+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Hung on for the ride.
    Posts
    63,593

    Orioles 11th in total Draft pool Allotment

    http://www.masnsports.com/steve_mele...medium=twitter

    Round one, No. 4 overall allotted $4.2 million.
    Round two, No. 65 overall allotted $793,700.
    Round three, No. 99 overall allotted $481,100.
    According to the new CBA rules for the draft, any club not signing one of its top ten round picks will lose the bonus money allotted money for that specific pick. But any club that signs a top ten round pick for a savings can use the savings amount on other selections.
    "If the Orioles didn't sign the number four pick, they can't take his allotted $4.2 million and distribute it in the rest of the draft, it just goes away. But let's say they spent $3.2 on that pick. That gives them a million to play with and go over the limits for another pick or picks, even one after the tenth round," Callis said.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Hung on for the ride.
    Posts
    63,593
    As part of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement, teams are now assigned an aggregate signing bonus pool for their picks in the first 10 rounds of the draft. Each has a predetermined value, from $7.2 million for the No. 1 choice to $125,000 for pick No. 300 and any subsequent .

    Raul Ibanez has agreed to a contract with the Yankees, all but finalizing the draft order. Derrek Lee is the lone potential compensation free agent remaining on the market, but he won't generate a compensation pick if he signs a minor league deal, as expected. Unless Lee gets a major league contract, the aggregate bonus pools below are set in stone.
    http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/...e-bonus-pools/


    BA Aggregate Bonuses

  3. #3
    DrungoHazewood's Avatar
    DrungoHazewood is offline Hangout Contributor Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Reputation
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SoMd
    Posts
    20,155
    I guess I need to go do some research, but I'm not getting how they came up with these amounts. Why do the Cardinals get $9M and change to work with, but the Nats and Indians get $4M?

    The BA link really highlights how this is going to stick it to teams who were really augmenting their talent pools with draft spending. There are five teams who spent $10M+ last year and are being limited to under $7M this year, including the Pirates who'll be forced to cut $10M from their 2011 draft budget. Anybody who thinks this won't have an impact on lower-revenue teams is crazy. Let's see how the Rays do now that they've been forced to cut their draft spending by 66%.

  4. #4
    Stotle's Avatar
    Stotle is offline Hangout Scouting Contributor Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    12,087
    Quote Originally Posted by DrungoHazewood View Post
    I guess I need to go do some research, but I'm not getting how they came up with these amounts. Why do the Cardinals get $9M and change to work with, but the Nats and Indians get $4M?

    The BA link really highlights how this is going to stick it to teams who were really augmenting their talent pools with draft spending. There are five teams who spent $10M+ last year and are being limited to under $7M this year, including the Pirates who'll be forced to cut $10M from their 2011 draft budget. Anybody who thinks this won't have an impact on lower-revenue teams is crazy. Let's see how the Rays do now that they've been forced to cut their draft spending by 66%.
    I disagree with most of this. The system is much better for low revenue teams now. The fact that a handful of high revenue teams weren't flexing their financial muscle is the single reason the old system looks like it was working.

    Washington lost picks because of the FA they signed. STL gained picks in losing free agents. The picks up higher in the draft are worth the most money, so they influence the pool alotments significantly.

    Next year will have full implementation of the new comp system, so there will be fewer comp picks, which will help to level the playing field even more. Under this new system, teams that are able to spend on the elite free agents (FAs qualifying for compensation) will take significant hits in their draft pools. Teams that can't afford to keep their elite FAs will be more significantly compensated. Low revenue teams will also get a shot at extra comp picks.

  5. #5
    DrungoHazewood's Avatar
    DrungoHazewood is offline Hangout Contributor Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Reputation
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SoMd
    Posts
    20,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Stotle View Post
    I disagree with most of this. The system is much better for low revenue teams now. The fact that a handful of high revenue teams weren't flexing their financial muscle is the single reason the old system looks like it was working.

    Washington lost picks because of the FA they signed. STL gained picks in losing free agents. The picks up higher in the draft are worth the most money, so they influence the pool alotments significantly.

