Bo Don't Know John Schuerholz
by subtle on Jun 10, 2011 10:35 AM EDT
Email
Print
Braves president John Schuerholz heads the Rule 4 draft committee which may try to "hard slot" the amateur draft in future years. This would force teams to pay a set bonus to draftees depending on their draft slot. This is a practice the Braves have used successfully for years, but many experts believe it will be bad for baseball if the practice is mandated. Would Bo Jackson have played baseball if he was treated like just another athlete? More after the jump...
Let's deflate the biggest fallacy about slot bonuses right away. Many baseball execs and writers claim that hard slotting players will give small market teams a fighting chance. The simple fact is, nothing could be farther from the truth: paying over slot is what gives the small market teams a chance to get talented players. Why in the world would the best college pitcher in the draft sign with the Pittsburgh Pirates, a team who is going nowhere fast, when they know a hot young team like the Washington Nationals will pick him up later in the draft and he could help build a dynasty with Strasbourg and Harper? The equalizer is that the Pirates can compensate the player to be a trailblazer for their team because they've been saving money to sign him. Small market teams have been using this strategy for years to retain talented players who would not otherwise sign with their team. The fact is: paying over slot is a good thing and an important tool for small market teams.
The next complaint we often hear from baseball execs is that draft bonuses are a risky investment on young and untested players. Here's the truth about draft bonuses: bonuses are a drop in the bucket to a major league baseball team. MLB teams spend about 6.5 million dollars on drafted players. This is a small portion of their annual budgets which average out nearly 100 million dollars. For 6.5 million dollars, baseball teams get to reserve the rights to up to 50 players for 7 years of cost controlled baseball. In 2002, the Brewers signed Prince Fielder for a slot record 2.4 million dollars and then were only required to pay him the league minimum for the first 3 years of his MLB career. It was the steal of the century. In 2007, the San Francisco Giants gave Madison Bumgarner 2 million dollars as the 10th overall draft pick. In 2010, they rode Bumgarner and fellow young arms Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain to a world series victory. They paid Bumgarner $400,000 for the entire season. The truth is that paying overslot is an amazing opportunity to retain young talent for a drop in the bucket compared to what you would pay for similar talent on the free agent market.
What dissapoints me most about the talk of hard slotting is the fact that Schuerholz doesn't seem to understand that being the head of the Rule 4 draft board makes him a custodian for the sport. His job is to put Major League Baseball above the agenda of his team. The simple fact is that bonuses allow baseball to retain marquee talent that might slip away to other sports. Baseball is a business and its a business that competes with football and basketball for ticket sales, advertising revenue, and merchandise sales. If baseball is going to create and sustain an advantage over competing sports, marquee athletes are the best way to do it. Baseball needs players who can make highlight reel plays, drive balls into the stratosphere, and light up speed guns. Young rising star athletes who can choose multiple paths to professional sports might have the choice of 4 free years of college after which they will have the immediate opportunity to play at the highest level of football or basketball; or they can sign with a baseball team, play several years in the minors, and hope things work out. Baseball teams need to be able to offer big bonuses to retain players like Bubba Starling or Matt Szczur. If they can't lockdown these players, then they risk losing the players along with their jersey and ticket sales to other sports.
John Schuerholz would be doing a great disservice to baseball if he leads the Rule 4 draft board to believe that hard slotting does not put small market teams at a disadvantage and is not a bad investment choice for the future of the game. The simple fact is that not one of the common arguments for hard slotting holds up when put under a microscope. How is it possible that the former president of a team known for one of the greatest two sport starts of the 20th century doesn't get why this would be a bad investment for the game?
This FanPost does not express the views or opinions of Talking Chop.
68 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Draftees should get paid what they're worth
but asking a small market club to sign an amateur for $15,000,000 is extremely risky and improbable. A reasonable change to make sure smaller market clubs don’t have to keep on drafting for “signability” would be a welcome change for clubs like Pittsburgh, San Diego, Oakland and the like.
That Heyward guy is pretty good.
by another simpsons avatar on Jun 10, 2011 3:21 PM EDT reply actions
You realize paying over slot is a strategy small market teams use to make players more signable
Nobody gets this. This is why I put it in the original post. Players don’t want to sign with small market teams. So small market teams put more money toward the draft to give them a better shot at signing a player.
you cite absolutely no evidence for this point.
I would counter that it is a tool big-market teams like the Yankees use… selecting Slade heathcott ( a guy who was a top 15 talent but required a huge bonus to sign and no team thought he was worth as much as he wanted… the Yankees were willing and had the resources to pay him.
There have been a couple reports of this, that the Red Sox and Yankees are going way over slot now that they have discovered the wonders of the draft.
this is killing small market teams, bc spending an extra 1M on a draftee who at best has a 50/50 shot to make it to the playoffs when the whole roster for the Marlins (for arguments sake) barely reaches 50M.
the reason people don’t get this is, is there is no evidence to support your assertion. (hell there is very little to support the Red Sox and Yankee argument i posit)
"No. Lonely people mixing with one another? Breeding? Creating an even lonelier generation? You're not even allowing natural selection do its work. Pssh. You're like the guy who invented the seat belt."
