "under control" segment of his career, but he's a very special case indeed. Let's say he'd truly blown a gasket last season, never played again, and never earned more in a season than the lousy half-million the Rangers paid him in '09. Would you have felt he was hard done by?

The other notable recent bargain is Tulowitzki, though it seems to have been his choice to take a goodly amount now as a hedge against maybe not getting an obscene amount later. We'll see in a few years if he was wise on balance, but I'm not grieving over his pay, honestly.

53. Infinite Yost (Voxter)

Posted: August 17, 2010 at 03:39 PM (#3618200)

Ha. How many Primates do you think are the Dwight Shrutes of their office?

I like to think I'm the Creed Bratton of my office. Though I suppose everyone thinks of themselves that way.

I'm probably more like Paul from Cheers

We all want to think we're Giles, or at the very least Oz.

In our hearts, we all know we're Xander.

54. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: August 17, 2010 at 03:51 PM (#3618221)

True, but they were then subject to the reserve clause, an unlimited number of options, and had no minor league free agency. I'm pretty sure none of them had agents. The living, working, and traveling conditions were much, much worse.

That has nothing to do with amateur players - you're describing what professional players endured.

If you're looking for changes to the draft that the MLBPA was around for -

1975 - expanded to include college juniors

1983 - expanded to include foreign nationals attending school in the U.S.

1987 - elimination of January draft

1990 - expanded to include players from Canada, Puerto Rico, and other U.S. territories

2000 - unofficial "slotting" system introduced

With the exception of the rule about college juniors, these are all changes designed to drive signing bonuses down, and the MLBPA collectively yawned at each of them.

55. OsunaSakata Posted: August 17, 2010 at 03:52 PM (#3618224)

We all want to think we're Giles, or at the very least Oz.

In our hearts, we all know we're Xander.

We're more like Jonathan before he discovered magic, or Jesse, or the first victim played by that guy from CSI:NY.

56. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: August 17, 2010 at 03:53 PM (#3618225)

You could potentially see that exemption eliminated.

That's up to Congress, and I doubt they'd eliminate it over the draft.

57. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: August 17, 2010 at 03:59 PM (#3618232)

But are there recent examples of players who actually earned really significant compensation (by rendering really valuable major-league service) but somehow never got paid what they deserved?

That's an interesting question, guys who got hurt or flamed out before they made big money. Marcus Giles put up 16.7 worth of WAR while earning only $10.4M over his career. Kal Daniels received $5.7M for 16.8 WAR, although in a different era. Florida got 14.9 WAR for $11.7M from Dontrell Willis before Detroit gave him that crazy extension. It'd be a fun leaderboard to put together.

58. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Molina Posted: August 17, 2010 at 04:18 PM (#3618252)

Bradford's expected to step in and be his team's starting quarterback, no?

And how many NFL teams would be satisfied to have Sam Bradford, who is making a salary that puts him among the elite QB's in the league, their starting QB for Game 1 in 2010?

59. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: August 17, 2010 at 04:21 PM (#3618256)

That has nothing to do with amateur players - you're describing what professional players endured.

Yes, because I was responding to:

Ever since the 1960s, the trend has been towards more rights and privileges for veterans, fewer for prospects.

What I was arguing was that the rights and privileges of prospects on the whole, are better, or at least not much worse, than what they were in the 60s. Also, I don't think the PA had nearly as much control over the current system as you're attributing to it. The initial creation of the draft had far more of an effect on amateur rights than all the subsequent changes put together, and the PA didn't have any say in it. And anyway, how much of its weight should a union put behind supporting the interests of non-members? MLB treatment of amateurs is pretty good; if the PA wants a fight, they should look to the NCAA. There's some serious exploitation of labor.

60. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Molina Posted: August 17, 2010 at 04:22 PM (#3618258)

Also, I guess if we want to compare apples to apples, sorta, Stephen Strasburg's contract is less than 1/3 of Bradford's.

61. Russ Posted: August 17, 2010 at 04:24 PM (#3618259)

We all want to think we're Giles, or at the very least Oz.

In our hearts, we all know we're Xander.

My co-workers always say I'm a magician with data analysis and I like girls, so I'm pretty sure that I'm Willow circa Season 5 and onwards.

62. Alex Vila Posted: August 17, 2010 at 04:43 PM (#3618279)

so I'm pretty sure that I'm Willow circa Season 5 and onwards.

I tried to link to the Onion video with the FCC Rep okaying nudity as long as it is Alyson Hannigan, but I got a "Blacklisted" message. I never saw that before. What's up with that?

