Excellent Jayson Stark Piece - Must Read RE: Draft

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

This is a must read IMO

 

Stephen Strasburg may be -- whoop de doo -- a Washington National now. But you can bet every centavo of his signing bonus on this:

 

The draft that made that miracle possible will never be the same.

 

"This thing's broken, man," said one scouting director.

 

"The system needs to be blown up," said another. "We need to re-evaluate how we do the whole draft process."

 

"What Stephen Strasburg has succeeded in doing," said an official of yet another club, "is that now, to me, there's no question that there will be a [formal] slotting system in the next labor agreement."

 

But wait. Didn't Strasburg get "only" $15.1 million out of this deal? Not $20 million? Not $30 million? Not $50 million? So did he really get enough to implode the entire draft? Uh, you bet he did.

 

 

Darryl Dennis/Icon SMI

Stephen Strasburg is likely to pitch a few innings for the Nationals in September.

"That's still a gigantic amount of money," said one AL exec. "Don't kid yourself."

 

So how gigantic an amount is it? Think of it this way:

 

• Only five starting pitchers on the entire free-agent market got packages bigger than that last winter: CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, Derek Lowe, Ryan Dempster and Oliver Perez.

 

• And Strasburg is guaranteed slightly more money than Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez and John Smoltz were guaranteed for this season put together. Those guys own a combined nine Cy Young Awards. Strasburg has thrown a combined zero professional pitches.

 

But it's not just him.

 

The Mariners showered a package on their top pick, Dustin Ackley, that can be worth between $7.5 million and $10 million. That's more than Bobby Abreu, Orlando Hudson or Ken Griffey Jr. signed for last winter.

 

The Tigers threw a package at high school pitcher Jacob Turner that could pay him nearly $7 million. That's more than they guaranteed their three major league free-agent signings -- Brandon Lyon, Adam Everett and Matt Treanor -- combined last winter.

 

The Rockies -- a team that had to trade away Matt Holliday over the winter and a club that could afford to sign only one major league free agent (Alan Embree) -- tossed almost $4 million at another high school pitcher, Tyler Matzek.

 

And everybody -- OK, not quite everybody, but 17 of the 29 first-round picks who agreed -- signed for more than Bud Selig and his office's "recommended" slot.

 

"So the big loser," said an official of one team, "is Bud and his slotting system. It got crushed. Some of these signings are off the charts. Look at some of this stuff in the later rounds. There's carnage all over the map."

 

And where there's carnage, there's always a reaction. And by that, we don't mean all the yelping emanating out of the commissioner's office after these mega-dollars had finished splattering off Selig's wall.

 

We mean change is coming. This draft isn't working. It hasn't for years. And now Selig's informal slotting system is being so widely ignored, you can bet this topic is heading for a bargaining table near you in 2011.

 

It's impossible to say for sure exactly how this draft will change once that bargaining is done -- because the union has always been opposed to formal slotting. But here are some of the topics that have to be addressed:

 

• SLOTTING -- Baseball is now the only major sport that doesn't have some sort of system that regulates how much drafted players can get paid. And that can't go on. Not just because the clubs want slotting, either. It's because players want it. We've polled a bunch of them. And big league players want those $15 million deals going to them, not to kids who have never played a professional baseball game.

 

• TRADING PICKS -- Now here's a concept the union is in favor of. So it seems just about inevitable that this is a new draft wrinkle that's coming soon. If you have the first pick and you don't want the price tag that comes with Stephen Strasburg, or you don't want the migraine that comes from dealing with Scott Boras, you pick him anyway and then dangle him on the open market. Amazingly, it's always been small-market owners who have opposed the idea of dealing picks. And what's their argument? That it would allow Boras to manipulate the draft. Huh? He manipulates it just fine now.

 

• WORLDWIDE DRAFT -- We're not sure if this on-again, off-again idea will ever fly. But it's gaining momentum again, because it needs to. A system that allows the Yankees and Red Sox to outspend everybody on any player they really want, with no limits whatsoever, doesn't serve anyone except the Yankees and Red Sox. Whether baseball can figure out a way to navigate all the unique laws and circumstances of every country with a baseball talent pool is a massive question. But we now sense more interest in getting those international signings under control than we've sensed in years.

