College Players Get The Shaft in New CBA.

So, as the parent of a College Senior hoping to be selected in the next draft, it appears to me on the surface that his opportunity may have increased. With less money to throw around more High School players will choose college, which should result in more college picks. Am I reading this correctly?

That is what Peter Gammons believes FF, from MLB News:

"The restrictions on the Draft virtually guarantee that baseball will not compete with college football and basketball for the extraordinary athletes like Austin Jackson (whom the Yankees bought out of a hoops ride to Georgia Tech) or Bubba Starling (whom the Royals swayed from a football scholarship to Nebraska). Not including Japanese players or older Cubans to the international limitations sends American kids the message that it's OK to spend $100 million for Yu Darvish or $35-50 million for Yoenis Cespedes, but teams may not spend $8 million on an American phenom. Check the 15 players who got $7 million or more in the Draft since 1997, and you'll see that they have been supreme talents, and when you're done there, think where the Tigers would have been the last three years without Rick Porcello -- considering how much they'd have had to spend on the open market for a third starter.

Most general managers believe that the revenue-sharing dollars saved from the Draft will simply go to middle- or lower-level free agents, which will not help the Pirates, Indians, Athletics, Padres, et al, with premium skill players.

If, on the other hand, the slotting system gets more outstanding teenagers to eschew pro ball and go the college baseball route, that is a good thing. If teams do not have to be subject to slotting and taxes on players signed for less than $100,000 after the 10th round, and that leads to more college players sticking it out for a fourth year and a degree, it will be a very good thing."

quote:

Originally posted by floridafan:

"So, as the parent of a College Senior hoping to be selected in the next draft, it appears to me on the surface that his opportunity may have increased. With less money to throw around more High School players will choose college, which should result in more college picks. Am I reading this correctly?"

I think that is an optimistic interpretation.

I already explained some of what I think might occur in the other discussion thread on this subject and having read through the cited article quickly I think I was right (and I agreed then more or less with what Backstop-17 quotes as Gammons' thinking on subject, as well as with some other linked opinions in the other thread).

FloridaFan, I'm not sure that a college senior will see more money, because their leverage won't change. Maybe college juniors and draft-eligible JUCOs will benefit, but I don't see that extending to college seniors.

In fact, I can see a scenario where a college senior, the drafted player with the least negotiating leverage, does worse now. Here's how:

The cumulative bonus amount is said to be about $11.5M, but there is no hard slot for any particular pick, and draftees from round 11 on can be offered up to $100K in bonus money before it counts toward that cumulative bonus cap above which the tax applies. In that scenario, if you want to sign the Bubba Starlings or Austin Jacksons of the world, you can go "over slot" and make it up by offering some other round 1-10 draft pick, or the 11th round or later guys most likely to get $100K+ bonuses, less than slot. The guy most likely to be squeezed in that way are the college seniors, because their only real leverage is to go play independent ball for a lot less money for a year. Sorry to be such a killjoy....

I'd have to know more than I do about how much cumulative bonus money teams have been handing out and at what rounds, and how early teams spend picks on college seniors, to know if my theory there is anything more than than speculation. But I think it could work that way in practice, I'm sorry to say. There could be more money to offer overall, to a draft that skews a bit more to the college side, but I just don't see how that benefit will inure to the college players with the least leverage.

As I said in the other thread, this will benefit the big-market teams. They'll be able to afford to go over slot because they can afford to pay the tax, and if they lose a draft pick (which they can essentially avoid just by not going over the tax level in two straight years), they can afford to make up for the lost pick in the free agent market. In contrast, small market teams lose the ability to freely try to compete where costs are still relatively controlled - the draft, with players who have "signability" issues.

The one intriguing thing in the linked article that I hadn't seen anywhere before, and which isn't explained is this line:

quote:

"There will also be a new 'competitive balance lottery' that gives small-market teams extra selections in the amateur draft."

Depending on how that works, and the interplay between that and the bonus cap/tax, that could help even things out for small market teams.

I also can't believe that this won't see a legal challenge, as the owners and players are essentially bargaining away the rights of amateur players who have had no place at the bargaining table. Worse yet, they do so while leaving in place a system for foreign amateur players that gives them a significant leg up on American players. Boras will be all over this.

Just to be clear...I was not talking about greater monetary rewards, I do not see that. What I do see is the possibility of more college players drafted, as opposed to so many High School players as in previous drafts.

Just looking for an opportunity at the next level, not a big payday.

But yeah, you are no fun at all...

Oh, OK. Sorry I misinterpreted. I think there could be more slots overall for college guys, but I have to think that teams will still try to find a way to draft and sign the Bubba Starlings and Austin Jacksons of the world.

Just saw this post on my favorite Mariners blog, which reports on new limits on bonuses for foreign amateur free agent signings (a historical strength of the Mariners, so they're complaining...).

I hadn't seen this before. Need to think about how all this works together.