Dwight Schrute
the NBA has hard slotting for draft picks.
the NFL will likely get it soon.
What I do expect to happen with hard slotting is more top picks signing out of high school, to get longer pro careers, instead of going to school.
The only other option I’d see is doing something crazy like going to Japan, and I just don’t see that happening- plus how many draft picks could play in Japan off the bat?
The best atheletes are choosing football and basketball over baseball
So we want those top tier athletes to choose baseball. You don’t do that by doing the same thing other sports do. You take advantage of the fact that other sports want hard slots to attract talent that might have other options.
If it's for money...
let’s see how much the top football players make, and then look at the $30+ m per year top baseball players make. Basketball can’t get there either with their rules.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
Or to piggyback on the NBA model...
several international players were drafted and allowed to develop in Europe (Ricky Rubio is the current example) for a few years but the team maintains their signing rights.
Let’s say I draft a HS player, and they choose to go to college instead. As a major league club, I should be able to maintain their signing rights for a specific period after they leave college. If they choose not to sign with me, I have a period to trade their rights to another team. If not settled, the player re-enters the next year’s draft.
A couple disagreements...
Why in the world would the best college pitcher in the draft sign with the Pittsburgh Pirates, a team who is going nowhere fast, when they know a hot young team like the Washington Nationals will pick him up later in the draft and he could help build a dynasty with Strasbourg and Harper?
He doesn’t have a choice…two teams can’t pick the same player, so he’s going to give up a year for nothing, and get paid nothing. That’s time and money lost for the player. There’s no guarantee that a player will end up with the team of his choice, unless the team of his choice sucks (because they draft higher). How often has this worked out in other leagues?? Oh, sure, there’s John Elway, but how many other stars turned down their drafted teams to go elsewhere?? Few and far between.
In 2009, the Yankees (fourth), Red Sox (second) and Tigers (first) spent the most money on overslot players, and the Red Sox were second again last season (Toronto, a large market team with a fairly high payroll was first).
Why?? Players that say, “Pay me overslot or don’t draft me” fall to teams like the Yankees and Red Sox because small market teams can’t risk as much of their capital on overslot players. The Pirates are continually hamstrung into going overslot just to sign their high draft picks. This doesn’t help them keep the best player available…it forces them to pay up or choose a player of lesser talent.
Baseball teams need to be able to offer big bonuses to retain players like Bubba Starling or Matt Szczur. If they can’t lockdown these players, then they risk losing the players along with their jersey and ticket sales to other sports.
No they don’t. If Starling doesn’t sign, he’s still playing baseball…for a college team. He’s not likely to make the MLB by the time he graduates college anyway, so what are we missing out on?? Maybe some minor league jerseys and ticket sales…chump change for the professional organization.
Furthermore, a player like Starling isn’t going pro in football (same as Szczur, I mean, Villanova?? Football powerhouse!!)…he’ll be back in the draft in a couple years if he decides to play collegiately instead. You’re not protecting Starling from football by allowing overslot, you’re just trading his time in the minor leagues for time in a college system. And, if he chooses to not sign, they get a compensation pick next year.
-C
It’s rough to sit through these games and not have someone that can’t hit a Ball?
by cthabeerman on Jun 10, 2011 6:46 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
And when a player doesn't sign, you're not allowed to sign the player again without their permission
So if you’re KC, you really want to sign that player on the first attempt. You don’t want to lose them to someone else next time around or have them cost even more money to sign next time.
you are still suggesting
that people would rather give away a year then sign with a team they dont want.
People are like at least I'm not that guy on stage. That guy on stage is like at least I'm not that guy in the looney bin. The guy in the looney bin are like at least I'm an orange
Hate to be a negative nancy
but i’m still waiting on the evidence that hard slotting will hurt smaller market teams. Sorry man, but you have seriously confused “opinion” with “fact”.
How about all the players who tell small market teams they'd rather go to college unless they get paid over slot?
This is literally a strategy small market teams like KC use right now. If you hard slot, you remove that strategy from the small market teams.
The Royals had only one draft in which they spent the most on over-slot guys, whereas the Red Sox are continually in the top five, year-in and year-out. Last year, the Royals had two guys, one the year before that, and a bunch in 2008 when they were the highest. By comparison, the Red Sox drafted 16 over-slot players in 2007-2009 in the fourth round or later.
The disconnect here is that the Royals over-slot players are coming in the first three rounds, by and large, when they’re forced to pay up or lose out on a really high pick. The Red Sox are continually drafting players that are 1st and 2nd-round talents in later rounds in addition to their early-round picks.
So why don’t the Royals draft over-slot guys later?? Well, it’s hard to do that when half your draft budget just went to your top two picks. In 2008, Hosmer took a solid 1/3 of their over-slot money alone, in the draft that they spent the most over-slot money. In other years, it would have been half of their over-slot money or more. Doesn’t really leave room to over-slot a bunch of guys later, does it??