 

• THE CONTROL ROOM -- Another idea that's been building steam beneath the surface is a way for teams to wriggle out of the embarrassment of being held hostage by 17-year-old high school kids. What some people in the sport would like to see is a draft system similar to the hockey draft, which would allow any team picking a high school player to control that player's rights through his college years. "We need something to that effect," said an exec of one team, "just so you don't feel like you have no leverage as a club in those negotiations. So if you draft a kid out of high school and he says he's not ready to sign, after his sophomore year you can try to sign him again. And after his junior year you can try to sign him again. And then, if he still doesn't sign, after his senior year of college, then he goes back into the draft."

 

These are just some of the ideas being collected by a committee, headed by the esteemed John Schuerholz, which is studying ways to "fix" the draft. They won't all fly. They won't even all make it to the bargaining table.

 

But file them away for future reference, because many of them are going to happen. They have to happen -- because any system that's paying an 18-year-old amateur more than a five-time Cy Young winner needs more repairs than a 1962 Volkswagen.

 

I'd love to see all of this, including the rights to players who are not planning on going straight to the MILB system. This would mostly mean players who are going to college, but this could also apply to players 18 years or older who are playing as pros overseas. Those players would then be eligible to sign when they are declared FA in the league they are playing in, and this would get around the posting system in Japan. MLB should forbid the entire posting process, and the teams that acquire rights to these players through the draft can then trade those rights.

 

If all these changes went into effect you'd see even greater parity in MLB and fairer contracts for veteran free agents even in bad economic climates. You'd also see a s***load more trades and therefore more exciting playoff races as teams will be able to acquire productive veterans at say the cost of two future draft picks and the rights to a player who may not sign for another couple of years.

 

The only addition I can think of that I'd like to make would be an overhaul of the MLB free agent compensation process. This would be my idea:

 

IMO, a new round should be created with say 30-50 spots, but a set number of slots. Each year the Elias Bureau ranks all MLB players and the top 30-50 or whatever players who end up signing with another team net their former team a draft pick in order of their ranking, and no pick is forfeited by the team which signs an arb-offered player as a FA.

 

Aside from player ranking, let the Elias Bureau also calculate a recommended, player-specific salary that would fit the production of the player's last two seasons - kind of like FanGraphs does, but do it in a way that fits current market value by comparing a player's performance over the last two seasons to other players' free agent contracts over the last two seasons. So for example, Jim Thome would be compared to both the free agent crop over the last offseason (Bobby Abreu/Adam Dunn/Raul Ibanez/Milton Bradley/Griffey/Burrell/etc.) with the amount they had guaranteed in their contracts considered. They would also consider the crop of the 2007-2008 offseason FA hitters and their contracts. Then, an average salary representing market value between the two free agent years would be worked out and adjusted for production.

 

Then the Elias Bureau supplies this team with a number wholly independent of figures in the previous expired contract, and a team then offers or declines arbitration on THAT figure only. So for instance, instead of the Sox having to offer arb on a $13M contract, they might be forced to offer arb on a $7M contract, which is of course fitting. As the system stands, it actually PENALIZES the Sox for Philly signing him to his current contract, which is totally unfair because Thome is a productive player worth compensation should he want to test the market, but he is not worth the type of salary the Sox would be required to offer him. This whole set up also screws the players by removing one bidder, which is especially devasting for someone like Thome who can only DH and thus NEEDS to stay in the AL where there are only 14 teams.

 

Edit: Had to un-clusterf*** this post.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

I've always been in favor of a worldwide draft. Another thing I would like to see is MLB make players have to be 18 to be eligible, so we don't see any more of these Bryce Harper shenanigans.

[witesoxfan]

It's been said in numerous places, but an NBA style draft would be amazing. You'd have to compensate for the first 100 picks - in the NFL, there is no guarantee #1 pays off, let alone the MLB - but getting them some type of monetary reward that they can live off of for quite a while will give them some type of hope for the future. If they succumb to injuries, like a lot a of top 100 pitchers do, they will have something to fall back on, and, if anything, it will be good for them, with virtually no expense to the organization.