63. The DA Baracus Hypothesis Posted: August 17, 2010 at 04:48 PM (#3618286)

First overall draft pick Bryce Harper: 5 yrs, 9.9 million
First overall draft pick Sam Bradford: 6 yrs, 78 million (50 million guaranteed).

Um Stan, how exactly is the system bad for baseball?

The out of control rookie wages is the one thing the NFLPA and owners agree needs to be fixed. Unfortunately like everything else they're miles apart on agreeing on how to change it. But Bradford is almost certainly the last rookie to be the league's highest paid player.

64. John Northey Posted: August 17, 2010 at 04:54 PM (#3618301)

IMO the best thing probably would be to adjust type A free agent compensation (sandwich pick only) while shifting B's to sandwich between 2nd/3rd round, then add a 26th player to the roster (put in a limit of 12 for pitchers) and that would be the leverage to players to allow trading of draft picks and some degree of slotting.

I suspect slotting would have to be based on a formula that works off of what ML'ers get paid - ie: top pick right now gets about $10 million while the average ML player right now gets about $3 million (via MLBPA) thus make it so the top pick gets 3-4 times what the average player gets. By the end of the first round it is down to 1/3rd of the average players salary. Cut the number of rounds to 20 in order to make it so players who have talent but are hard to sign will be free agents (cap amount paid to non-drafted free agents to the ML average salary or something). You could make it a worldwide draft if desired as well.

Of course, I'd rather do away with the draft altogether and let the market decide but that ain't gonna happen.

65. Athletic Supporter leads the nation in drifters Posted: August 17, 2010 at 04:56 PM (#3618307)

If it's important to him to have the player in camp earlier, just give him an exploding offer. "Hey Bryce, we'll give you 10M, but it goes down by 100K per day." If you can actually establish that you're being credible -- and in principle the player is worth less to you over time, given what Kasten is saying -- Harper will sign real quick.

66. Randy Jones

Posted: August 17, 2010 at 05:06 PM (#3618326)

If it's important to him to have the player in camp earlier, just give him an exploding offer. "Hey Bryce, we'll give you 10M, but it goes down by 100K per day." If you can actually establish that you're being credible -- and in principle the player is worth less to you over time, given what Kasten is saying -- Harper will sign real quick.

Except that the problem is not the players or the teams, it's the Commissioner's office refusing to approve over slot deals before the deadline. But keep blaming the players for using the only leverage they will have for many years. The owners really need that extra few hundred thousand.

67. Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vest Posted: August 17, 2010 at 05:07 PM (#3618328)

#1 overall to never play in the majors:

Brien Taylor, Steve Chilcott, Matt Bush. One pitcher and 2 guys who were not considered the best actual talent available. I know that with Bush, not 100% on Chilcott but I wonder how many other teams would have taken him ahead of Reggie Jackson. Fewer than I though. Tim Beckham isn't up yet, and is not playing that well in the minors, but too early to call it.

Worst #1 position players who did play in the majors:
Danny Goodwin
Dave Roberts
Al Chambers
Shawn Abner
Tim Foli

Not sure where the hype put these guys, if any were considered can't miss prospects like Griffey/A-Rod/Strasburg or merely the best available in a down year. Goodwin was probably the most hyped, being drafted #1 in two separate years. A catcher who couldn't catch by the time he got to the big leagues. I suppose Goodwin is the extreme downside of Harper's potential.

Josh Hamilton made the majors of course, but the Rays got 0 value from him. There may be others like him: #1 picks who gave their drafting team little or no value. I think that's the more relevant example.

68. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: August 17, 2010 at 05:14 PM (#3618337)

There may be others like him: #1 picks who gave their drafting team little or no value.

Phil Nevin and Adrian Gonzalez spring to mind. Paul Wilson to a lesser degree. The Rays didn't get much direct value from Delmon Young, although Matt Garza is a nice consolation prize.

69. Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vest Posted: August 17, 2010 at 05:14 PM (#3618338)

Al Chambers - #1 pick in 1979. 141 career PA. Pretty much a bust.

OK, he's the only other one, though Shawn Abner had a negative career WAR.

70. Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vest Posted: August 17, 2010 at 05:18 PM (#3618349)

Phil Nevin and Adrian Gonzalez spring to mind. Paul Wilson to a lesser degree. The Rays didn't get much direct value from Delmon Young, although Matt Garza is a nice consolation prize.

If a drafted player is used in trade to acquire someone of value, then that is providing value to the drafting team. The Rays lost Hamilton in the rule 5.

71. Sean Forman Posted: August 17, 2010 at 05:28 PM (#3618366)

I think folks are misreading the issues here.

1) The MLBPA does not and can not care one iota for players not on the 40-man and does not in any way shape or form represent them. They are the major league baseball players association. Their responsibility is to guys who have made (or will soon) make the show <full stop>.