    Next year will have full implementation of the new comp system, so there will be fewer comp picks, which will help to level the playing field even more. Under this new system, teams that are able to spend on the elite free agents (FAs qualifying for compensation) will take significant hits in their draft pools. Teams that can't afford to keep their elite FAs will be more significantly compensated. Low revenue teams will also get a shot at extra comp picks.
    So most of the differences are from losing picks and getting comp picks? Ok, that's fine. I understand that, and how in the long run getting rid of much of that is better for smaller market teams.

    But it still doesn't make any sense to tell the Pirates and Royals and Indians that they now have to cut a significant part of their draft expenditures. The Pirates only hope is to bring in a ton of cheap talent, and they've been told they have to cut $10M from their draft budget. From my persepective they were doing what the O's should have been doing, they were #1 in draft spending in 2011, and now they can't be any higher than about average.

  6. #6
    Stotle's Avatar
    Stotle is offline Hangout Scouting Contributor Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    12,087
    Quote Originally Posted by DrungoHazewood View Post
    So most of the differences are from losing picks and getting comp picks? Ok, that's fine. I understand that, and how in the long run getting rid of much of that is better for smaller market teams.

    But it still doesn't make any sense to tell the Pirates and Royals and Indians that they now have to cut a significant part of their draft expenditures. The Pirates only hope is to bring in a ton of cheap talent, and they've been told they have to cut $10M from their draft budget. From my persepective they were doing what the O's should have been doing, they were #1 in draft spending in 2011, and now they can't be any higher than about average.
    What allowed Pittsburgh to be #1 in draft spending?

  7. #7
    DrungoHazewood's Avatar
    DrungoHazewood is offline Hangout Contributor Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Reputation
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SoMd
    Posts
    20,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Stotle View Post
    What allowed Pittsburgh to be #1 in draft spending?
    I don't know the specifics. There are only a few possible answers: 1) High picks 2) Many picks from compensation 3) Overslots. My guess is it's some combination of all three. But going forward only #1 is untouched, and #2 is greatly reduced.

  8. #8
    Oriology's Avatar
    Oriology is offline Plus Member since 07/11 Major Leagues Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    877
    So is the rule that you cannot go overslot until you have signed someone for less than the recommended bonus? Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, but it seems that if you don't get to use the $$$ from unsigned players, then you would not be able to go overslot on anyone until you first got someone else for less.

  9. #9
    Stotle's Avatar
    Stotle is offline Hangout Scouting Contributor Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    12,087
    Quote Originally Posted by DrungoHazewood View Post
    I don't know the specifics. There are only a few possible answers: 1) High picks 2) Many picks from compensation 3) Overslots. My guess is it's some combination of all three. But going forward only #1 is untouched, and #2 is greatly reduced.
    1) high picks (an large chunk of their draft spend came on their first picks with Cole and Taillon)
    2) spending on players that fell due to signing demands

    #2 was only possible because teams that had the money to sign these players, regardless of asking price, made the philosophical decision not to do so. There were not 60 better players than Josh Bell in last year's draft. THere are plenty of teams that could have met his $5MM asking price without issue. The only reason PIT was able to grab Bell here (or Allie the year before) is that teams like the Red Sox, Yankees, White Sox, Astros, etc. made the organizational decision not to spend that much on an overslot signing (for various reasons).

    The system, as previously set up, only worked because some of the big dogs elected not to partake. The moment enough of those teams adjusted and caught-up to the thinking of PIT or KAN, the opportunities for the lower revenue teams to "spend to acuqire talent" would have evaporated.

    The new system puts the lower revenue teams in a more advantageous position, compared to the high revenue teams. The only big "losers" here are the players that would otherwise have been able to leverage college scholarships into additions hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's not ideal for those players, but I think a deeper look reveals that ultimately everyone is likely better off in this regime. Time will tell, of course.