The Royals struggle to get their one or two high picks while the Red Sox are picking up five picks per year that are nearly as talented as the guys the Royals sign. How is that an advantage to the Royals, who are already behind in MLB talent and hamstrung into signing big deals with top picks every season?
-C
It’s rough to sit through these games and not have someone that can’t hit a Ball?
by cthabeerman on Jun 11, 2011 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
It's not an "advantage"
First, the Red Sox have expressed the fact that they are against hard slots. So I don’t really know where you’re going with that.
Paying over slot is what Royals have to do to sign players who would otherwise not sign with the Royals. That’s what people don’t seem to be getting. Of course people are signing with the Red Sox, they’re a storied franchise who have had a great decade. You just basically agreed with everything I wrote.
Under a hard slot, if you are drafted by the Royals this year and don’t sign because you don’t like them, they’re not allowed to draft you next year unless you give them permission. If you’d rather play college for a year or go play in the frontier league and then let a team who you like more get a shot at you next year, there’s no way for the Royals to tempt you to sign with them for more money. Maybe the Royals will get a compensatory pick, but they don’t want a pick next year, they want rights to you for the next 7 years this year. That’s why they pay overslot. It’s a win-win. Team gets player. Player gets money.
You clearly don’t understand what’s going on. They aren’t getting hamstrung by paying overslot. They are signing players they might not otherwise sign and they have rights to those players at a bargain for a long time.
The push for hard slotting is being driven by teams who go for sign-ability or just want to save a buck like the Braves.
So you’re saying that the Red Sox being able to spend more money and bring in more over-slot guys is an advantage to the Royals?? That, frankly, is stupid. Since you’re clearly a bit slow, I’ll go ahead and spell it out for you.
The Royals, who routinely pick in the top 10, have had to shell out millions and millions of dollars to get their guy at the top of the draft. At this point, a considerable chunk of the Royals over-slot money has been depleted on one player. Meanwhile, the Red Sox pick in the bottom 10 continually and can sign at a little above slot, comparatively.
Then the Red Sox do it again in the compensation round, second round, third round, fourth round, etc., continually picking up players for over-slot money that would not sign if not for the over-slot. The Royals can’t continue to do this because their budget has been severely depleted by signing their top pick. By the end of the draft, the Royals have maybe two or three guys over slot, while the Red Sox have 6-8 overslot players that are all first or second-round talents.
In a hard slot system, some HS players may choose college, that’s true. However, if they do, they aren’t eligible for the draft until they’re juniors, negating your “they can’t pick them” argument. Sure, juniors could go back to college and seniors could sign minor league deals, but they’re missing out on a year of time in established minor leagues systems and aren’t going to get the money or instruction they need, a severe detriment in making it to the big leagues.
Most of these players want to play in the big leagues, so they aren’t going to do anything to jeopardize that chance. There’s no guarantee you’re going to get drafted higher or by the team of your choice if you decide not to sign.
Oh, and any player that subverts by going to the minor leagues cannot get a signing bonus and has to be paid by the minor league pay structure…even if they sign a AAA contract right off the bat, they’re paid a maximum of $2,150 per month…big money!! More likely is a Class A signing, which gets them a whopping $1,050 per month.
The only way it would work to the player’s benefit is if a team decides to sign them to a major league contract after their year in the independent leagues, which would put them on the 40-man roster before they play a single game for a non-independent minor league team. Unless you’re Strasburg or Harper, that ain’t happening. 40-man roster spots don’t grow on trees (there’s only 40 per team, after all, with 25 of those being MLB spots), and if the MLB organization drops off the 40-man, they’re open to waivers…it’s not really beneficial to the team unless the guy is an absolute sure thing. Those players are exceedingly rare.
For all teams, a hard slot system levels the playing field. The Red Sox won’t be able to pull 6-8 high-round talents each draft. So of course they’re against hard-slotting, you moron. If you would have taken five minutes to consider why the Red Sox are against hard-slotting, you would have realized all this…but you clearly didn’t think that out.
-C
It’s rough to sit through these games and not have someone that can’t hit a Ball?
Don't mind me...
I clearly don’t understand what’s going on.
-C
It’s rough to sit through these games and not have someone that can’t hit a Ball?
You have it backward
You assume the Red Sox paying over-slot is driving up prices on small market teams. You also assume that just becuase The Red Sox have deep pockets for the draft, they can spend more. The Royals also pay over-slot for the draft, not just at the top but in other places. You know why? Because the draft is an excellent investment and it’s a market imbalance that these teams are exploiting. A big market team doing it does not exclude a small market team from using it to their advantage. I could just as easily point out that the reason the Red Sox sign top notch talent at lower picks is:
1. They are a really smart organization who understands the value of players better than other organizations
2. They are a really good organization and people really like signing with them
Also, what you’re saying about the Royals depleting their over-slot money simply is not true. They pay over-slot for lots of players, not just the top of the draft, because its their “system”. And it’s working. They are going to be an amazing team by 2013-2014 when all their pieces come together. Baseball writers have been covering this system for 2-3 years now and are literally saying that this is a great way to turn franchises around: invest your money in locking up draft picks you might otherwise have trouble signing. You’re just applying straw man logic to the situation without doing any real research into how this works.