2) As such, they would LOVE hard slotting (assuming it isn't a backdoor to the cap) that frees up money for major league vets, and they would love the removal of FA compensation, which only increases the value of existing major leaguers.

3) The league could set a draconian slot system, but as someone else pointed out, they then will face issues with
a) players saying screw you and going to play in Japan or the Frontier League or some such thing. "If I'm going to be riding a bus for three years, I'm going to do it with double the signing bonus." This is not as much of an issue as it is for the NBA and NHL with Euro leagues. in the NFL, I'm guessing the NFLPA represents those players, so the issues with slotting would need to be collectively bargained (I'm guessing).
b) legal challenges (IANAL, so I can't speak to the issues here) from the players whose value in the marketplace is being grossly distorted.
c) You'll never sign the two-sport athletes then

I also suspect a slotting system would have some perverse effects.
Would there be more pressure on high schoolers to go to college since they have less leverage now and might increase their slot payment later?
What would signability guys exist? and what would the effect be on them? Would teams draft them higher to give them a higher slot or lower to since you can't now throw money at them to get them to sign?

Would money pour into the latin markets as big market clubs can no longer use the draft as an opportunity for competitive advantage?

Would teams have to offer slot and be required to sign every player?

72. Bob Dernier Cri

Posted: August 17, 2010 at 05:28 PM (#3618367)

Following up on posts 52 and 57, I thought I'd try to identify the "most-screwed" prospect of recent years. Pitchers seemed the most likely to get screwed, so I concentrated on looking for a guy who delivered a lot of value and then imploded before reaching free agency, in the relatively recent past. Wade Miller might be the best candidate. He was a 20th-round draft pick, so I can't imagine his bonus was too regal. He put in three really strong years as a starting pitcher for the Astros 2001-03, earning a little over a million dollars for that three-year period. That netted him an arb-year salary of $3.25M in 2004, and he had a good half-season before hurting his rotator cuff. He hung on a few more years as a wandering free agent, eventually earning ~$8.5M for his entire career. That's in an era when guys like Denny Neagle or Al Leiter were making $7-8M a year for pitching no better than Miller, but as veterans.

There may be more egregious examples. On the other hand, if one of the most hard-done-by guys earns eight and a half million dollars for a career, it's a pretty good business to be in.

73. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: August 17, 2010 at 05:31 PM (#3618377)

If a drafted player is used in trade to acquire someone of value, then that is providing value to the drafting team.

Well, sure. I brought it up, fully caveated and separate from the main list, because it was interesting; very few 1/1 picks are traded before they do (much of) anything on the field for the drafting team.

74. The DA Baracus Hypothesis Posted: August 17, 2010 at 05:43 PM (#3618393)

in the NFL, I'm guessing the NFLPA represents those players

The NFLPA does not represent unsigned rookies or potential rookies. They didn't back Maurice Clarett in his lawsuit.

75. Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vest Posted: August 17, 2010 at 05:46 PM (#3618398)

There may be more egregious examples. On the other hand, if one of the most hard-done-by guys earns eight and a half million dollars for a career, it's a pretty good business to be in.

Keep an eye on Geovany Soto. He's got 3 more years of team control and won't be a FA until his age 31 season. By then he may well be in obvious decline. He's made 1.5 mil in his career so far. Pudge Rodriguez has made 4.5 mil the last 2 years for being barely above replacement.

76. Sean Forman Posted: August 17, 2010 at 06:06 PM (#3618427)

The NFLPA does not represent unsigned rookies or potential rookies. They didn't back Maurice Clarett in his lawsuit.

That would be different from representing a player who was drafted and was negotiating with a team. They obviously represent them at the moment of signing unlike the MLBPA. What about the time between the draft and their signing? The players attend minicamps etc, pre-signing, so I'm guessing they are represented by the NFLPA once drafted.

77. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 17, 2010 at 06:21 PM (#3618447)

c) You'll never sign the two-sport athletes then

This is a big one. As a baseball fan, I'd much rather have Kyle Parker and Zach Lee playing baseball than football.

78. The DA Baracus Hypothesis Posted: August 17, 2010 at 06:23 PM (#3618453)

What about the time between the draft and their signing? The players attend minicamps etc, pre-signing, so I'm guessing they are represented by the NFLPA once drafted.

Fair point, but that's apples and oranges in that MLB picks don't report to anything until they're signed. I'm sure they have some measure of representation, but not a whole lot. We'll see how willing the NFLPA is to go to bat for unsigned players if Sergio Kindle's contract negotiations fall apart.

79. Voros McCracken, Human Shield Posted: August 17, 2010 at 06:30 PM (#3618457)

I find it funny that the Nationals spent the first half of 2010 telling everyone who would listen that Harper was the best prospect since Sidd Finch and ever since have been complaining about how much money he wants.

