Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Interesting. I've always thought that attempts to limit bonus money through "slotting" really only harms smaller market teams. The only real way to compete in a small market is through cost-controlled players (those controlled at the MLB level for six years at generally under-market prices), and if you want to build through the farm, one good way to accumulate more higher-round talent than would otherwise be available to you is to be willing to go over-slot on kids with "signability" issues.
With this proposed penalty for "cumulative" over-slot signings (first 10 rounds), it won't be the big market teams who are affected. They can still afford to go over slot if they choose, because losing a first or second round pick (a) will be a lower first or second round pick, and (b) can be compensated for in the free agent market in ways small market teams cannot afford.
I don't think I like this development. Curious what others think....
With this proposed penalty for "cumulative" over-slot signings (first 10 rounds), it won't be the big market teams who are affected. They can still afford to go over slot if they choose, because losing a first or second round pick (a) will be a lower first or second round pick, and (b) can be compensated for in the free agent market in ways small market teams cannot afford.
I don't think I like this development. Curious what others think....
What would keep a team, Yankees for example, in telling a big-time talent that isn't drafted high because of signability issues, from really throwing big-time $$$ the players way by waiting until the 11th round?
I think Pedro Alvarez was drafted out of high school in a later round and offered way over slot because they knew he wanted to go to school.
If I am these big teams it seems like a loop hole to just try and grab these guys in rounds 11-50, pay big bucks, and avoid the penalty tax.
Maybe I am missing something. Probably it wouldn't be that easy since they have issues with signing anyway.
I think Pedro Alvarez was drafted out of high school in a later round and offered way over slot because they knew he wanted to go to school.
If I am these big teams it seems like a loop hole to just try and grab these guys in rounds 11-50, pay big bucks, and avoid the penalty tax.
Maybe I am missing something. Probably it wouldn't be that easy since they have issues with signing anyway.
Good point, jdawg. I can't believe I didn't think of that. This will just move down the "signability" picks a few rounds, to avoid any kind of penalty.
I guess they run the risk that, if rounds 1-10 shift ever so slightly toward kids who want to sign and lack leverage (whether because of bad grades, or what not), some team may be willing to press their 6-10 round picks with under-slot offers, so they can go after a kid they can afford to go over slot with and not risk the cumulative penalty. That's a risky proposition all the way around, though.
I guess they run the risk that, if rounds 1-10 shift ever so slightly toward kids who want to sign and lack leverage (whether because of bad grades, or what not), some team may be willing to press their 6-10 round picks with under-slot offers, so they can go after a kid they can afford to go over slot with and not risk the cumulative penalty. That's a risky proposition all the way around, though.
Boras I am sure doesn't like this one bit.
I am not sure what's correct anymore, this would mean US players get shorted while foreign FA get what they want? WHY?
What is meant by no compensation for first round?
Am I missing something?
I am not sure what's correct anymore, this would mean US players get shorted while foreign FA get what they want? WHY?
What is meant by no compensation for first round?
Am I missing something?
If they make a move like this, and do not move simultaneously toward a foreign players draft with similar rules, I think you will see someone like Boras challenge it in court. How can professional players bargain away the rights of amateur players who are not (yet) part of their union? This seems like a play to increase the desirability of Type A and B veteran free agents (by getting rid of, or moving way down) the compensatory picks a signing team has to give up when signing these veterans, on the backs of a group (American amateurs) who don't have a seat at the bargaining table.
TPM - my understanding of the proposal (such as it is - I'm sure nothing is finalized or decided yet) is that the compensation a team signing a Type A or B veteran free agent is either going to go away, or will be moved to much later rounds. Currently, for instance, if you sign a Type A free agent, you give up your first round pick (and a supplemental betwen the first and second rounds, IIRC - something like that) to the team he last played for as "compensation." Those veterans have complained for years that this depresses the market for their services pretty severely. If this goes away, or they substitue three picks after then 10th round or something, then the owners want something in return. It appears that the players are willing to sacrifice the American amateur market to the idea of more enforceable "slotting."
TPM - my understanding of the proposal (such as it is - I'm sure nothing is finalized or decided yet) is that the compensation a team signing a Type A or B veteran free agent is either going to go away, or will be moved to much later rounds. Currently, for instance, if you sign a Type A free agent, you give up your first round pick (and a supplemental betwen the first and second rounds, IIRC - something like that) to the team he last played for as "compensation." Those veterans have complained for years that this depresses the market for their services pretty severely. If this goes away, or they substitue three picks after then 10th round or something, then the owners want something in return. It appears that the players are willing to sacrifice the American amateur market to the idea of more enforceable "slotting."
Oh my why didn't I get that? 
Thanks.
Thanks.