The simple fact is that hard-slotting only levels the playing field for teams who already don’t pay over slot and don’t like the idea of other teams doing it. If I wasn’t able to do it as well as the Royals AND the Red Sox, I wouldn’t like it either. Schuerholz thinks he can beat other teams in a hard-slot system, so of course he is lobbying for it. Owners like money, so of course some of them are lobbying for it. The simple fact is that teams don’t necessarily re-invest money they save. Look at the Pirates. They put their luxary tax money in their pockets. Teams have money to invest in the draft and they should because draft picks are an amazing investment. Teams don’t invest in the draft because they feel they are “throwing money away on amateurs,” which is simply a fallacy, and it’s something the Royals AND the Red Sox have taken advantage of for years. Once again, one thing is not mutually exclusive of the other.
Here’s a list of people who agree with me:
Nate Silver, and here’s an excellent breakdown about how paying overslot is a great investment. Maybe you should read it since it’s clear you haven’t read anything I’ve referenced this entire time. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6600
Practically the entire staff of Baseball Prospectus. At least everyone I can find.
Sean Forman, the editor of Baseball-Reference.com, http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7841
If I’m an idiot, then I’m glad to be in the company of people who get paid a lot of money to prove my point. You have a lot of good ideas but none of them are more than a strawman’s argument if you look beneath the surface.
I thought Baseball owners loved capitalism and winning
But they just love making money. And making money and winning are not necessarily joined at the hip.
You just don't get it
Most MLB teams have a budget around $7 million for bonuses in their draft.
Say you drafted Bryce Harper in 2010. He received a $6.25 million signing bonus. The Red Sox picked a guy who was reported as desiring overslot in Anthony Ranuado at pick 39. He received a $2.55M overslot signing bonus.
You have $0.75 million left for signing bonuses out of your $7M budget, and the Red Sox have $4.45M left to hand out. Who do you think will pick the overslot guy the next round?
"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results."
— Albert Einstein
Twitter: @biggentleben
by biggentleben on Jun 13, 2011 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I think you are mixing up arguments then...
overslot in terms of how MLB teams compete for talent against each other is one thing. When you mix that argument with this strange competition between baseball and other sports is where you lose a lot imo. I can see the argument on team vs team and keeping over slotting to reward those who are smart with picks and willing to invest in future talent. But this argument that keeping over slotting allows baseball to better compete for raw teenage and pre-teen athletes is something I’ve yet to see you support with any logical argument.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
You assume the Red Sox paying over-slot is driving up prices on small market teams. You also assume that just becuase The Red Sox have deep pockets for the draft, they can spend more. The Royals also pay over-slot for the draft, not just at the top but in other places.
I didn’t even say that the Red Sox are driving up prices, so I don’t know where you got that. Never said it, and don’t believe it to be true. If you’re going to argue my points, make sure they’re mine. What I did say are that the Royals always pick high in the draft, and that is what contributes to them spending a large portion of their over-slot draft budget on a single player.
For the second part of that statement, I refer my earlier statement:
The Royals had only one draft in which they spent the most on over-slot guys, whereas the Red Sox are continually in the top five, year-in and year-out. Last year, the Royals had two guys, one the year before that, and a bunch in 2008 when they were the highest. By comparison, the Red Sox drafted 16 over-slot players in 2007-2009 in the fourth round or later.
Look it up…the Royals aren’t using over-slot to the extent you’re claiming, outside of one or maybe two big years, the chief being 2008. Funny how I use little things like facts and you speak out of your ass with no actual proof to back it up.
The first article you linked from is an example of teams benefiting here and there from over-slotting a single player, and does not even begin to address a draft strategy such as the Red Sox in comparison with other organizations in connection to the proposed hard-slot system, which is what you and I are both talking about in this fanpost.
Go ahead and look…the word “hard” isn’t even used in the article you’re citing as a proponent against hard slotting…unless you think the statement, “It is hardly a guarantor of success,” is a full endorsement of the soft-slotting system in comparison to a hard-slot system, which he never mentions in the article.
Absolutely, as the current system stands, there is a great benefit to over-slotting a single player. That point gets a big, “Duh.” There’s an even greater advantage to over-slotting as many people as possible, when talking
about a draft strategy. That’s why the Red Sox do it (they can also afford to pay millions to several prospects that don’t pan out, something the Royals cannot afford to do as the smallest market MLB baseball team). But that’s not what we’re even talking about. We’re talking about a change from a soft to a hard-slotting system, and Nate Silver doesn’t even address it in this article.
The second article states that slotting could be bad, but he makes no conclusions. In fact, he debunks one of his first point against hard-slotting by saying it’s not a big deal in comparison with other leagues like the NBA or the possibility of playing in Japan. The fact is that no baseball player in his right mind is going to not sign with his drafted team to go play in Japan…he’s an unproven commodity that’s going to make far less playing in Japan than he’ll make from signing in a hard-slot system.