 

I also love including the rest of the world in the draft, but you can't include every part of it in regards to the draft without restrictions. Japan is a huge one, what with the Japanese League. Sadaharu Oh would dislike very much.

 

The biggest thing any fan of baseball would get out of this would be the trading of draft picks, IMO. If you can trade your first round pick, and perhaps any pick within the first 5 rounds (since those are the ones compensated if you dont sign yours), it gives any team that has no prospects and cant develop prospects pieces at the deadline. The higher spending clubs may use that to their "advantage" but maybe not. Only time tells who is great and who is not.

[Chisoxfn]

Fantastic article.

[Steve9347]

Slotting would be good, but not trading of picks. If that happens, the Yankees and Red Sox will end up with every top 5 pick.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Slotting would be good, but not trading of picks. If that happens, the Yankees and Red Sox will end up with every top 5 pick.

 

Would they though? I don't think that would happen if there were slottin. Slotting would keep those exorbitant signing bonuses of the top picks down and allow teams in lesser markets who deserve those players to be able to draft them. The Yankee$ and Sawx often have weak farm systems and therefore might not have a lot to trade for those picks.

[JorgeFabregas]

Why compare Strasburg's contract to what RJ, Pedro, and Smoltz make? They're all broken down and/or are only playing part of the season. He's also making more than Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax, and Cy Young will or did make.

[Balta1701]

Would they though? I don't think that would happen if there were slottin. Slotting would keep those exorbitant signing bonuses of the top picks down and allow teams in lesser markets who deserve those players to be able to draft them. The Yankee$ and Sawx often have weak farm systems and therefore might not have a lot to trade for those picks.

The Red Sox do not "Often" have a weak farm system. Their farm system has been one of the most productive in the game the last few years. The Yankees have also done an excellent job of adding talent to their farm system using their financial resources; for a while you just didn't know it because they were trading away their guys and giving up draft picks to bring in veterans.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

The Red Sox do not "Often" have a weak farm system. Their farm system has been one of the most productive in the game the last few years. The Yankees have also done an excellent job of adding talent to their farm system using their financial resources; for a while you just didn't know it because they were trading away their guys and giving up draft picks to bring in veterans.

 

I shouldn't have lumped the Red Sox into the Yankees there, but no the Yankees have not had good farm systems lately. They have had a few players recently, but it was pretty barren for a while.

 

That's besides the point though. Would it be bad for those teams to acquire those Top 5 draft picks if the receiving team received prospects though? As long as it wasn't for salary reasons I don't see it being a bad thing.

[Pumpkin Escobar]

Slotting would be good, but not trading of picks. If that happens, the Yankees and Red Sox will end up with every top 5 pick.

 

I agree. Slotting needs to happen.

 

I am somewhat for trading picks but I have the same fear (which I also deem certainty) that if we allow it, then the major market teams will clean up.

 

We've seen the Porcello's of the world and many others fall dramatically from numerous teams being in fear of not signing them because of the cost. If a team like Florida or Pittsburg can't afford their player - what is going to stop the Yankees and Saux from coming in year after year to take those picks away and draft the top talent. Right now we are fortunate that most of these top-tier guys don't slip down as frequently but it still happens with lots of players who shouldn't be sliding and end up doing so just because of finance concerns.

 

A slotting system will help teams know what theyre going to have to pay but if that is too much and they know it up front, it'll make sense to deal the pick and take a cheaper player. And it isn't like the NFL/NBA/NHL where picks get dealt all the time and that is simply because of a salary cap.

 

If they allow trading - they'd have to limit things similar to what they do with free agents. Or else I see no reason why a team like the Yankees buys the top pick every year.

 

I like the concept of a world-wide draft but the nagain I don't.

 

The idea of keeping the rights I enjoy and think would be good for baseball. Gives these kids a chance to get their education instead of picking their dreams over school.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Pumpkin Escobar

[Chisoxfn]

I shouldn't have lumped the Red Sox into the Yankees there, but no the Yankees have not had good farm systems lately. They have had a few players recently, but it was pretty barren for a while.

