Chris27

- Mar 10, 2010 9:06 pm (#1737 of 1745)

Article on the baseball draft.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2010-03-10-part-4-baseball-roundtable_N.htm

"Given the system now," Chicago Cubs special assistant Gary Hughes says, "I didn't see all of our guys. Or even close. Maybe 10%. So you better have good scouts. There are guys that won't draft a player unless they've seen them. And shame on them."

Says Boras: "The problem with the draft is that the man who best knows the commodity is completely removed. When a guy with the experience of someone like Gary only sees 10% of the guys they sign, something is wrong. With this, you'll have more eyes on fewer guys."

Strike Zone

- Mar 10, 2010 9:24 pm (#1738 of 1745)

That's an interesting solution.

No chance that it would actually happen, though.

Cubsin

- Mar 10, 2010 9:41 pm (#1739 of 1745)

That's perhaps the worst possible solution to baseball's problems. The small-market teams would probably sign none of the none of the top elite ten players, and no more than five of the bottom 30. Boras would get even richer, but today's disparity issues would seem trivial compared to what I'd expect to happen under this system.

I would expect few, if any, of the non-elite picks to sign, unless they're college seniors or high-school kids with no interest in a college education. Most of the prospects who would have been second through fifth-round picks would go back to school, and try to get into the top 40 later on.

But ESPN would love it.

- Mar 11, 2010 9:54 am (#1740 of 1745)

Another consequence of this plan would be the replacement of the Gulf Coast and Arizonal Leagues with this developmental league.

Nightmare plan for small budget teams:

Top 40 players divided among 6-8 teams. Poorly performing teams given two high "2nd/3rd round" picks.

- Mar 11, 2010 9:58 am (#1741 of 1745)

Hard for me to believe the approach would pass the certain legal challenge it would bring.

- Mar 11, 2010 10:49 am (#1742 of 1745)

Yeah, this plan sucks for small market teams. Better to include international guys in the draft and slot bonuses. Allow teams to trade picks.

Cubsin

- Mar 11, 2010 11:44 am (#1743 of 1745)

Top 40 players divided among 6-8 teams. Poorly performing teams given two high "2nd/3rd round" picks.

In the first year of the new draft, I'd expect 75-85% of the players ranked 41-100 to decline the offer and go back to school, hoping for a higher rating next year. After that, more college seniors would be eligible, so a somewhat higher percentage might sign. But the size, depth and quality of minor league baseball would decline. Players like Sandberg, Grace and Pujols would probably never play professional baseball.

Scotti

- Mar 11, 2010 11:59 am (#1744 of 1745)

That's perhaps the worst possible solution to baseball's problems.

The first I heard of that plan I thought "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard." Then I realized that it was Boras and he isn't in the market to help baseball. From his standpoint it would work out just fine...

BTW, some, if not all, of Boras' figures are pure bull. Releasing 98% of drafted players would mean that only 30 drafted players per year make an MLB team (of course 100% ALL players are eventually released but that wasn't what he was trying to convey). He actually said that 98% of all signed players are released and that would mean that only around 20 drafted/signed players per year sign MLB contracts--that is pure bull.

The idea that 4th-5th year players need to be paid 150-250k would mean that teams would only keep true talent. Most on AA/AAA rosters today would, by necessity, be released and wind up on Indy teams. A Kyler Burke story would never have occurred.

The issue of not going to college is false as well:

"I know if I hadn't made it to the majors," Los Angeles Angels center fielder Torii Hunter says, "I'd be 28, 29, with no work experience. I'd be fortunate to make $30,000 a year because that's the only thing I know. "That's why I really want my kids to go to college."

28-29? Tori Hunter would have scuffled around the minors for 10-11 years without ever making a MLB team? The typical kid gets cut in around two years. If he stays around in Indy leagues for another two that would put him at 22-23-years old.

And players who can get college scholarships can get far greater scholarships from teams than those that the colleges are dolling out. Many college teams only have a couple baseball scholarships, if that. Many only have half scholarships. Most drafted players would not be eligible for a college scholarship simply because there are not 1,500 scholarships available per year.

Signing a baseball contract does NOT hurt a player’s ability to go to college whatsoever. If that kid has a willingness and ability to go to college then he can go when his baseball career is over.

Scotti

- Mar 11, 2010 1:49 pm (#1745 of 1745)

Discussion on the 010 board really remind me of what a critical season this is for the farm.

Also in the mix going forward is a second OF beside Jackson (to recover the Fukudome/RHH contracts). Burke emerging with a second plus year at A+/AA would be huge. That would put him on tract to get a peek at Wrigley in 2011 (the final year of Fukudome’s contract). Like all prospects coming out of A ball that isn’t likely but it would be huge.

And when you have volume you have more likelihood. Jackson and Burke are relatively interchangeable. Having two of them doubles the chance to replace a serious contract in the outfield.

Having (and using) a farm to develop your own pen saves big cash as well. While a pen is just 1-3 million per guy, if you multiply that over six guys, that adds up. A back-end guy like Marquis was 7 million and you could save that easily in a homegrown pen. And a closer the caliber of Marmol would be paid 6-8 if he were free. He is saving us now. Eventually replacing a guy like that nets value in return (trade or free agency) and you save money—IF his replacement helps you win (for a team like the Cubs winning could mean 50-100 million in a given year).