His other two points are unnamed potential legal issues and that you can’t sign two-sport athletes because you can’t buy them away from football…which is erroneous because HS baseball players can play baseball professionally and football or basketball collegiately at the same time, in addition to not being able to be drafted out of HS for both sports.
He ends his article with seven questions, not conclusions. In other words, he has no clue about what it would entail and wants to know what other people think…not exactly a firm endorsement of keeping a soft-slotting system, other than he thinks that it would have perverse effects (his words, not mine).
In the future, I suggest you cite articles that actually help your point of view rather than not address them at all or just ask questions rather than shedding actual informed light regarding the issue.
-C
It’s rough to sit through these games and not have someone that can’t hit a Ball?
You're argument is based on cheaper is better
My argument is based on investment is good. What I don’t think you get is the motivation for hard slots which is just owners trying to save money. What SIlver is demonstrating is that investing in the draft is a good thing. Owners just want to be cheap. That’s what the hard slot push is all about.
My argument is based upon what’s good for all 30 teams in the league. It has nothing to do with cheap. Your reading comprehension really blows.
-C
It’s rough to sit through these games and not have someone that can’t hit a Ball?
by cthabeerman on Jun 14, 2011 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions
If you're going to troll,
You can surely be dismissed.
I’ve been on a number of boards that were not Braves boards, and most non-ESPN, non-MLB.com Braves posters are very well respected. Heck, you want reference, check out the number of Braves posters (especially on this site) who are contributing writers for other blogs like Minor League Ball, SB Nation Atlanta, Beyond the Boxscore, and many others just on SB Nation, let alone those who are contributors on MLB.com, ESPN.com, and other national blogs.
You, sir, continually avoid any proof that shows your incorrect argument, and you are becoming nothing more than a troll, and trolls tend to find the ban-hammer around here quite thoroughly.
"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results."
— Albert Einstein
Twitter: @biggentleben
by biggentleben on Jun 14, 2011 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Turnabout is fair play. I’m more than happy to be an asshole to anyone who fails to comprehend my points time and time again, and then has the audacity to say I don’t know what I’m talking about.
If you want to be respected, show some fucking respect. Just because my point of view is different than yours doesn’t mean we must devolve into a pissing match. If you had chosen to discuss this rationally, I wouldn’t have torn every poor thought of yours into shreds.
Don’t piss on me and then play the victim when you get trounced in an argument.
-C
It’s rough to sit through these games and not have someone that can’t hit a Ball?
by cthabeerman on Jun 14, 2011 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Rec'd
"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results."
— Albert Einstein
Twitter: @biggentleben
by biggentleben on Jun 14, 2011 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Edit
ONE Pirate fan is with you, with poorly backed research.
The Twins have had as much or more success the last decade with low payroll as anyone else, and it’s certainly not because of their drafts. He also conveniently neglects to mention that shrewd trading and free agency moves are big reasons that propelled the Rockies, Rays, and Giants to the World Series. The ratios are different in each case, but you average the three of them together, and they’re about equally 1/3 draft, 1/3 free agent moves, 1/3 trading that helped to build their franchise. That doesn’t back up your point at all.
Hard slotting does nothing to hurt the competitive balance of baseball. There is still a wide open international market that was once dominated by big-spending clubs like the Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, and Dodgers, but is now annually seeing the top guys sign with teams like the Athletics, Twins, Blue Jays, and Pirates. That has a tremendous benefit for small-market teams, and there is about as much chance of an international draft being implemented in the next half-decade as there is of Barry Bonds being elected commish. Any person truly connected into what MLB is doing regularly echoes that it will not happen this CBA, and about 90% chance it won’t happen in the CBA following that as well. Draft reform is the focus of CBA currently, and not international reform. I’d wager we’ll see tradeable MLB draft picks way before we’ll see an international draft.
All that said, the Pirates took advantage of the system in a way that would be removed (and definitely rightfully so) this year by removing the following year compensation on a pick that does not sign. The Diamondbacks committed the most egregious of use of this rule last season, but the Pirates rank right up there this year. They’ve been given about a 15% chance of signing Josh Bell by most industry insiders, but because that pick is protected, they’ll see the 61st overall pick in 2012 if he does not sign as compensation based on the current rules. Hard slotting also is paired with removal of the signing compensation rules, which would encourage teams and players both to work out a deal because the teams have currently lessened motivation for going overslot on early picks. That’s why you typically see the major over-slot winners coming out of the 8th round or so in the draft.
Also, the other folly used in this article includes overall draft spending. The Rays did not better their team by overall draft spending. They utilized excellent research on picks and incredible investment in their minor league system in order to achieve the team they have. Look at their system now, for instance. Even with a majority of their MLB players being under 30 and only recently graduated from their minor league system, they have one of the top 3 systems in baseball. They make building their team a product of their development system, not just tossing darts at a draft board and throwing money at it to hope it pays off. The teams picking earlier in the draft will still spend much more money year-in and year-out in the hard-slotting system as well, so using an overall number is extremely misleading.
"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results."