 

That's besides the point though. Would it be bad for those teams to acquire those Top 5 draft picks if the receiving team received prospects though? As long as it wasn't for salary reasons I don't see it being a bad thing.

The Yankees farm system is considered pretty good by most. It's produced Cano, Hughes, Joba, Kennedy, Melky and has guys like Austin Jackson and Montero waiting in the wings.

 

Its not on bar with the BoSox but its solid.

[Balta1701]

The Yankees farm system is considered pretty good by most. It's produced Cano, Hughes, Joba, Kennedy, Melky and has guys like Austin Jackson and Montero waiting in the wings.

 

Its not on bar with the BoSox but its solid.

Add to that, like I said, the number of guys they traded away in their world series's era. Juan Rivera, Ted Lilly, Willy Mo Pena, Mike Lowell, Jake Westbrook, Eric Milton, Damaso Marte, Marcus Thames, Cristian Guzman, Chris Singleton, Nick Johnson, Ricky Ledee fit on that list as guys who at least made it to the big leagues long enough for me to know their name who the Yankees traded away in the post-strike era.

[Texsox]

The worldwide draft idea is interesting. I'd be in favor of a simpler system where you give up future draft picks if you sign a player to your MLB roster, or if they appear on the 40 man within one year. In effect, that would be your draft pick.

 

I am also a little uncomfortable about a system that wedges itself in the private negotiations between an employer and an employee.

[knightni]

Not on par with a lot of systems.

 

Since they haven't won a WS since 2000.

[Dick Allen]

I've been banging the drum for slotting for a long time. I have no idea why the union would oppose. Its more money for established players. If you draft a HS kid, he should be your property through his college days. Trading draft picks should be allowed. A world wide draft makes some sense but I think that will wait. It has to happen. Too much money is being given to guys who will be busts, and believe me, the majority of the guys that got over $1 million will not be productive major league players ever.

[Balta1701]

I've been banging the drum for slotting for a long time. I have no idea why the union would oppose. Its more money for established players. If you draft a HS kid, he should be your property through his college days. Trading draft picks should be allowed. A world wide draft makes some sense but I think that will wait. It has to happen. Too much money is being given to guys who will be busts, and believe me, the majority of the guys that got over $1 million will not be productive major league players ever.

Here's the thinking for all these unions; there's no guarantee that if you put a cap on money for draftees, the owners will take those moneys and reinvest them in veterans. It's just as likely that the owners will institute a cap and will therefore put somewhat less money in to the players overall.

[Ozzie Ball]

I've been banging the drum for slotting for a long time. I have no idea why the union would oppose. Its more money for established players. If you draft a HS kid, he should be your property through his college days. Trading draft picks should be allowed. A world wide draft makes some sense but I think that will wait. It has to happen. Too much money is being given to guys who will be busts, and believe me, the majority of the guys that got over $1 million will not be productive major league players ever.

While this is undoubtedly true it still makes an awful lot of sense from the team's perspective because buying production on the free agent market just isn't that cost effective. It's much more beneficial for a team in the long run to spend money on these draft picks because even if only one or two hit and become productive major leaguers you're still saving huge amounts of money over buying that production on the FA market. So I can't agree that too much money is being spent on them.

 

And like Balta said, there's no guarantee that this saved money would be spent on bringing in veterans anyway.

[Dick Allen]

Here's the thinking for all these unions; there's no guarantee that if you put a cap on money for draftees, the owners will take those moneys and reinvest them in veterans. It's just as likely that the owners will institute a cap and will therefore put somewhat less money in to the players overall.

You're right, there isn't. But there is a guarantee that any money some 17 year old high school catcher gets, the guy in the union won't be seeing.

[Dick Allen]

While this is undoubtedly true it still makes an awful lot of sense from the team's perspective because buying production on the free agent market just isn't that cost effective. It's much more beneficial for a team in the long run to spend money on these draft picks because even if only one or two hit and become productive major leaguers you're still saving huge amounts of money over buying that production on the FA market. So I can't agree that too much money is being spent on them.

