A bit self-serving I suppose, but interesting nonetheless.
Scott Boras: MLB draft 'a mockery'
All kinds of conjecture as to whether or not the new CBA may have cost his advisee, Stanford's Mark Appel, a few million dollars?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
IMO it seems like sour grapes over lower commissions, plain and simple.
Strasburg and Harper not signing, ridiculous. Especially Strasburg, he could have gone back to school and be drafted as a senior with bargaining no power. How much would he have gotten then. And Harper would have gotten $2.7 mil less than he got. He could have scraped by with that for a few years until his next payday. He didn't skip a year of HS to not sign a contract worth $7.2 mil.
Strasburg and Harper not signing, ridiculous. Especially Strasburg, he could have gone back to school and be drafted as a senior with bargaining no power. How much would he have gotten then. And Harper would have gotten $2.7 mil less than he got. He could have scraped by with that for a few years until his next payday. He didn't skip a year of HS to not sign a contract worth $7.2 mil.
A few quick thoughts come to mind:
1. Can we say, "Learning Curve".
2. "Lucy, Lucy...Let me splain...."
3. "Honey, why don't we eat at home tonight, I think we might need to tighten our belts a little."
1. Can we say, "Learning Curve".
2. "Lucy, Lucy...Let me splain...."
3. "Honey, why don't we eat at home tonight, I think we might need to tighten our belts a little."
I have been told by a MLB player that agents don't get paid until they sign a major league contract. If so what is Boras whinning about? It didn't cost him anything.
If anything the new format helps older college players get paid for their skills versus giving an 18 year old kid a wad of cash who may or may not pan out.
If anything the new format helps older college players get paid for their skills versus giving an 18 year old kid a wad of cash who may or may not pan out.
The draft itself and these absurd slot values are designed for one thing- to save billionaire owner's a few million dollars. It's not about the onfield product. An entire MLB draft requires a yearly investment roughly equal to the free agent amount invested in guys that should be in AAA.
Last year, a total of $236 million was spent by all 30 teams on the draft. That's less than $8 million per team. As just one example, the Pirates signed Clint Barmes to a two year deal worth $10.5 million last year.
If this doesn't seem ridiculous then pay closer attention. If the supposedly low revenue Pirates had instead committed that same money to the draft they could have completely turned around their farm system (which, by the way, they've been doing pretty well recently anyway).
Last year, a total of $236 million was spent by all 30 teams on the draft. That's less than $8 million per team. As just one example, the Pirates signed Clint Barmes to a two year deal worth $10.5 million last year.
If this doesn't seem ridiculous then pay closer attention. If the supposedly low revenue Pirates had instead committed that same money to the draft they could have completely turned around their farm system (which, by the way, they've been doing pretty well recently anyway).
Emanski,
Also….
Remember the players union voted to approve of these changes so in effect you have the situation of “I already have mine, and I want to keep more for me, not the new kids” situation. The problem is that the owners and the players both don’t want money going to drafted players so the situation is a lose-lose for the new kids coming in. I am not an attorney, but it seems to me that this situation does not pass the “smell test” where you have two entities that vote for one class that has no representation, yet they are excempt from anti-trust laws. Sure smells to me.
Also….
Remember the players union voted to approve of these changes so in effect you have the situation of “I already have mine, and I want to keep more for me, not the new kids” situation. The problem is that the owners and the players both don’t want money going to drafted players so the situation is a lose-lose for the new kids coming in. I am not an attorney, but it seems to me that this situation does not pass the “smell test” where you have two entities that vote for one class that has no representation, yet they are excempt from anti-trust laws. Sure smells to me.
Definitely agree BOF...it's kind of a shame really that the players would approve slotting when that restriction was never placed upon them as amateurs.
quote:Originally posted by daveccpa:
I have been told by a MLB player that agents don't get paid until they sign a major league contract. If so what is Boras whinning about? It didn't cost him anything.
If anything the new format helps older college players get paid for their skills versus giving an 18 year old kid a wad of cash who may or may not pan out.
Any idea if the percentages of High School versus College players drafted were any different this year because of the change?
quote:Originally posted by daveccpa:
I have been told by a MLB player that agents don't get paid until they sign a major league contract. If so what is Boras whinning about? It didn't cost him anything.
If anything the new format helps older college players get paid for their skills versus giving an 18 year old kid a wad of cash who may or may not pan out.