— Albert Einstein
Twitter: @biggentleben
by biggentleben on Jun 14, 2011 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Your baseball understanding is not so good
The Pirates are going nowhere while the Nationals are a hot young team? You do realize that the Pirates are hovering at .500 this year with a roster full of their future stars and a ton more on the way based on excellent drafting last year. There are many who felt that Jameson Taillon was a better prospect than Bryce Harper when you consider makeup in the equation, and that the Pirates scored two of possibly the top 5 talents from the 2010 draft. They’ve been acquiring excellent young players recently in trades such as James McDonald that are bolstering the current club. Frankly, the two organizations are at least on similar tracks long-term with the Pirates having more talent at the MLB level currently, which would be very important to a top college pitcher being drafted as he’s likely to move quickly to the majors.
Also, you’re referencing Schuerholz’s time in KC, which he blew horribly at the end with poor spending as a small market, much like his time in Atlanta pursuing one more season on “the streak” ended up costing the Braves dearly in the long term. Bobby had a lot more to do with building the Atlanta Braves of the 1990s, and a lot more say in how the team continued to be constructed than JS would like people to believe. I honestly trust Frank Wren in a trade more than I trusted JS in one.
"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results."
— Albert Einstein
Twitter: @biggentleben
And the point of business is to create an advantage over your competitors for the best assets
And right now, the best assets aren’t flocking to baseball.
Yet you don't address anything I mentioned
Lovely work there. Goldstein is one who absolutely LOVES the Pirates current strategies in their system, and Law is one who considers JS’s work in KC as abysmal, so those two may be bad ones to reference to support yourself.
"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results."
— Albert Einstein
Twitter: @biggentleben
by biggentleben on Jun 11, 2011 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions
The Pirates are #1 in draft spending from '08-'10
They love the current system and Goldstein loves that they are willing to spend on the draft to get better players. What is contradictory about that?
You are contradicting yourself
To state that a player would rather go to the Nationals than the Pirates shows a complete lack of knowledge on the two teams. The Pirates have a tremendous system, which Goldstein states is very well built. You responded to my comment about the Pirates having a good idea of where they’re going with a statement referencing Goldstein and Law.
"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results."
— Albert Einstein
Twitter: @biggentleben
by biggentleben on Jun 14, 2011 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions
No I'm not
Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg are generational talents who are already household names. How many Pirates did I just describe? How many Pirate rookies have their jerseys flying off the shelves at other teams’ ballparks? How many Pirates sold out opposing teams’ stadiums the first time they played there? None. Don’t tell me the Pirates have prospects with the hype of the Nationals. Yeah, Goldstein and Law like the Pirates because they do this for a living.
So maybe I rescind my original statement to 3 out of 10 players would rather sign with the Pirates over the Nationals instead of 1.
Hype does not equal production
Todd Van Poppel was easily the most hyped pick of the 1990 draft. He was picked 14th, yet he nearly twice the signing bonus of the #1 pick, a high school shortstop from Florida. Yet, I think it’s fair to say that Chipper Jones has had a touch better career than TVP ever did. Strasburg and Harper have hype, but that doesn’t suddenly mean they’re going to the hall of fame. Many actually mentioned that they’d rather have Jameson Tallion than Bryce Harper at #1 last year, so while he doesn’t have the ESPN Sportscenter hype, he’s a tremendous talent with Stetson Allie right behind from that draft. With Tony Sanchez and Pedro Alvarez also shooting right through the minors and Jose Tabata and Andrew McCutchen already patrolling the outfield in the majors, the Pirates have a very good team on the way. A player picked by the Pirates doesn’t have a choice of the Nationals or Pirates, anyway. He can drive up his price however much he’d like, but he’s still only able to be signed by the drafting team in the current draft cycle.
"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results."
— Albert Einstein
Twitter: @biggentleben
by biggentleben on Jun 15, 2011 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions
first off the athletes in basketball are not suited well for baseball…most basketball players are above 6 ft 4 or so…which is really the peak of the height level for a baseball player (any taller and the strike zone is too big to manage as a hitter and its difficult for taller pitchers to control all the length that comes with their height, there are obvious exceptions in both respects).
You are absolutely right that the NFL is getting better athletes then baseball, but that is going to be true no matter what happens…baseball is an inherently unfavorable path to stardom…even the great players spend two years in the minors making peanuts, whereas NFL players make money right off the bat and compete in the NFL. There will be athletes in baseball and money has little to do with whether they leave or not. unless of course something drastic happens ( i don’t count a hard slot as drastic, by drastic i mean a hard cap where teams cannot spend more than 50M or something, that would reduce the earning potential of superstars significantly)
To me it seems much more likely that elite athletes choose baseball or football bc they like baseball or football more and not because they think they will earn more money in one or the other.
"No. Lonely people mixing with one another? Breeding? Creating an even lonelier generation? You're not even allowing natural selection do its work. Pssh. You're like the guy who invented the seat belt."