  10. #10
    Stotle's Avatar
    Stotle is offline Hangout Scouting Contributor Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    12,087
    There aren't slot recommendations anymore. Just an alotted spend for each draft pick. Those alotted amounts eclipse what has historically been paid for those picks, so teams should not be spending the max on all of their selections. Of course, teams that are willing to do so may be able to grab players that drop a round or two -- particularly if they have access to extra picks from other slots.

  11. #11
    DrungoHazewood's Avatar
    DrungoHazewood is offline Hangout Contributor Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Reputation
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SoMd
    Posts
    20,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Stotle View Post
    1) high picks (an large chunk of their draft spend came on their first picks with Cole and Taillon)
    2) spending on players that fell due to signing demands

    #2 was only possible because teams that had the money to sign these players, regardless of asking price, made the philosophical decision not to do so. There were not 60 better players than Josh Bell in last year's draft. THere are plenty of teams that could have met his $5MM asking price without issue. The only reason PIT was able to grab Bell here (or Allie the year before) is that teams like the Red Sox, Yankees, White Sox, Astros, etc. made the organizational decision not to spend that much on an overslot signing (for various reasons).

    The system, as previously set up, only worked because some of the big dogs elected not to partake. The moment enough of those teams adjusted and caught-up to the thinking of PIT or KAN, the opportunities for the lower revenue teams to "spend to acuqire talent" would have evaporated.
    That doesn't change the fact that some lower-revenue teams were able to get an advantage that they won't have now. Maybe that's made up for because fewer players will try to game the system and there won't be (m)any guys slipping down in the draft because they'll just be taken where they should be. We'll see.

    As in all things like this my gut instinct is that the first priority was to reduce spending, and the second priority is to come up with a nice explanation as to why this is great for competitive balance. Third is to actually do something about competitive balance.

    The new system puts the lower revenue teams in a more advantageous position, compared to the high revenue teams. The only big "losers" here are the players that would otherwise have been able to leverage college scholarships into additions hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's not ideal for those players, but I think a deeper look reveals that ultimately everyone is likely better off in this regime. Time will tell, of course.
    Yep, we'll see. But I'm very skeptical of both this and the int'l caps. I guess I'm hoping it works out in the O's favor, which isn't the same as saying it's good since the O's didn't take advantage of the old system.
    Last edited by DrungoHazewood; 02-21-2012 at 06:10 PM.

  12. #12
    Stotle's Avatar
    Stotle is offline Hangout Scouting Contributor Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    12,087
    Quote Originally Posted by DrungoHazewood View Post
    That doesn't change the fact that some lower-revenue teams were able to get an advantage that they won't have now. Maybe that's made up for because fewer players will try to game the system and there won't be (m)any guys slipping down in the draft because they'll just be taken where they should be. We'll see.

    As in all things like this my guy instinct is that the first priority was to reduce spending, and the second priority is to come up with a nice explanation as to why this is great for competitive balance. Third is to actually do something about competitive balance.



    Yep, we'll see. But I'm very skeptical of both this and the int'l caps. I guess I'm hoping it works out in the O's favor, which isn't the same as saying it's good since the O's didn't take advantage of the old system.
    It was an advantage created by indifference from front offices that hadn't made the draft a priority. I think banking on teams with built in advantages not utilizing those advantages is a poor way to construct a system of operation. The Mets and Astros have new management that will be stressing the draft, with some financial muscle to back it up. The idea that teams like Pittsburgh and Kansas City were going to be able to indefinitely have their pick of overslot signings is simply wrong.

    I can't stress enough how much more of an advantage an organization like Baltimore has under this new system than they would under the old system. Of course, it all comes down to how teams decide to operate. There are a handful of approaches that could work, but the decision as to which approach is best will likely be predicated upon team and draft class specifics.

    I have yet to see someone articulate well how giving teams with worse records, and teams that can't afford to keep FA (fixing the comp system) has created a draft process that is worse for bad record/low revenue teams than the former system, which routinely gave Boston extra picks for relief pitchers and allowed them to consistently be in the top five or so in draft spend.