Most Advisers/Agents do get paid on a players first minor league contract. While an amateur player is not legally bound to sign with their adviser (making them their agent,) it would be considered bad form to do so.
Things may have changed however not to long ago Agents earned from 5% to 7% of the first contract.
quote:Originally posted by VaRHPmom:
Any idea if the percentages of High School versus College players drafted were any different this year because of the change?
EdgarFan posted some observations in this thread yesterday:
Some interesting tidbits: 62 (college) seniors were taken in the first 10 rounds in this draft. In 2011, the corresponding total was 23; in 2010, it was 19. Highlighting the apparent intent here, in the 10th round alone, 20 college seniors were drafted; in the 11th round, none were taken.
I agree with Scott Boras. And, what good is a 'slot' if they can lowball a pick 30-40% less than the slot price? How does the top pick get slotted $7.2 million (and presumably accept ~$4 million), when the last two top picks averaged $12 million? (I know. They agreed to it.)
The draft overall works to the advantage of club owners. I don't understand why some people get upset when a player/agent is able to get a lot of money out of the owner. Its not like the club owner is going to give whatever money he saves to other players or the fans. Thats how it works when you look for a job!
The draft eliminates a players ability to choose (leverage) his employer and compensation. i.e. The senior sign is totally screwed by the draft, A senior sign is lucky to get 25% of the slot money, just becasue the draft forces him to "negotiate" with one team or be done forever.
These guys only make 1,100 per month in season for a year round full time job, 99% of the draftee have to get as big a signing bonus as possible just to survive a few years. The draft is unamerican
The draft eliminates a players ability to choose (leverage) his employer and compensation. i.e. The senior sign is totally screwed by the draft, A senior sign is lucky to get 25% of the slot money, just becasue the draft forces him to "negotiate" with one team or be done forever.
These guys only make 1,100 per month in season for a year round full time job, 99% of the draftee have to get as big a signing bonus as possible just to survive a few years. The draft is unamerican
If I have my facts straight, Appel was offered 6 million from the Astro's & he turned it down. The Astro's then said OK, we will take someone else. Appel ends up with the Pirates & will be lucky to get 2.5 Million. This is not a slot issue, this is a "my advisor is an idiot" issue.
quote:Originally posted by Rvaughn:
If I have my facts straight, Appel was offered 6 million from the Astro's & he turned it down. The Astro's then said OK, we will take someone else. Appel ends up with the Pirates & will be lucky to get 2.5 Million. This is not a slot issue, this is a "my advisor is an idiot" issue.
You might be right? A story I heard differently is that the Astros went to the top 3-5 guys and said, 'Ok, who will tak4 $4M?' First guy to raise his hand got it.
If the top guy was clear cut (Strasburg, Harper), the thought was that this would not have happened. With a number of guys in the mix for 'top guy,' it could happen...and did?
Rumor has it the seniors going in rounds 6-10 are getting $1000 so the clubs can sign their top picks for over slot money. I agree BOF - smelly seems like a good word to describe things.
A friend knows a 12th rounder's family. He supposedly agreed to 3rd round money offered because one of the guys way before him turned down his slot money on day 2. It sounds like it's musical chairs now.
quote:Originally posted by warningtrack:
Rumor has it the seniors going in rounds 6-10 are getting $1000 so the clubs can sign their top picks for over slot money. I agree BOF - smelly seems like a good word to describe things.
KC signed a senior 2nd rounder for $5K not long ago.
Without getting into too many details as to why, I am enormously opposed to the new draft format. To me, this is a sorry attempt at socialism in a sport that has bred itself on a free market since 1965 (even moreso post-Curt Flood). Salary caps, slotted draft bonuses, etc. are fine IMO because of obvious entertainment value in an even playing field amongst all participants. But this does not promote an even playing field. This promotes a dramatically skewed manipulation of an incredibly flawed economic process.
quote:To me, this is a sorry attempt at socialism in a sport that has bred itself on a free market since 1965 (even moreso post-Curt Flood).
JH,
You took the words right out of my mouth. As I was reading this thread, I was thinking along the same lines......what would Curt Flood or Dave McNally think about this? Bottom line....there is no free labor market in professional baseball at this time.