Dwight Schrute
This, but
Keith Law actually was the one who made a great point on a recent podcast that if you were an 18 y/o kid with top-level (first 2-3 rounds of the draft level) talent, would you go to college where you may become just another quarterback/wide receiver/defensive back and possibly never make a professional dollar, or would you go for the instant dollar now? He gave a list of the two-sport true top level talents that last 4-5 years have seen in the draft and the # that chose baseball was staggering. I’ll find it somewhere and try to get the numbers, but it makes absolute sense.
Now if you want to say that baseball isn’t developing the top athletes from a young age, that’s entirely possible, but that has as much to do with a societal shift toward football (that started in the 80s, really) over baseball as the top national professional sport of interest. Elite talent still enters the league every year just as it always has, slot or no slot.
Also, using Bo Jackson as your argument is an extremely poor one. Deion was a football player who could also play baseball. Brian Jordan was a baseball player that could also play football. Dave Winfield was a baseball player that could also play basketball and football. Joe Mauer was a baseball player that also could play football. Bo is so regarded because he was elite at both sports. That kind of athlete is a once-in-a-lifetime athlete, not someone that could be developed if teams overpaid for it. Remember that Bo turned down top-end NFL money to keep playing baseball (which was less money for him than the NFL deal would have been).
"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results."
— Albert Einstein
Twitter: @biggentleben
by biggentleben on Jun 12, 2011 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions
And I’m talking about luring athletes to baseball at a younger age when their talents are emerging. Future professional athletes start to be recognized around 8th grade in some cases. Baseball can show that it can be an advantage financially when these athletes are starting to focus on a sport.
In addition, at some point the age eligibility requirements for the NFL draft are going to drop and we’re going to see players get drafted out of high school. It’s going to happen sooner if nothing changes in the way the NCAA handles athletes but that is a different discussion. So “getting paid now” won’t always be an advantage for baseball.
NFL
Seriously, you cannot be this ignorant. No way will the NFL be lowering their time out of high school requirement. If you’ve ever been hit on the football field by a player able to squat 600 pounds and run a 4.4 40, you’ll know why those rules will never be changed. A high school senior at even the most equipped high school in the country will not have access to the training level that a college athlete is able to experience, which is absolutely required to prepare a body for the rigors of the NFL.
Baseball access at a younger age has nothing to do with slotting. Period. So I’m not sure where you try to connect one with the other.
"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results."
— Albert Einstein
Twitter: @biggentleben
by biggentleben on Jun 13, 2011 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I'll say this one more time...
since you failed to respond to it above while responding to everything else.
Baseball can show that it can be an advantage financially when these athletes are starting to focus on a sport.
Baseball already HAS shown financially of it’s strength. How many other athletes earn yearly wages on par with ARod, Jeter, Carl Crawford, etc? Baseball is the only one of the 3 without a hardening cap. Basketball may average more, but they’ve also been hemoragghing money and are about to cut back drastically. Where else can mediocre players earn solid 8 figures and push near $100m deals like you see with Derek Lowe, Bronson Arroyo, and countless other average players at best? But yeah, baseball needs to show it’s financial strength compared to other sports? Do you have any idea how foolish that sounds when their players make more, and include a much larger pool (when counting their players in the minors) than any other pro sport?
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
Not to mention the fact that college coaches are very much in favor of hard slotting
Because it will give them a better chance to hold on to player commitments:
Here’s LSU’s coach, Paul Mainieri, on the hard slot:
"If you have a hard slot system, as a coach, you can start to figure out which players you believe likely will sign or which won’t, and have a pretty good idea about it," he said. "As it stands now, though, teams come in at the deadline and throw a ridiculous amount money their way."
Absolutely
It allows more predictability for college baseball, but that doesn’t take a kid out of baseball. He’s still playing college baseball, so that doesn’t affect your argument at all.
"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results."
— Albert Einstein
Twitter: @biggentleben
by biggentleben on Jun 13, 2011 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually, I think it would change that aspect of it as well...
with a hard slot, how much future leverage do you have? No matter whn you come out, you’re making whatever the slot is, so the only advantage to returning is either the desire for a college education/college experience or to raise your stock. If you’re say the 13th pick for the Marlins, the ability to say if you don’t pay me top 2 money, I’ll go to school, is eliminated unless you can get yourself in to being a top 2 pick. It’d completely change the arguments on that side.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
Yeah but let's say you're not going to college
and you go play internationally for a couple years and prove yourself. When you come back you’re a free agent. And you’re going to ask for a big signing bonus out of my team , and you’re going to ask me for a big contract. And the team who you like the most and who gives you the biggest bonus and biggest contract is going to win. I don’t think that tilts the scale toward small market teams at all.
Go play internationally?
You mean Japan? Cause they’ve been tearing us up signing our big time high school talent from under our noses? Or did you mean the Mexican League, or perhaps the winter leagues in the Dominican and Puerto Rico? Those are real competitive markets stealing top baseball prospects?
