Interesting article arguing against trading draft picks

[CommishJoe]

Trading draft picks would give Scott Boras, agents more power - Joe Posnanski - SI.com

I never thought about it that was before. Makes sense.

[kq76]

I was just going to post how Boras just came out and basically told the Nationals that for Strasburg he's going to want: 50% equity in the club, all the concession revenues, and everybody in the organizations' first and second born children:

...
Boras wouldn't give numbers, but he's expected to ask for a package worth several times the value of the current high-water mark of $10.5 million that Mark Prior received in 2001.
...

Baseball draft: No. 1 draft pick Stephen Strasburg of the Washington Nationals is among best of the best, agent Scott Boras says - ESPN

So I was thinking, hmm, if MLB won't go to collectively bargained slotted contracts and they don't want to allow draft pick trading, what if the Nationals were at least allowed to trade their rights to negotiate with Strasburg to someone else? But it'd be just as bad trading picks, only worse because you're limiting yourself to what you're trading away.

As the article says, it would give the agents more power. The only solution really is just to have collectively bargained slotted contracts. Personally, I can't wait. I'm tired of teams passing on hundreds of players due to "signability".

[CommishJoe]

Originally Posted by kq76

I was just going to post how Boras just came out and basically told the Nationals that for Strasburg he's going to want: 50% equity in the club, all the concession revenues, and everybody in the organizations' first and second born children:



Baseball draft: No. 1 draft pick Stephen Strasburg of the Washington Nationals is among best of the best, agent Scott Boras says - ESPN

So I was thinking, hmm, if MLB won't go to collectively bargained slotted contracts and they don't want to allow draft pick trading, what if the Nationals were at least allowed to trade their rights to negotiate with Strasburg to someone else? But it'd be just as bad trading picks, only worse because you're limiting yourself to what you're trading away.

As the article says, it would give the agents more power. The only solution really is just to have collectively bargained slotted contracts. Personally, I can't wait. I'm tired of teams passing on hundreds of players due to "signability".

I agree with slotting.

If Boras says no this year, I'd love for the Nats to sign him again next year with their #1 pick, then use the #2 pick(the compensation pick they'd get for Strasburg not signing this year) for whomever they really wanted. If he doesn't sign again, that gives them the #2 for the next draft as well. It sucks for the kid, but if he's dumb enough to hire Boras, then he gets what he asked for.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

I agree with slotting.

If Boras says no this year, I'd love for the Nats to sign him again next year with their #1 pick, then use the #2 pick(the compensation pick they'd get for Strasburg not signing this year) for whomever they really wanted. If he doesn't sign again, that gives them the #2 for the next draft as well. It sucks for the kid, but if he's dumb enough to hire Boras, then he gets what he asked for.

Oh, is that how it works? I thought the compensation picks came after the 1st rd. That'd be sweet if they did that. I'd do it. The kid is most likely going to be a dud anyway so teach everybody a lesson: play ball.

I missed the 2nd page of the article at first. It goes on to say how being allowed to trade picks would be alright because these bad teams would probably be better off with 2 or 3 less-hyped prospects than the 1 high-hyped guy. Let the Yankees and Red Sox pay a fortune for these guys if they really want to. The only problem is would there be enough buyers to make it a seller's market? I'm not sure it would be which would make it backfire.

[CommishJoe]

Originally Posted by kq76

Oh, is that how it works? I thought the compensation picks came after the 1st rd. That'd be sweet if they did that. I'd do it. The kid is most likely going to be a dud anyway so teach everybody a lesson: play ball.

I missed the 2nd page of the article at first. It goes on to say how being allowed to trade picks would be alright because these bad teams would probably be better off with 2 or 3 less-hyped prospects than the 1 high-hyped guy. Let the Yankees and Red Sox pay a fortune for these guys if they really want to. The only problem is would there be enough buyers to make it a seller's market? I'm not sure it would be which would make it backfire.

After the 1st round is for FAs the team lost. The Nationals had the #10 pick because their #9 pick last year refused to sign and went independent. The joker got drafted #12 by the Royals and it's highly doubtful he'll get the 4m the Nats offered him.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by kq76

As the article says, it would give the agents more power. The only solution really is just to have collectively bargained slotted contracts. Personally, I can't wait. I'm tired of teams passing on hundreds of players due to "signability".

Either that, or just get rid of the draft completely.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

Either that, or just get rid of the draft completely.

That would be my solution. What business does anyone have telling Steven Strasburg that the only team he can negotiate with is the Washington Nationals?

I'd love for there to be a journalism draft, or a engineering draft. Instead of getting a PhD from MIT and going to the highest bidder, you get drafted and go to a startup engineering firm in Fairbanks because they need to even up the competition with IBM and Raytheon and Boeing.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

It sucks for the kid, but if he's dumb enough to hire Boras, then he gets what he asked for.

You almost make it sound like he has no negotiating power for himself. At any point during the talks he can simply agree to a contract that Boras does not like.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

That would be my solution. What business does anyone have telling Steven Strasburg that the only team he can negotiate with is the Washington Nationals?

I'd love for there to be a journalism draft, or a engineering draft. Instead of getting a PhD from MIT and going to the highest bidder, you get drafted and go to a startup engineering firm in Fairbanks because they need to even up the competition with IBM and Raytheon and Boeing.

I don't have a problem with the draft itself. It definitely serves a purpose, and as much of a free market proponent I am in real life, I think it might bot be the best way to go in pro sports. That said, if you are going to have a draft, it makes no sense for teams not to pick the best player available. The NHL draft is, in my opinion, a great system (well, the seeding system sucks, but that's another problem).

[Reader012]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

That would be my solution. What business does anyone have telling Steven Strasburg that the only team he can negotiate with is the Washington Nationals?