It does seem like the senior college players in rounds 6-10 are getting screwed if that is what the club is offering($1000). Is there any recourse? Can they sit out the season(although I am sure most would not want to do that) and sign as a free agent for more money at a late point? This is a sahme if these players get such little $$.
quote:Originally posted by J H:
Without getting into too many details as to why, I am enormously opposed to the new draft format. To me, this is a sorry attempt at socialism in a sport that has bred itself on a free market since 1965 (even moreso post-Curt Flood). Salary caps, slotted draft bonuses, etc. are fine IMO because of obvious entertainment value in an even playing field amongst all participants. But this does not promote an even playing field. This promotes a dramatically skewed manipulation of an incredibly flawed economic process.
Agree.
quote:Originally posted by BBoy400:
It does seem like the senior college players in rounds 6-10 are getting screwed if that is what the club is offering($1000). Is there any recourse? Can they sit out the season(although I am sure most would not want to do that) and sign as a free agent for more money at a late point? This is a sahme if these players get such little $$.
Thats a question that gets asked a lot, but its really a good one. My older son (more or less) went through this (13th round senior pick).
The truest answer in nearly every case for a player in this situation is that there is very little recourse. Sure, you can not sign and go play independent ball...but then you lengthen your odds of really getting a shot at all. And even then, unless you completely tear it up, you won't get much more anyways. Add in the fact that your age is now getting a little on the 'prohibitive' side for MiLB...and well...your choice is pretty much down to take it or raise the risk significantly that you'll never get another chance.
quote:Originally posted by justbaseball:quote:Originally posted by Rvaughn:
If I have my facts straight, Appel was offered 6 million from the Astro's & he turned it down. The Astro's then said OK, we will take someone else. Appel ends up with the Pirates & will be lucky to get 2.5 Million. This is not a slot issue, this is a "my advisor is an idiot" issue.
You might be right? A story I heard differently is that the Astros went to the top 3-5 guys and said, 'Ok, who will tak4 $4M?' First guy to raise his hand got it.
If the top guy was clear cut (Strasburg, Harper), the thought was that this would not have happened. With a number of guys in the mix for 'top guy,' it could happen...and did?
My son took a higher slot for less money, the team that drafted him set an amount for each slot and sticks to theior budget (so I hear). On a much smaller scale, he did the same thing, he took what they offered for the slot. Interesting to note that the same guy that drafted him also is the GM for Houston. Anyone drafted has the choice to turn down their contract, head to college or begin a different career.
MLB should have known the teams would find a way to get around their new rules. Why doesn't MLB set each slot for the first 10 rounds a monetary amount and help the lower market teams to pay for the talent they can't afford?
I have no issue with slotting as long as it is fair and equitable for all. The bigger the talent the more they deserve. I am sure that all of those seniors that got drafted who would have been paid the same even if later, couldn't care less, the point is that they got drafted. And I will bet that some really good stories will emerge from more seniors getting more opportunities.
What happened with Curt Floyd was about the freedom of free agency, deciding where you want to go after certain service time. These players, even the top paid bonus guys, are under the teams control for many years to come (unless offered a contract earlier) before they can control their own destiny. There was no draft at that time. As most of you know the draft was created because of the wild spending as players were FA to pick and choose. I just can't see that happening, there has to be some system and there is in other sports and it works.
It will be interesting to see what is going to happen in the next few years with greater talent in a draft year.
I hope that I got my point across!
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
Why doesn't MLB set each slot for the first 10 rounds a monetary amount and help the lower market teams to pay for the talent they can't afford?
They did. Well, the first part, anyway. It's right here. MLB suggests a value for every pick in the first ten rounds. And $100K max for everyone else. Teams are penalized for spending more than their allotted 'slot money'. There is nothing, however, that mandates any team to offer a specific amount, nor anything that penalizes those that don't. That's where the 'slot system' fails the draftees. "If this is where you're drafted, this is what you get" was never written down.
Somebody really dropped the ball on this one.
TPM- I agree with pretty much everything you said, although I'd like to point out that the Curt Flood case was in 1972 and the first Amateur Draft was in 1965.
The hard slotting format of the NBA and NFL work because they are unanimous and consistent for each particular draft pick. The MLB draft is not hard slotted, it is a generalized recommendation process that allows teams to manipulate talent and deceive the process. The limitations set on the teams are not logical nor do they successfully promote a nature of consistency.