That might work for select basketball players, but it’s absolutely a ludicrous suggestion for baseball. The only league that could possibly have it work would be Japan, and I doubt they want to piss off MLB owners so it’s fair game for their high school talent in return, because that’s a battle they’d lose and quickly.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
Aside from the lunacy of suggesting international teams will become viable options...
for amateur talent, it wouldn’t tilt the scales either. It’s not like the Red Sox, Yankees, and Angels dominate all the international talent market either. Several “small market teams” have signed big time international talents in spite of whatever tilted scale you think is in that market.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
I'd dare you
…to name 5 guys who went international without playing any minor league or college ball and then returned and were All-Star players.
"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results."
— Albert Einstein
Twitter: @biggentleben
by biggentleben on Jun 13, 2011 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
This is true
If you’re a first rounder, you’re really not going to do much more, but the guys who used to be a “signability” guy in the 2nd-6th rounds will be more certain which way they’re going. They’re either taking the money offered in round 3, or they’re going to school, assuming they can make themselves into a #1.
"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results."
— Albert Einstein
Twitter: @biggentleben
by biggentleben on Jun 13, 2011 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions
That's what I'm saying though...
go with hard slotting, and this “signability” game goes out the window. You’ll either accept your slot bonus, or you won’t, no more games from a 3rd rounder of “$6m or I’m going to college”. It’d completely change the dynamic of the draft. And I’d assume college coaches would love it as it’d give them a better understanding on what recruits can make it and which ones can’t. As Georgia’s Dave Perno once said to me, “You wanna recruit well, but not too well.”
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
Yeah
That’s what I was saying with adding more predictability to college baseball, but the OP was arguing that not paying slot, where most kids then go to college baseball, was removing guys from baseball.
"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results."
— Albert Einstein
Twitter: @biggentleben
by biggentleben on Jun 14, 2011 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Interesting reading...
Football players that have baseball ties…some were drafted, some are notable for other reasons (Jerome Bettis, for instance, is part-owner of a minor league team).
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Category:NFL_Players
This includes players drafted out of HS, so it’s a decent list of people that may have legitimately left the sport for a potential football career. Only 119 guys on the list, by the way. Of course, not all stud baseball prospects that chose football ended up in the NFL, but it gives you a better clue of what we missed out on.
The Braves drafted Mark Brunell and Terrell Buckley…Buckley sucked in the minors.
-C
It’s rough to sit through these games and not have someone that can’t hit a Ball?
The same for NBA...
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Category:NBA_Players
-C
It’s rough to sit through these games and not have someone that can’t hit a Ball?
You mean that MLB isn't losing dozens of players every year to "other sports"?!
"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results."
— Albert Einstein
Twitter: @biggentleben
by biggentleben on Jun 14, 2011 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't know about you
But I would be upset if I lost 1 or 2 future superstars to other sports. Maybe it’s just me…
You know why Bill Gates is Bill Gates? Because he didn’t want to lose any opportunities to his competitors…
And he lost millions because of it
So Bill Gates monopolizing (illegally) is a very poor reference
The above links referenced prove that there aren’t “superstar” level guys leaving baseball. In fact, guys you like to reference (Law, Goldstein) have over and over again stated that the financial argument has always favored baseball, and it will continue to do so with hard slotting, so there will be no draw to other sports for a star baseball player over a MLB career in either short-term or long-term earnings.
"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results."
— Albert Einstein
Twitter: @biggentleben
by biggentleben on Jun 14, 2011 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions
No he made billions
And is still one of the wealthiest men in the world after giving away half his wealth. The anti-trust suits are a drop in the bucket for him. What planet do you live on where losing millions in the pursuit of billions is a bad decision?
And Bo Jackson was a generational talent so I am pretty sure KLaw and everybody else would say winning him away from the Bucs was a good idea and something teams should pursue 10 times out of 10.
Show me the advantages of the hard slots to small market teams over the current draft
1. Will hard slots give small market teams the ability to sign players they are currently losing to college or other sports? No
2. Will hard slots possibly cause small market teams (or any team for that matter) to lose prospects they are currently signing? Yes
3. Will hard slots give small market teams the ability to regularly maintain a payroll over $100 million (in current dollars)? No.
4. Will hard slots make the draft a little bit cheaper? Yes
So if you are going to remove an advantage to the current draft in 1 and 2 and you don’t add any advantage in 3, what are we left with? You’re left with 4: it just saves the owners a few dollars. You’re better believe I’m right when I say the players union will fight to keep draft bonuses as close to their current averages if the league wants to go to hard slots. That means it won’t significantly help small market teams to land big fish free agents and it certainly won’t give them a significant advantage since hard slots will proportionally lower the amount big market teams have to spend on the draft, too.
At this point
You have ceased attempting to rationalize and become a troll. Good day.
"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results."
— Albert Einstein
Twitter: @biggentleben
by biggentleben on Jun 15, 2011 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Talking Chop
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Roy Oswalt doesn’t need to save the Rangers, he only needs to provide insurance and depth
- James Loney: Umpires should call pitches from behind mound — and be robots with replay
- Magglio Ordonez set to retire after 15 seasons
- Barry Bonds thinks it will be ‘very sad’ if he doesn’t get into the Hall on his first try
- Chris Johnson’s glove webbing had a Spidey sense at Coors Field — for one play, at least
