Let's talk about the new system, did it work?

[jcarm]

So assume that doesn't apply to international players. How would that affect domestic players? Sure, the agents and players would hate it, but it would do wonders for the teams and competitive balance. It seems to work pretty well with the NFL and NBA.

It would definitely hurt the level of talent coming in. One advantage that Baseball has over Basketball and Football(especially) is that they can persuade players to sign out of high school-thereby getting the first crack at great athletes. If you forced players to give up their rights as amateurs prior to being eligible to be drafted-many of these players would simply go to college. This would either delay their pro career(not always the worst thing-but not a desirable outcome in the minds of most MLB teams) or most likely would result in them not ever playing baseball. This would definitely hurt the sport IMO.

[Flosman]

You contradicted yourself. You said that you don't like the hard cap system, but you also said that you want players to be compensated by their draft position. You realize that's exactly what a hard cap slotting does.... only perfectly with no loopholes. What's your problem with it?

A hard cap system does not allow for the fact that the 27th pick (for example) does not always have the same relative value. The flexibility allows the market to match up the total money allotted to the talent judged to be the best relative value for each specific pick. I think for a hard cap system you would almost have separate drafts for HS players and college players (probably the varies types of college players) because the risk profile is completely different and the discounting of the risk is something teams should have some control over. To me the biggest problem that needed to be addressed was the "buying" of additional high round picks by winning teams which the new system does, IMO. I was not has nearly concerned with making the money a non factor.

[Flosman]

You bring up a good point but I don't think you'll see a real test to this system until the next Strasburg/Harper comes along and says 7.2M just isn't going to get it done.

RZNJ I would be interested to hear exactly what the players option is exactly? Do you think the next Harper is going to go Japan or what?

[DrOrioles90210]

Someday, Scott Boras or some other agent, will take this system to court. That's about the only option there would be.

Take MLB to court to argue what?

[The Rick]

Great thread, very informative. That is all.

[hoosiers]

To argue that it's an unfair system and is not a free market. This system was bargained for between a union and MLB. These kids aren't part of the union so how can that union agree to a system that puts artificial limits on bonuses? I'm not a lawyer. Stotle, Lucky Jim, and Frobby would have more to say as what legal argument against it might be but I'm pretty sure an argument could be made.

I understand the general point, but I do not see much of a case here. Basketball and football have kept much tighter reins/slots for their top picks than MLB did for these picks. Not too many kids have turned down $6M bonuses in MLB history and that was available this year at the top of the draft. The couple of $9M kids who come through every five years or so are just going to have to get in line.

[SrMeowMeow]

Is there any chance that more players start just graduating college and signing as independent free agents? What if the next Strasburg wouldn't take $7.2M and just dominated college, got his degree, and signed a multi-year deal as a polished young pitcher?

[SrMeowMeow]

Can't. You don't sign, you go back in the draft. As far as I know this rule applies no matter now many years you get drafted and don't sign.

Didn't Aaron Crow do something like that though?

[Mizerooskie]

To argue that it's an unfair system and is not a free market. This system was bargained for between a union and MLB. These kids aren't part of the union so how can that union agree to a system that puts artificial limits on bonuses? I'm not a lawyer. Stotle, Lucky Jim, and Frobby would have more to say as what legal argument against it might be but I'm pretty sure an argument could be made.

If it's collectively bargained, it's not a free market. I'm sure the MLB and MLBPA would argue that the player in question has other alternatives in Asia, or independent leagues. If they want to gain entry into the league and the union, they have to abide by the rules.

If there was any strength to the legal argument, you'd have seen it go to court WRT the NFL, NBA, and NHL already.

[paulcoates]

•According to calculations by Baseball America, the Red Sox will face increased penalties from MLB if they continue spending at their current pace to go 5% over their draft budget as pointed out by Brian MacPherson of The Providence Journal. When a team exceeds its budget by 5% or less, it is penalized by paying 75% on the amount over the threshold. Teams that go over by 5 to 10% are mandated to pay a luxury tax of 100% on the excess spending and forfeit their next first round draft pick.

[The Rick]

Haha. It was collectively bargained by the Players Union and MLB. Since the college players are not in the union, I'd say there is a loophole there. As for your other argument, the reserve clause wasn't challenged for 100 years or so. Just because it hasn't been challenged doesn't mean it won't be.

I just don't see this happening, IMHO. It appears to be similar to the Clarett vs NFL case a few years back. We saw how that turned out. (not that I disagree with you, logically)

[Trackmaster]

It would definitely hurt the level of talent coming in. One advantage that Baseball has over Basketball and Football(especially) is that they can persuade players to sign out of high school-thereby getting the first crack at great athletes. If you forced players to give up their rights as amateurs prior to being eligible to be drafted-many of these players would simply go to college. This would either delay their pro career(not always the worst thing-but not a desirable outcome in the minds of most MLB teams) or most likely would result in them not ever playing baseball. This would definitely hurt the sport IMO.

That's a weak argument. I'm not talking about paying players less, I'm just talking about having a logical, rigid cap. You can make the cap as high or lower as you want. The only qualification is that it descends the further down the draft you go. Ergo, high school players could still get millions if they were picked high. If they were picked low, then it would be a good thing if the Red Sox or Yankees weren't able to bribe them into signing on. Competitive balance is a good thing. I dream of a day where in the MLB the worst teams get first crack at the best players, and the best teams have to work to rebuild, and have to go through dry spells.

Plus, the number of kids that are phenom two sport athletes is low. designing the entire system around them is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Trackmaster]

A hard cap system does not allow for the fact that the 27th pick (for example) does not always have the same relative value. The flexibility allows the market to match up the total money allotted to the talent judged to be the best relative value for each specific pick. I think for a hard cap system you would almost have separate drafts for HS players and college players (probably the varies types of college players) because the risk profile is completely different and the discounting of the risk is something teams should have some control over. To me the biggest problem that needed to be addressed was the "buying" of additional high round picks by winning teams which the new system does, IMO. I was not has nearly concerned with making the money a non factor.

No, the point of the draft is that if you're better, you get drafted earlier, and if you're worse you get drafter later. That's why the players put in the hard work in high school or college. You shouldn't be paid based on which team drafted you.

[Can_of_corn]

According to BA the Nats have $3,030,074 left for Giolito. Will be interesting to see if they can get it done. (I guess he signs)

[jcarm]

That's a weak argument. I'm not talking about paying players less, I'm just talking about having a logical, rigid cap. You can make the cap as high or lower as you want. The only qualification is that it descends the further down the draft you go. Ergo, high school players could still get millions if they were picked high. If they were picked low, then it would be a good thing if the Red Sox or Yankees weren't able to bribe them into signing on. Competitive balance is a good thing. I dream of a day where in the MLB the worst teams get first crack at the best players, and the best teams have to work to rebuild, and have to go through dry spells.

Plus, the number of kids that are phenom two sport athletes is low. designing the entire system around them is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I beg to differ-you were talking about forcing the players to decide to go pro or not before the draft without a guarantee given back to them. This would impact players other than the 2 sport athletes. Many other players would choose to go to college rather than be forced to go pro-which again is not a desirable outcome for most MLB teams. It would have a dramatic(probably negative) impact on the development system as it exists today IMO. It would probably just weaken the overall talent base-resulting in a poorer product for us, the fans. It would also just serve to line the pockets of the owners with more cash at the cost of the players. I think that we have had enough of that in the history of sports.