The rules were instated to attempt to offset the amount of spending that teams were undertaking in the draft. What is ironic to me is that the Pirates spent the most money in history last season and they are one of the smaller market teams in the league.
If the MLB wants to hard slot the draft, then they need to hard slot the draft. What they're doing now is like telling a girl that you want to fool around with her but you don't want to commit to anything. They're attempting to work towards something that is mutually agreeable, but won't take it all the way. They need to pick a side.
I also believe teams should be able to trade draft picks for players. But that's a whole different topic.
The hard slotting format of the NBA and NFL work because they are unanimous and consistent for each particular draft pick. The MLB draft is not hard slotted, it is a generalized recommendation process that allows teams to manipulate talent and deceive the process. The limitations set on the teams are not logical nor do they successfully promote a nature of consistency.
The rules were instated to attempt to offset the amount of spending that teams were undertaking in the draft. What is ironic to me is that the Pirates spent the most money in history last season and they are one of the smaller market teams in the league.
If the MLB wants to hard slot the draft, then they need to hard slot the draft. What they're doing now is like telling a girl that you want to fool around with her but you don't want to commit to anything. They're attempting to work towards something that is mutually agreeable, but won't take it all the way. They need to pick a side.
I also believe teams should be able to trade draft picks for players. But that's a whole different topic.
JH,
I meant to take that out about draft after reading it over I wasn't too sure, but I messed up and left it in.
I meant a hard slot for the first 10 rounds, that maybe too many, not anything like what they came up with. JH is right with his analogy, but only a 21 year old could come up with that one.
Raise the minimum pay and meal money.
I meant to take that out about draft after reading it over I wasn't too sure, but I messed up and left it in.
I meant a hard slot for the first 10 rounds, that maybe too many, not anything like what they came up with. JH is right with his analogy, but only a 21 year old could come up with that one.
Raise the minimum pay and meal money.
TPM, raising the money the draftees get to actually live on sounds like a great idea. I understood the signing bonuses were to supplement the pay - that is by all accounts minuscule.
sounds like a case of "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine"
Great information in the thread, thank you all
sounds like a case of "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine"
Great information in the thread, thank you all
TPM- 22 
What's even more flawed is what you've mentioned with the fact that the MLBPA gets to dictate what the draftees are entitled to, regardless of the fact that they are not union members. Meanwhile, the MiLB players (also not MLBPA members directly) make peanuts as well. Greedy owners...
What's even more flawed is what you've mentioned with the fact that the MLBPA gets to dictate what the draftees are entitled to, regardless of the fact that they are not union members. Meanwhile, the MiLB players (also not MLBPA members directly) make peanuts as well. Greedy owners...
quote:Originally posted by 55mom:
TPM, raising the money the draftees get to actually live on sounds like a great idea. I understood the signing bonuses were to supplement the pay - that is by all accounts minuscule.
sounds like a case of "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine"
Great information in the thread, thank you all
My son learned to live on his season's pay when in the low minors. Because he has set aside money from a nice bonus he doesn't have to work in the off season. Extra money has been helpful to sustain him and concentrate on training in the off season. We do not support him other than to give him a place to live and eat when it was needed. But at 26 he won't do that anymore.
It's pretty hard to do with a 1000 dollar signing bonus.
Most teams help provide cheaper housing for newly drafted players, my son lived with a family and paid 50 a week in the penn league. The first season is the toughest, especially since some teams do not pay out bonus right away. But that doesn't work for the older players, who do not wish to live with families. College players who played in summer leagues adjust better to these living arrangements than to the HS player who has had his own room and bathroom all of his life, and now has to share that's why I believe a lot in college first. Of course if you get millions in a signing bonus or parents with bucks you can rent a whole house and have your privacy.
Some places to live are much more expensive than others so then that means more to an apartment and air mattresses. This is where I feel that the players should receive more money, it should be based upon where the team affiliate resides and the cost of living.
And keep in kind may college players still have loans to repay.
quote:Originally posted by J H:
TPM- 22
What's even more flawed is what you've mentioned with the fact that the MLBPA gets to dictate what the draftees are entitled to, regardless of the fact that they are not union members. Meanwhile, the MiLB players (also not MLBPA members directly) make peanuts as well. Greedy owners...
I forgot you just had a birthday! Sorry.