80. AROM Posted: August 17, 2010 at 06:30 PM (#3618458)

Would there be more pressure on high schoolers to go to college since they have less leverage now and might increase their slot payment later?

Depends on the player. You certainly won't see any 18th rounders who can now command over-slot bonuses decide to accept 75K or whatever instead of college. But some players might take the money, not everyone improves their stock in college.

81. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 17, 2010 at 06:32 PM (#3618460)

But are there recent examples of players who actually earned really significant compensation (by rendering really valuable major-league service) but somehow never got paid what they deserved?

Old rookies get screwed by the system. The one who jumped to my mind was Chuck Smith: 210 innings in the rotation with a 113 ERA+, and he got less than $500k (plus less additional compensation than other players, since he was a replacement player).

82. John Northey Posted: August 17, 2010 at 07:07 PM (#3618527)

Reading everyone here it does seem there are major issues with slotting. However, if you put all players into the pool - including guys who right now are international free agents - then you get a decrease in costs automatically. Suddenly Harper isn't a lock at #1, suddenly other guys who now get $1 million bonus' as free agents get $500k as 3rd rounders. It would change things quickly and easily under the guise of 'competitive balance'.

Cutting back on free agent compensation (doubt the owners want to totally eliminate it) would get the union onside, and even if you did have to go to a 26 man roster it wouldn't be a killer as that 26th man would get $400k per year per team vs the extra those international free agents cost right now.

As to where guys would go - the Japanese leagues are probably the #1 alternative if they stick with baseball. Sign a deal with an agreement you will be released if requested after x years (3,5, whatever) with the team knowing they could sell the player to the ML at anytime before that. Or an agreement that you will be sold to a ML team on request but you get 1/2 the transfer fee. Odd deals like that could start occurring if a hard slot comes in.

83. Randy Jones

Posted: August 17, 2010 at 07:30 PM (#3618572)

Reading everyone here it does seem there are major issues with slotting. However, if you put all players into the pool - including guys who right now are international free agents - then you get a decrease in costs automatically. Suddenly Harper isn't a lock at #1, suddenly other guys who now get $1 million bonus' as free agents get $500k as 3rd rounders. It would change things quickly and easily under the guise of 'competitive balance'.

The problem with a worldwide draft is that it would kill player development in the Latin American/Caribbean countries because teams would no longer have any incentive to set up academies. There has been a ton of complaints from Puerto Rico about this, since they were included in the draft. Who the #### cares if the owners get to save a little bit of money if the result is fewer players being developed and worse baseball being played?

84. yb125 Posted: August 17, 2010 at 07:38 PM (#3618584)

It also always seemed unwieldy to me. I have serious doubts that it could be organized well enough to really be effective. But the Academy issue could off set this by building MLB Academies but that seems unlikely.

85. Brian

Posted: August 17, 2010 at 09:37 PM (#3618709)

First overall draft pick Bryce Harper: 5 yrs, 9.9 million
First overall draft pick Sam Bradford: 6 yrs, 78 million (50 million guaranteed).

Bradford's expected to step in and be his team's starting quarterback, no?

Harper might never see the majors. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Actually, it's like comparing apples to apple seeds.

86. Brian

Posted: August 17, 2010 at 09:48 PM (#3618722)

You might even see a competing league formed and pay top dollar for big name talent, à la the USFL.

Really? You think a new league would start up and create a full, multi-tiered minor league system to develop that talent they outbid MLB for? No you don't.

87. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: August 17, 2010 at 10:26 PM (#3618751)

Really? You think a new league would start up and create a full, multi-tiered minor league system to develop that talent they outbid MLB for? No you don't.

No, I don't. I'm not sure how you get from my musings about a new league to a full, multi-tiered minor league system. In the extreme hypothetical we were discussing, with hard slotting and $500k cap for the top pick, the talent would flow to other sports and other leagues, like Japan or independent leagues. Neither Japan nor Indy leagues have full, multi-tiered minor league systems, and I don't see anyone using that as a reason they couldn't sign the next Bryce Harper under our doomsday draft scenario. Whether it's a new league, or some amped up existing independent league, all sorts of wacky unintended consequences would start happening if MLB so egregiously screwed amateur players out of money.

88. Brian

Posted: August 19, 2010 at 12:11 AM (#3619818)

OK, do you really think you could pay these young players enough to turn down the $500k from MLB and put them on the field immediately (Since you have no minor leagues) and charge enough to make money? That the level of play would be good enough to land a TV deal? No you don't.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Kilgore: Stan Kasten says the system is broken

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics