Sometimes for the good of the game, the League has to protect clubs, from their owners. Only the financials down the line, will prove or disprove your theory that $$$ wont be spent on the clubs by the clubs. Anything saved on the draft will go toward contracts to keep players, FA to attract, and even training and travel items, etc. I dont think any $$ will be held back from the good and smart clubs on how they invest, and how much they invest....now bad clubs? Again, see my first sentence above! No, the draft in any sport is never about BPA under a subjective measurement system. I bet Corriea may be more valuable to HOU then Appel. Its such a subjective process, any argument that claims to predict the future value of a player is silly. The road to the show is long....its not draft position...its production when called upon. You and I can name many LATE round picks (properly labeled as such too in "experts" minds) that OUT PRODUCED the first rounders. Its normal for that to happen, but using your argument, why should a 1st rounder make more than a late rounder using the same logic as value and tying $ to it? History proves value, not a draft slot. Control wasted cost...every step of the way its the next best thing. Again, baseball by controlling its costs has a far greater chance to prosper...plus all those two sport stars will be choosing baseball over the Concussed Football options..ahahaha.
He can't sign professional contracts with Football or Baketball. If a player is looking to get paid now, it's pretty likely he's going to sign because even with these reduced bonuses, it's still significantly more than he'll make anywhere else. Really dislike this particular talking point. The MLB won't be costing themselves potential talent. I can guarantee it.
When the new CBA was announced there was an article done by Alex Speier from WEEI, I believe, who interviewed a bunch of guys the Red Sox had signed to big bonuses and they all said (whether it's true or not) that the only reason why they signed with the Sox was because of the big bonuses they were offered otherwise they would have went to school to play both football/basketball and baseball. I believe he interviewed Casey Kelly, Will Middlebrooks, Brandon Jacobs, Carl Crawford and one or two other guys. The bonuses those players got then, players today can't get now. I absolutely do think it's going to effect whether or not a kid signs out of high school or decides to go to college to play that 2nd sport or simply goes to college for 3 years to try and earn a bigger signing bonus and money if he gets drafted higher the next time out.
Highlighted to points I wanted to talk about: - Teams usually have separate allocations for draft money and MLB payroll, at least smart teams do. Not spending money in one area shouldn't have anything to do with spending in the other. If Team A has a MLB budget of 100 million let's say and they only spend 80 of it, that doesn't mean they will take the remaining 20 and use it on the draft. - I actually think you misunderstood me because I never said a 1st rounder should make more than a late rounder. Using the new CBA that's the case but I'm all for paying the player whatever the team feels is the amount they want to spend. If they give their 1st round pick 2 million and there 17th round pick 2.3 million so be it. But with the new CBA and the slotting and penalties for going over slot that's not the case anymore.
The Dodgers are nuts if they give this guy 17M a year......I WAS interested in him to replace Swish...but crap for that price, I want Swisher back (long painful gulp)...
Magic and Co. are officially insane... They fell for the Either moto...."Hit em hard in the first half".....
If the Dodgers didn't sign him to that deal another team would have but yes it is insane to pay a guy that can't hit LHP and isn't a very good defensive OFer big money for his decline years.
You really think someone would have paid him that Fink? besides LAD obviously....17M is alot of money...
According to Baseball-Reference similarity scores, here are the 10 most comparable players to Andre Ethier through age 29: 1. Dmitri Young 2. Richie Zisk 3. Rondell White 4. Jacque Jones 5. Aubrey Huff 6. Bobby Higginson 7. Corey Hart 8. Ellis Valentine 9. Jim Edmonds 10. Tony Oliva Talk about a scary list… yikes. Of course, the Dodgers just gave Ethier a five-year, $85 million contract with what apparently is a pretty easy vesting option for 2018. The five guaranteed years will cover Ethier’s age 31-35 seasons.
Getting compared to Richie Zisk can never be a good thing and I have no clue who Richie Zisk is, who he played for, when he played, where he played. But a name like Richie Zisk just can't be good right? Being serious for a minute, those aren't names you really want to be compared too. Only Jim Edmonds was able to put up good numbers late in his career, a lot of those guys just flamed out. Either got all that money because he's a "name" player, that's all.
Too bad he couldn't hit 500....I wonder how many players left in baseball today (if any) were actually on Montreal...
These players and agents aren't stupid. They're looking for the most money they can get. The only difference is now that money is less than a few years ago. Those players absolutely would have signed. There's zero doubt about it. If you're looking for money, you're not going to play football and risk injuring yourself, you're not going to play basketball with two amateur draft rounds and incredibly small roster sizes. You're better than this. It's asinine.
Why? We have seen it happen in the past before their was slotting. It happened every year. Now that there's a limit on how much teams can spend you think those same players that passed on signing to go to school to play 2 sports are going to sign all of a sudden? Heck there have already been two players that have been drafted (one was from the Red Sox, I forget the other player/team) that signed already that are allowed by their team to play college football in the fall. When was the last time you saw a team do that? You can be sure the reason is because the signing bonuses aren't there anymore that's one of the ways teams are getting the kids to sign with him. But even taking the two sport athletes out of the mix/debate, you will still see high school baseball only players going to college to try and boost their draft status in 3 years to get more money. There's a reason why so many college seniors were drafted in the first 10 rounds, it's because teams saw them as easier signs and ones that would take less money to sign, thus they can save that money to use for tougher signablity players in the later rounds.
Because common sense tell you so. The players who want money/need the money are still going to sign because, for the second time, it's SIGNIFICANTLY more than any thing else they can get. What you're saying would only make sense if there was some other alternate MLB where bonuses aren't limited. Having had several of my players drafted and being familiar with their negotiation process, these guys and they're representatives aren't pulling a specific number out of thin air, they're trying to get the most they can get. These agents know that number has gone down, which will push their number down. People who make this argument seem to think these players are going to want $4m (for example) and since the cap is at $3m (hypothetically), they're just gonna be like "Lol, sucks for you, college baseball it is." It's absolutely ridiculous.
I think utlimately my point is the new CBA isn't going to help teams sign those tough to sign players. There are still going to be high school players and two sport athletes that don't sign because they're not happy with the money being offered to them. And yes in some cases players are going to go to college over that million dollar difference, just like they have in the past. And in cases kids are willing to go to college to play both sports and risk a guaranteed payday with hopes in 1 to 4 years be able to make more money by being drafted in any of the sports they end up playing in college. I think to assume kids are simply going to sign with a team because they were offered money instead of going to college to play whatever sport(s) because they don't automatically have another paying alternative is a bit native too. Again there are countless players that turned down money to go to school (and even in some cases turned down money to go play Indy ball) in years past. I'm not saying it's a smart strategy but to think it's as simple as "well because there's a slot cap agents/players will lower their demands and sign" is false too as the team still has to have enough in its draft budget to sign other players too. The team has to have a sound strategy going into the draft now instead of the old way of hopefully just drafting the best available player. Now teams have to factor in whether or not the player will sign at, below or above the slot in place. Again there's a reason why the number of college seniors drafted in the first 10 rounds went up this year. It's not because of their talent it's because teams were trying to get easy to sign players who they knew would sign under the slot so they could use the exccess money they saved and use it for the tougher to sign players. The Red Sox's 10th round draft pick was the son of one of their scouts that's headed for the Army in September. They drafted him and signed him to a deal way way below slot so they could use the excess money in later rounds. A MLB team wasted a 10 round pick on a kid who they know is going to leave their organization after 3 months just so they could have the opportunity to throw more money at a better talent in a later round. If that doesn't speak volumes about the new CBA/draft system I don't know what does. I think you'll see teams continue this tread in the next few years to try and "beat the system". Again this doesn't help anyone but the owners looking to save money in the draft for the 90% of players that will never make it to the MLB. But I think you and I are just not going to see eye to eye on this. I personally hate slotting. Each team should be able to set their own draft budget and not have to be given one by the MLB. And with the new CBA in place the only ones they benefit are the owners. Again my point in a nutshell is is in the past without a slot if teams weren't able to sign those 2 sport players or tough to sign players how will they be able to now when there's a set limit to how much they can offer.
I never once said that. I don't have any preference, I just disagree whole heartedly that the new CBA will cost itself talent.
My apologies then, that's what I assumed what you meant. My fault for reading too fast. We just don't agree, that's all. I feel that because of the financial limits that teams will miss out on those tough to sign players. Obviously not all of them but think the teams would have a better chance at signing them if they didn't have to follow any rules/regulations. I just don't like the new CBA but that's mainly because I feel that teams shouldn't have to be limited in how they're willing to spend their own money.
This CBA shouldnt be judged based on presumptions...let it play out....then we can measure it. For the good of the game, I am in favor of Hard Ceiling, and Hard Floor.....at the same time, within those levels every team CAN spend and allocate as they see fit. Along those lines, I am in favor of a Hard Ceiling on Draft. Per: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/06/2012-mlb-draft-results.html. See how with the CBA it "recommends" slotted positions, but bonus and final contract terms are not slotted, and thus a Team can allocate funds accordingly across their picks. - see STL @ #19 decided to pay more than what TOR @ #17 did). The CBA limits total bonus pool for teams across their top 10 picks, so be it - teams can exceed it at a price. Also fine! Every sport from a smart business sense is moving toward this approach for a reason. And Baseball with 40 rounds (ie. 40+ SUSPECTS being added each year to an organization) needs to limit its spending on UN-PROVEN, and then see how the game and teams improve. This slotting is just not a problem, nor is the risk increased of losing out on multi talented athletes. Its all relative. Lets see the CBA play out. P.S. then improve the quality of the game by replacing balls and strikes with Pitch-FX data and instant replay elsewhere and watch the true talents rise to the top.
per the CBA (teams can exceed the bonus pool if they want): Really no different than the Luxury tax on 25 man or 40 man roster salaries, etc. So if they want to OVERPAY an unproven draft pick to convince him to convince him to sign vs play another sport or go to college, etc...go for it; MLB is not stopping them. and I do agree with this line of reasoning...the difference is mice-nuts as they say....fiscal responsibility is crucial to the games future. http://aol.sportingnews.com/mlb/sto...g-bonus-pools-penalty-cba-players-association
You think kids start to gravitate towards baseball more than football over the next decade....? Given the severe concussion problem the sport is having right now?
Frankly, I think they always have.....size of contracts, guaranteed contracts, longevity, # of roster spots, depth of farm systems, etc. Its a misnomer to think, Baseball is now, or has been, hurting for talent (globally or domestically). He isnt the only one, but look at a case such as Jeff Samardzija recently. The concussion issue could (and right now sounds like) it will indeed impact future decisions for choosing Football, and while Basketball is guaranteed contracts, the roster limits (and body types that match the sport) are a factor. Baseball has its problems; heck, that comes with the territory of expecting 30 owners to all have the same IQ and acumen for the business and competitive sides of the business. But this CBA is not one of the problems going forward - especially this early in the process to claim its a death knell - or bad deal for the sport. Its just way to early, and frankly, in the short term doesnt on paper seem to harm it...it does clearly attempt to soften the difference between many of the 30 owners and front offices and act as a prophylactic to their inherent limitations.
Time will tell but one of the negatives with baseball is that there's no guarantee that if you get drafted you'll play in the MLB. I forget the actual figure but it's something like less than 10% of the players that get drafted ever make it to play in 1 MLB game. With football or basketball there's no minor leagues, and you get the big pay day quicker. Plus baseball is the harder sport to play too. Baseball needs to do a much better job marketing the sport, especially to kids and especially to inner city kids. I know if I were a MLB scout and the kid I was talking to was between baseball and football I'd absolutely try to scare him and the parents with the concussion stuff in football.
One signing doesn't prove or disprove the new CBA/slotting system. Bubba Sterling, the Royals 1st round pick (#5 overall) got 7.5 million dollars last year, would he have signed for the slot money for a 5th round pick this year? That's a bigger/better question to ask to truly know what impact the actual new rules will have.
The Ethier deal isn't the worst ever. He is both overpaid and was had for under market value, if that makes sense. He was going to get his money, regardless. All this really does is lock up Kemp's left handed lineup mate and give the Dodgers a sense of focus for the trade deadline. They still need another bat and, of course, pitching. If they can do either before the deadline, they may end up wrapping up the NL West before September. It would have been nice to grab Prince in the offseason, but the turmoil surrounding the ownership at the time prevented that from happening. I wouldn't be surprised if they ship Juan Uribe out once healthy. They may have to pay for some of his contract, but he is an albatross on an otherwise good team. Trade him for whatever, let Hairston finish out the year at third, and go get yourself a corner infielder in the offseason.
Of course one signing doesnt, but in the history of the MLB Draft, one year is not identical to the next regardless of system in play. The beat goes on...as they say.
I think the bigger issue with this year's draft was the massive amount of college seniors being taken in rounds 1-10, so teams could try to save their draft money for the tougher signs. Teams are trying to find a way to get around the slot system. That's what people should be focusing on for next year's draft to see if that trend continues.
R.A. Dickey is the best pitcher in baseball. What a story he has been and he's so much fun to watch. He's just an animal out there every time he takes the mound.
Jesus, first Chalmers as a top 5 point guard and now R.A Dickey as the best pitcher in baseball. When will it end! He's NOT the best pitcher in baseball.
Ok? That still makes him the best pitcher right now. No one is pitching as good as he is. Overall? 10-1 with 2.20 ERA. Pretty good.
You're using a 5 game sample size to judge who's the best overall pitcher. That's not how things work. He's playing great and is probably on the best roll as a starting pitcher but he's not the best pitcher in baseball.
Dominate performance by Cain. Should have been the 2nd No hitter of the day, first perfect game of the day obviously. That was an error in the first for RA Dickey