  13. #13
    DrungoHazewood's Avatar
    DrungoHazewood is offline Hangout Contributor Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Reputation
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SoMd
    Posts
    20,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Stotle View Post
    It was an advantage created by indifference from front offices that hadn't made the draft a priority. I think banking on teams with built in advantages not utilizing those advantages is a poor way to construct a system of operation. The Mets and Astros have new management that will be stressing the draft, with some financial muscle to back it up. The idea that teams like Pittsburgh and Kansas City were going to be able to indefinitely have their pick of overslot signings is simply wrong.

    I can't stress enough how much more of an advantage an organization like Baltimore has under this new system than they would under the old system. Of course, it all comes down to how teams decide to operate. There are a handful of approaches that could work, but the decision as to which approach is best will likely be predicated upon team and draft class specifics.

    I have yet to see someone articulate well how giving teams with worse records, and teams that can't afford to keep FA (fixing the comp system) has created a draft process that is worse for bad record/low revenue teams than the former system, which routinely gave Boston extra picks for relief pitchers and allowed them to consistently be in the top five or so in draft spend.
    I agree it has potential to be better, but we'll see how much, if at all. And I'm really interested in seeing how much talent goes to other sports, or other impacts (not necessarily all negative) of reducing the amount of money going to amateur signings.

    Why can't we have a system where they fix the comp picks and let anyone with a losing record (or a lottery or something to keep teams from intentionally tanking games) spend as much as they want on the draft and int'l signings?

  14. #14
    Stotle's Avatar
    Stotle is offline Hangout Scouting Contributor Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    12,087
    Quote Originally Posted by DrungoHazewood View Post
    I agree it has potential to be better, but we'll see how much, if at all. And I'm really interested in seeing how much talent goes to other sports, or other impacts (not necessarily all negative) of reducing the amount of money going to amateur signings.

    Why can't we have a system where they fix the comp picks and let anyone with a losing record (or a lottery or something to keep teams from intentionally tanking games) spend as much as they want on the draft and int'l signings?
    I think your suggestion probably goes too far in the opposite direction. What are you allowing teams with winning records to spend? If I'm a HSer, wouldn't I essentially tell every winning team area scout that I'm not interested in signing, considering losing teams can pay my infinitely more?

    My best guess right now is that the impact of players choosing to go play football or basketball (in addition to baseball) in college will be minimal. Maybe not in number (though I think there's a good chance of that, as well), but certainly in impact on talent eventually reaching the Majors.

  15. #15
    DrungoHazewood's Avatar
    DrungoHazewood is offline Hangout Contributor Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Reputation
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SoMd
    Posts
    20,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Stotle View Post
    I think your suggestion probably goes too far in the opposite direction. What are you allowing teams with winning records to spend? If I'm a HSer, wouldn't I essentially tell every winning team area scout that I'm not interested in signing, considering losing teams can pay my infinitely more?
    I figure that makes up for the difference in revenues inherent in having a large market to tap into. If competitive balance is really a goal then why allow large market teams to spend $100M+ on salaries that small markets can't afford and $millions more on infrastructure and facilities and marketing the like, while the bone they throw to teams like the Royals and Orioles is that they can now draft up to $5M worth of amateur players more than the Yanks? Team A gets to spend three or four times as much on payroll, but Team B gets to actually sign their slightly higher draft picks, so it's all even!

    And we haven't even talked about the international cap, which mostly takes money out of the signing equation. Which will probably drive more players to successful organizations, which are predominately the rich teams. Fortunately that won't effect the Orioles since they didn't sign international players anyway.

    My best guess right now is that the impact of players choosing to go play football or basketball (in addition to baseball) in college will be minimal. Maybe not in number (though I think there's a good chance of that, as well), but certainly in impact on talent eventually reaching the Majors.
    It'll be a number of years before the full effects are determined, and I'm sure there will be more than a few unintended side effects.
    Last edited by DrungoHazewood; 02-22-2012 at 08:34 AM.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

OriolesHangout.com is an unofficial site and not associated with the Baltimore Orioles and part of Hangout Ventures LLC. Copyright ©2013 | Privacy Policy | Advertise with us