JH,
If you ask any ML player about the huge signing bonus given out, you will get an earful. I am sure that they had much input into this process. I can understand their frustration.
In some ways I can see why salaries are what they are. Just the cost involved of moving the masses and housing on the road must be enormous. Higher pay might mean cuts that could hurt the team.
We've heard of a youngster who had family friends enter a contract - they helped support him until the bonus money was released. I don't know whose idea it was, but in the end there were no complaints.
TPM- I'm not opposed to a slotted draft allotment. I just don't like the way it is now.
The MiLB is a whole different animal. I wouldn't even know where to begin.
The MiLB is a whole different animal. I wouldn't even know where to begin.
quote:Originally posted by J H:
TPM- I'm not opposed to a slotted draft allotment. I just don't like the way it is now.
The MiLB is a whole different animal. I wouldn't even know where to begin.
I think that I agree, will not be 100% until deadline.
I think that if it were done as intended we would not be having this conversation.Who is to blame, I am not sure.
In the end it's not the teams or MLB that gets screwed but many of the players. However, I am not sure most really care, most are very happy to be given the opportunity, if they don't care they don't have to sign. As long as players accept what they do (very little), they will keep offering as little as possible.
I have become a firm believer that if you truly want to turn pro the money should not be of importance.
Well all of those seniors who think they are "getting screwed" have a choice. They can try getting a "real job" that doesn't come with any signing bonus or contract...
Why would anyone think baseball ever was a free market? Almost 100 years of Anti Trust exemption in one of the great failures of the American legal system. The draft was instituted in 1965 precisely to eliminate the free market. Prior to that players could negotiate with all the teams and get the best deal. How much would Bryce Harper have gotten under that system? Wonder if the Yankees or Red Sox would have paid $100 Million. It would have been multiple times $7.2 million. The Rangers paid something like $50 Million just to talk to Darvish.
So in this world Harper would have been better off to be Japanese than he is by being an American. Amazing and awful at the same time.
The concept of a draft in any profession is appalling. Given the desparity in the value of players it is hard to understand why it is legal at all for a group of people to negotiate away the earning potential for other human beings without any voice representing them.
Existing players have no reason to give up money for the benefit of new players that are a threat to their jobs. So new players cash has but one direction to go and that is down. It has happened in football and basketball so now it's happening in baseball.
Spare me the "they get paid too much already" stuff. It's a multi billion dollar business, they have one of a kind skills and should be able to make as much money as they can for as long as they can. Players are meat and discarded immediately after their usefulness is done. Scott Boras is right.
So in this world Harper would have been better off to be Japanese than he is by being an American. Amazing and awful at the same time.
The concept of a draft in any profession is appalling. Given the desparity in the value of players it is hard to understand why it is legal at all for a group of people to negotiate away the earning potential for other human beings without any voice representing them.
Existing players have no reason to give up money for the benefit of new players that are a threat to their jobs. So new players cash has but one direction to go and that is down. It has happened in football and basketball so now it's happening in baseball.
Spare me the "they get paid too much already" stuff. It's a multi billion dollar business, they have one of a kind skills and should be able to make as much money as they can for as long as they can. Players are meat and discarded immediately after their usefulness is done. Scott Boras is right.
quote:Originally posted by warningtrack:
Rumor has it the seniors going in rounds 6-10 are getting $1000 so the clubs can sign their top picks for over slot money. I agree BOF - smelly seems like a good word to describe things.
Small market teams have been doing this for years to have the money for their top pick.
quote:Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
Well all of those seniors who think they are "getting screwed" have a choice. They can try getting a "real job" that doesn't come with any signing bonus or contract...
A "real job" has to pay min. wage.
The "contact" only protects the team... you work only for me for less than mim. wage for 7 yrs or until I fire you.
Draftees are not major leaguers.
New hires at Fortune 500 companies don't get paid the same as 10 employees getting good results. I know they don't have a draft but players know that going in.
Get in the system and earn your keep. If you don't like the system don't play baseball. That's your choice.
IMO it's the agents who dislike this the most. Most draftees could care less. First rounders are being offered more money than they could earn in almost 10 years on the street. Either take the money they are offering or don't sign this time. I would think that most seniors are just happy to be drafted after not being drafted last year, so do they really care?