 

And like Balta said, there's no guarantee that this saved money would be spent on bringing in veterans anyway.

It depends what kind of percentage you can develop. It was well worth it for the Sox to pay Beckham the $2.6 million they paid him. The 7 figures they gave Broadway and McCollough they could have just flushed down the toilet and come out ahead. The $10 million they gave Viciedo? The jury is out on that one. Remember, it also costs the team a pretty penny to develop players.

[Texsox]

You're right, there isn't. But there is a guarantee that any money some 17 year old high school catcher gets, the guy in the union won't be seeing.

 

Isn't there also a case that any player's contract sets the table for other contracts. So if some untested draft picks makes X then the union boys could argue that is the new market price and push for X+5 or what not. Rookie contracts push the prices up for everyone.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Isn't there also a case that any player's contract sets the table for other contracts. So if some untested draft picks makes X then the union boys could argue that is the new market price and push for X+5 or what not. Rookie contracts push the prices up for everyone.

Not really because more and more, teams are valuing prospects more than they are valuing proven veterans. The more money the smaller market teams lose, the less money they're willing to risk.

 

Think about it this way: why would a small-market team spend $10M on one above-average bat with a poor glove when they could take that money and sign about 7 or 8 prospects that all have the chance to be superstars? If just one of these guys becomes a star then you end up controlling him for 6 years at far below market value. Then, if the other prospects start to hit a wall and appear like they're not going to make it, you can still turn around and trade those non-roster players with potential for proven players and salary relief.

 

Ultimately there's a window that every well-run team will reach where they can contend, and then at that point a shift will be made to try to acquire proven talent with unproven talent. But right now with all these small market teams losing money, it doesn't make sense to invest a large amount of money in one player that won't put them over the top when they can spread that money around to several players and shoot for contention in a few years.

 

Because there are so many teams doing this right now (Pirates, Pads, Red, Astros and Jays will be soon, Baltimore, the Royals, Indians, Mariners, Rangers - although they are very close to constant contention, A's, etc.) there are no longer teams willing to bid on short-term investments and overpay average to above-average players. Demand is at an extremely low point right now, so the teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Angels will make their frivolous signings, and then the remaining teams are left to pick over the free agent pool at bargain prices.

 

The reason baseball is like this right now is in part due to the overall national economy, but a big reason - and probably THE biggest reason - is due to gross mismanagement of multiple franchises. Teams that couldn't spend money like water DID spend money like water, and they've saddled themselves with contracts they can't move. Teams that should have spent on their farm systems and worked to develop their farm systems instead took that aspect for granted and neglected it. Now everyone is rushing to rebuild their farm systems and dump bad contracts.

 

As far as the union, they have a right to b**** about what is going on now with the splurging on prospects and the underpayment of productive players. BUT - they are also very much to blame, because maybe the major reason everyone is in this s*** is because they were making ridiculous contract demands and stupid GM's and owners happily obliged.

 

Edit: I also expect to hear more about collusion over the offseason too. It is unfortunate that organizations like the Sox for example will be accused of this as the collusion umbrella descends upon the league as a whole. Organizations like the Sox and Braves for instance have been fiscally responsible during times of craziness, and now, because of their good position and smart salary management in the past, they will be able to take advantage of the depressed market. When the union b****es about collusion, or at least we hear "whispers" about it from them, they should remember that this never would have happened if the league had been run the way the Sox and Braves have run things over the years.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[Quin]

Trading Picks is a must have.

 

Slotting system like NBA would be very, very nice.

 

Retaining draft rights after deadline would help a lot (Aaron Crow, you want to get to the MLB? Join the Nats and not what ever team drafted you this year (Royals?))

 

If foreign players want to join the MLB, they must be drafted.

 

No taking away teams picks. You can add picks for players that turn down arbitration, but thats it.

 

Have the draft in the off season.

[danman31]

I don't see what having the draft in the offseason does for anyone. It eliminates rookie ball, takes a couple months of development time from players and really doesn't benefit anyone. Plus, it's in the offseason for 90%+ of players anyway. The college season is done other than the CWS and high school seasons are over or finishing around then anyway.