Interesting article arguing against trading draft picks

[Cryomaniac]

Without a draft, couldn't they just put a limit on signing bonuses and incentives for rookies?

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

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.

It'd be in his best interest. Boras is like having the devil as your agent. Sometimes, he gets good contracts for his clients. But, then we have those stupid Andy Benes moments. When Benes had to end up signing with Arizona for less guaranteed money because Boras had to screw the Cards past the deadline.

[Left-handed Badger]

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.

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.

Then again, maybe we should bring back the bonus babies.

[CBL-Commish]

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.

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.

Well, yea, because that was before free agency and teams spent about $1.75 on salaries for major league players. Amateur free agency was the only free agency. At least then players had some control - they could pick what organization they signed with. Now most players never have a choice, because the vast majority never get the service time required to become free agents, or if they do for most it's as six-year minor league free agents whose prospect labels have long since expired.

Anyway, at least in baseball, a combination of amateur+experienced player free agency has never been tried. It's possible that would lead to less parity, but that's not certain. With fewer restrictions and rules and organization there will be more loopholes and ways to game the system, and more advantages for teams who scout and analyze better. Smart teams might still be able to win.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

Without a draft, couldn't they just put a limit on signing bonuses and incentives for rookies?

Dola. Yes, the union has always been willing to throw future players under the bus to benefit current players, and management would have no problem with that at all.

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

Dola. Yes, the union has always been willing to throw future players under the bus to benefit current players, and management would have no problem with that at all.

Unions maximize value for their membership. Prospects are not members. MLBPA's writ does not cover them

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

Without a draft, couldn't they just put a limit on signing bonuses and incentives for rookies?

They tried that in the late 1940s and 1950s, the so-called "bonus baby" rules. It didn't work, as clubs constantly found loopholes in the rules or made under-the-table payments.

The follow-up was the "first year player draft" (not to be confused with the amateur draft) where any player, after his first season in the minors, could be drafted by any other major league club unless the player had been advanced to the 40-man roster. The thought was no major league team would pay a high signing bonus to an amateur player if it would be forced to advance him to the 40-man roster after just one season or risk losing him in the draft. It didn't really work either, as many clubs were willing to take the gamble.

The only measure which proved successful in curbing signing bonuses was the amateur draft. It did its job well for almost thirty years. Then, in the early- to mid-1990s, signing bonuses began to march significantly upwards again.

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

Anyway, at least in baseball, a combination of amateur+experienced player free agency has never been tried.

There's no reason to think it would turn out any differently than it did fifty years ago. Without the amateur draft, clubs with deep pockets will spend whatever they can to lock up promising talent for themselves or to keep it away from other clubs. Heck, even with the restrictions under the current system, some clubs have to draft with an eye to affordability rather that talent.

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

Yes, the union has always been willing to throw future players under the bus to benefit current players, and management would have no problem with that at all.

And yet, curiously, it's the MLBPA which has been steadfastly against any sort of official signing bonus slotting system. It accepts the current slotting system because it is unofficial, and major league clubs often tend to ignore the bonus payment size recommendation the Commissioner's office assigns to draft positions.

The only class of player the MLBPA really tends to ignore are those actually playing in the minors. If you're an amateur entering the draft, or have reached the major leagues for at least some length of time, the union will fight for rules to benefit you. Once you're in the minors, however, you're an apprentice and your benefits are few unless you actually reach the major league level.

[knuckler]

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.

If Washington had failed to sign their compensation pick for not signing Aaron Crow in 2008, they would have lost the pick (Storen already signed). But if they don't sign Strasburg, they will have the second pick in the draft next season.

[Left-handed Badger]

Actually, I still think the bonus baby rule could work, if you put a strict set of rules with it and few loopholes (and fix the ones that do pop up)



The New York Yankees just arent going to field a team with 10 players on the roster are 18-year old bonuas babies.


Actuall, LeGrande Orange I have to ask what were some of those loopholes, exactly, you have got me curious.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by knuckler

If Washington had failed to sign their compensation pick for not signing Aaron Crow in 2008, they would have lost the pick (Storen already signed). But if they don't sign Strasburg, they will have the second pick in the draft next season.

Yes, I think that's right. I misread the material I had onhand about the compensation picks.

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

Actually, I still think the bonus baby rule could work, if you put a strict set of rules with it and few loopholes (and fix the ones that do pop up)

I just find it interesting that some are suggesting that MLB should go backwards to its pre-draft times, when it was the bonus excesses of that time which led directly to the adoption of the draft.

Originally Posted by knuckler

Actuall, LeGrande Orange I have to ask what were some of those loopholes, exactly, you have got me curious.

Well, it was a series of little things. The rule orignally stated that no amateur player could be signed for a salary and bonus of more than $6,000; if he was, then clubs had to retain the player on the major league active roster and could not option him to the minors unless he cleared waivers, and waiver requests could not be withdrawn.

But clubs soon figured out that the limit only applied to the current year, so teams could spread out a larger amount over several years. That loophole had to be closed. Then clubs, in lieu of paying an actual cash bonus, would award additional amounts in non-cash forms, such as buying the player a car. That loophole had to be closed. Then it would be buying items for the relatives of the player as a form of additional bonus. And so on.

Clubs were constantly seeking ways to game the system in order to offer more money to a prospect than a rival club.

The first attempt at the bonus rule lasted from 1946-50. A second attempt lasted from 1952-57. In both cases, MLB terminated the rule because it had little practical effect in curbing the bonuses being paid to amateur players. The first-year player draft was instituted in 1958, but only had a limited effect in slowing bonus payments. The first real success in limiting signing bonuses was with the adoption of the amateur draft in 1965.

[knuckler]

I think you quoted the wrong person.

BTW, here's the language from the CBA:

# If a team does not sign its pick in the first two rounds (including the supplemental round between the two), it receives a compensatory selection in the following year's Rule 4 Draft that is one pick after the slot of the player who did not sign.

# If a team does not sign its third-round selection, it receives a compensatory selection in a new supplemental round between the third and fourth rounds in the following year's draft.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by knuckler

I think you quoted the wrong person.

Geez, my track record for accuracy in this thread is dwindling by the minute, isn't it?