I'd love for there to be a journalism draft, or a engineering draft. Instead of getting a PhD from MIT and going to the highest bidder, you get drafted and go to a startup engineering firm in Fairbanks because they need to even up the competition with IBM and Raytheon and Boeing.

Another way to look at it is that Major League Baseball is the company the player is choosing to work for. The teams are just franchises.

[BMD]

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

I agree with slotting.

If Boras says no this year, I'd love for the Nats to sign him again next year with their #1 pick, then use the #2 pick(the compensation pick they'd get for Strasburg not signing this year) for whomever they really wanted. If he doesn't sign again, that gives them the #2 for the next draft as well. It sucks for the kid, but if he's dumb enough to hire Boras, then he gets what he asked for.

If a player is drafted by a team but the team fails to sign him, the team is prohibited from drafting him again unless they get signed written consent from the player in advance. I learned this during the Pedro Alvarez v. the Pirates saga following last year's draft. So, unless the Nationals got his approval, they would not have been able to draft Crow this year after not signing him after picking him last year.

[CommishJoe]

Originally Posted by BMD

If a player is drafted by a team but the team fails to sign him, the team is prohibited from drafting him again unless they get signed written consent from the player in advance. I learned this during the Pedro Alvarez v. the Pirates saga following last year's draft. So, unless the Nationals got his approval, they would not have been able to draft Crow this year after not signing him after picking him last year.

Now that's a bummer

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

If Boras says no this year, I'd love for the Nats to sign him again next year with their #1 pick, then use the #2 pick (the compensation pick they'd get for Strasburg not signing this year) for whomever they really wanted. If he doesn't sign again, that gives them the #2 for the next draft as well.

That's not correct.

The compensation pick that clubs get for failing to sign a first round pick the previous year is a one-time event only. If Washington fails to sign either of its first round picks this year, it gets no first round pick in compensation next year because it already got its one-time first round compensation pick in this year's draft for failing to sign its first round pick in last year's draft.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

I'd love for there to be a journalism draft, or a engineering draft. Instead of getting a PhD from MIT and going to the highest bidder, you get drafted and go to a startup engineering firm in Fairbanks because they need to even up the competition with IBM and Raytheon and Boeing.

Someone should try to set that up lol.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

Either that, or just get rid of the draft completely.

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

That would be my solution.

Without the amateur draft, the situation would return to what was seen in the 1950s and early 1960s, namely, signing bonuses rapidly spiralling ever higher. With the only limitation on signing an amateur player being the bank account of the major league club, rich franchises would quickly sign the best talent and the poorer franchises would get the leftovers.

The problem of out-of-control signing bonuses is what prompted MLB to adopt the amateur draft in the first place. Some clubs were spending more in signing bonuses than they were spending on salaries for their major league rosters.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

That would be my solution. What business does anyone have telling Steven Strasburg that the only team he can negotiate with is the Washington Nationals?

I'd love for there to be a journalism draft, or a engineering draft. Instead of getting a PhD from MIT and going to the highest bidder, you get drafted and go to a startup engineering firm in Fairbanks because they need to even up the competition with IBM and Raytheon and Boeing.

And that's coming from an Oriole fan.

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

That's not correct.

The compensation pick that clubs get for failing to sign a first round pick the previous year is a one-time event only. If Washington fails to sign either of its first round picks this year, it gets no first round pick in compensation next year because it already got its one-time first round compensation pick in this year's draft for failing to sign its first round pick in last year's draft.

Ouch! So Boras really has the Nats over a barrel then. I'm surprised they drafted him, or anyone with signability issues.

You say one-time, but you make it sound like it's more you just can't get these kinds of compensation picks in successive years. Is it really only one time only and never ever again (or until the CBA changes)? I suppose it makes sense because otherwise you could save them up for one year where you feel the draft is really deep or something.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

Trading draft picks would give Scott Boras, agents more power - Joe Posnanski - SI.com

I never thought about it that was before. Makes sense.

I think the reasoning of this article is pretty awkward. How would Scott Boras become even more powerful if the draft picks can be traded?

For example, in the example the article talked about, being able to trade picks would have helped the teams and reduce the power of Scott Boras. The Royals wouldn't have to draft the third best Boras client as number one. They could have traded down and still get the same player. Wouldn't that be more power to the Royals? The Royals could have auctioned away the pick to rich teams that could have afforded Wieters or Porcello, instead of being kidnapped by Boras.

That way, the smaller teams will be bullied by Boras less not more. The Royals could have had Moustakas and then some.

This article just doesn't make much sense.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Without the amateur draft, the situation would return to what was seen in the 1950s and early 1960s, namely, signing bonuses rapidly spiralling ever higher. With the only limitation on signing an amateur player being the bank account of the major league club, rich franchises would quickly sign the best talent and the poorer franchises would get the leftovers.

Yes. And that's a "good thing". It's coherent and leaves no room for interpretation. It's how most of the football world works across the world. I'm not in favour of such a system but at least it's a coherent one. But, as stated earlier, a dunctioning draft would probably be preferable.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

Yes. And that's a "good thing". It's coherent and leaves no room for interpretation. It's how most of the football world works across the world.

Except that football around the world operates under an open league model; MLB does not. It operates under a closed league model (as do the other major North American sports leagues).

Thus the two are not directly comparable.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Except that football around the world operates under an open league model; MLB does not. It operates under a closed league model (as do the other major North American sports leagues).

Thus the two are not directly comparable.

I'm wondering how that is significantly relevant here. It has a minimum of relevance, but practically, all the talent does end up in the same hands, leaving the rest with crumbs. The only difference is that those who get the crumbs aren't the same every year.