Drafts are necessary in sports to try to even the field. Without a draft you might have a ten team league, only the teams with enough money to compete, anda lot less draftees. Free market maybe but a lot less opportunities for most of us on this site.
New hires at Fortune 500 companies don't get paid the same as 10 employees getting good results. I know they don't have a draft but players know that going in.
Get in the system and earn your keep. If you don't like the system don't play baseball. That's your choice.
IMO it's the agents who dislike this the most. Most draftees could care less. First rounders are being offered more money than they could earn in almost 10 years on the street. Either take the money they are offering or don't sign this time. I would think that most seniors are just happy to be drafted after not being drafted last year, so do they really care?
Drafts are necessary in sports to try to even the field. Without a draft you might have a ten team league, only the teams with enough money to compete, anda lot less draftees. Free market maybe but a lot less opportunities for most of us on this site.
I have no problem with the hard slotting concept. I would however make each round of picks pay the same. The Honor of being number one overall is honor enough. Then the players will be picked based on talent as teams have "earned" their pick ranking. If you average out the top thirty picks under current slots the pay-out would be $2,672,500. I don't think there is a difference in talent from 7.2 mil to 1.6 mil. in the top 30 players. This way the players are selected purely on talent rather what kind of bargain they can make. In a year where you have a Harper or Strasburg, the benefit goes where it was "earned" or leveraged (bought, sold or traded).
Maybe make the total budget based on a % of total MILB/MLB Revenue. There needs to be some link to reality. If the Economy takes a bite out of the industry (NO fans showing up to watch a winning Cleveland team) I believe a control like this would help prevent something like what’s happened in the housing industry from happening to America’s sport. Just a thought… I am all for free trade but history shows us that left completely to itself can be disastrous.
Maybe make the total budget based on a % of total MILB/MLB Revenue. There needs to be some link to reality. If the Economy takes a bite out of the industry (NO fans showing up to watch a winning Cleveland team) I believe a control like this would help prevent something like what’s happened in the housing industry from happening to America’s sport. Just a thought… I am all for free trade but history shows us that left completely to itself can be disastrous.
quote:Originally posted by fillsfan:
Draftees are not major leaguers.
New hires at Fortune 500 companies don't get paid the same as 10 employees getting good results. I know they don't have a draft but players know that going in.
Get in the system and earn your keep. If you don't like the system don't play baseball. That's your choice.
IMO it's the agents who dislike this the most. Most draftees could care less. First rounders are being offered more money than they could earn in almost 10 years on the street. Either take the money they are offering or don't sign this time. I would think that most seniors are just happy to be drafted after not being drafted last year, so do they really care?
Drafts are necessary in sports to try to even the field. Without a draft you might have a ten team league, only the teams with enough money to compete, anda lot less draftees. Free market maybe but a lot less opportunities for most of us on this site.
I disagree with your premise. Recent college graduates with an accountng degree are competing freely with the thousands of other college graduates in an industry with over a million people. Supply and demand dictate wages.
In baseball if you have talent that only 10-20 other people alive have you are worth 10's of millions of dollars. Bryce Harper had his ability to earn probably northward of over $100 million dollars bargained away before he was born by people that had no interest in protecting his rights. Understanding why that is problematic isn't very complicated.
A closer analogy is the entertainment industry where Miley Cyrus can generate god knows how much money for herself when she was 13 years old. Why should baseball players or anyone be any different? They shouldn't becasue it is simply wrong.
Making a statement like if you don't like it don't play baseball means that you wouldn't have a problem if I decided today how much your children should be paid for about half of thier working lives. Further I will decide how much it should be knowing that I can get money in my pocket by making that number lower. Would you sign your kids up for that? Everyone I know would say "Who the hell do you think you are?"
Baseball should be no different when you are entering the industry and then join the union. They are not becasue they are protected from the laws that govern other employers. So any comparision to other jobs shows a basic lack of understanding of the baseball business enviornment that allows it to act like a cartel that would be absolutely illegal without it's anti trust exemption.
quote:Originally posted by njbb:quote:Originally posted by warningtrack:
Rumor has it the seniors going in rounds 6-10 are getting $1000 so the clubs can sign their top picks for over slot money. I agree BOF - smelly seems like a good word to describe things.
Small market teams have been doing this for years to have the money for their top pick.
They have been paying seniors in rounds 6-10 only $1000 in the past as well as this year?