I think there will have to be more time to consider the overall impact.
Here are some random ideas/concepts.
Right now, the moving parts are tough to configure.
BA has an article which says the sign date moves up by about 1 month.
floridafan is hoping this will result in MLB teams drafting less HS players and opening more slots for college. That could happen, at least with some MLB teams, I think.
On the other hand, could we expect a bigger MLB crunch on the process by moving the draft back a few days/maybe 1-2 weeks?
With the signing date moved up to mid July, there are a number of scenarios which could be played.
If each MLB team has $11.5 million to use to sign 10 drafted players, with the change in signing date, I could envision a situation where teams draft their top 10 players and then the team uses the 4-5 weeks to leverage each pick against each other.
Why wouldn't a team pick the 10 best and perhaps look to sign 3-4 for $2.5 million to $3 million, and the other 6-7 are left for college?
An important fact is a big difference between drafting and signing.
I don't read this as saying MLB won't draft HS players. One read is this could result in the same number being drafted in rounds 1-10, but not signing and ending up in college.
I could also read this that more college players get drafted after round 10 and are faced with a cap of $100,000 or returning to college...where more than a few won't have baseball money waiting.
The big question is whether MLB will stop drafting HS players because of the cap limit or whether they will indeed draft them, maybe even more of them, and use the cap plus the earlier signing deadline to leverage players against each other, sign a few, and leave the rest to go to college.
When we think there are roughly 3-5 team selections per draft who get on a ML roster, I can see teams using the cap to draft the best players and leverage them. Of course if the HS player takes himself out early in the negotiations, that leaves more for the rest, but does not free spots for a senior sign/draft pick.

Having $100,000 for picks after round 10 which does not count in the total could give teams plenty of opportunities to draft/sign JC players and college juniors and really leverage college juniors.
My other effort is to analyze the overall impact of advancing the signing date.
For college players in Omaha, they might only have 14-15 days after the end of the college season to strike a deal or be looking at heading back to college for a senior season, again perhaps with no baseball scholarship available to them. Now that would be tough.
While HS players might be restricted in terms of $5,000,000 plus contracts, players in Omaha could really be in a tough bind facing a return for a senior year.
Overall all, my initial read is this would be good for college coaches and college baseball. I can envision some real hardship and tough life lessons for the college players, however.

The fine print hasn't been reviewed yet, but it appears to me the new system encourages teams to draft in order of talent instead of signability.

In the old system, teams could wait till the 18th round to draft a "tough sign" and then offer a ton of money to talk him out of college / football / basketball or whatever.

Now you simply can't do that. Draft him in the top 10 rounds or you have little chance with $100K. This system will force the best players to be drafted in the first 10 rounds, period. It's probably the precursor to a draft with fewer rounds in the future. What relevance do the last 25 rounds have in this system?

The wildcards in the fine print, what if a team doesn't sign 25 guys in rounds 11-50? Is that money "available" or is the $100K a hard slot for every pick? I suspect the later based on what I've read.

This system doesn't appear to benefit the HS senior, as there is a stronger need to draft the "best available player", who is probably in college. It may encourage senior college players to be drafted higher.

As the parent of a HS senior with a signed NLI, I'm actually very pleased he'll most likely end up in college as a result of this agreement.

GREAT stuff, infielddad. I agree with you that time will tell on most of this, but I tend to agree with almost all of your assessments.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:

"BA has an article which says the sign date moves up by about 1 month."

I need to read the BA article. I'm sure it will be more trustworthy than anything else I've read. That's an important factoid.

quote:

"floridafan is hoping this will result in MLB teams drafting less HS players and opening more slots for college. That could happen, at least with some MLB teams, I think.
"On the other hand, could we expect a bigger MLB crunch on the process by moving the draft back a few days/maybe 1-2 weeks?"

Excellent point, I hadn't thought of that, or (as you mention later) the impact of possibly having no senior baseball money to go back to, some of these junior draftees really won't have a ton more leverage than the seniors....

quote:

With the signing date moved up to mid July, there are a number of scenarios which could be played.
"If each MLB team has $11.5 million to use to sign 10 drafted players, ..."

I thought it was $11.5M to sign ALL draftees, with the exception of $100K per 11th round or later draftee? That's the way I read it, but I didn't read BA, though.

quote:

"...with the change in signing date, I could envision a situation where teams draft their top 10 players and then the team uses the 4-5 weeks to leverage each pick against each other."

One way or the other, I think that is likely, too.

quote:

"Why wouldn't a team pick the 10 best and perhaps look to sign 3-4 for $2.5 million to $3 million, and the other 6-7 are left for college?"

I don't see that happening. They're still going to want to sign more of their top picks than that, but the threat of sending the last one (or three, or four) standing back to college if they don't take a slot offer could be a real hammer, probably especially those MLB teams know attend schools where there isn't likely to be baseball money awaiting. Maybe we're saying the same thing, though.

quote:

"An important fact is a big difference between drafting and signing.
"I don't read this as saying MLB won't draft HS players. One read is this could result in the same number being drafted in rounds 1-10, but not signing and ending up in college."

Agreed. And if these include people the likes of Bubba Starling and Austin Jackson, who are coveted by other sports, I wonder if there won't be pressure to allow more multi-sport college athletes. We don't see a lot of them now, but at least for the first couple of years, I could see those types pressuring schools to allow them to keep their options open at least until they decide on one or the other.

quote:

"I could also read this that more college players get drafted after round 10 and are faced with a cap of $100,000 or returning to college...where more than a few won't have baseball money waiting."

Like I said, I hadn't really thought of this, but this fits in a way with what I was saying about college seniors. Why wouldn't teams wait to draft seniors later, and force them into this $100K box? And for that matter, juniors who don't have baseball money to return to?

quote:

"The big question is whether MLB will stop drafting HS players because of the cap limit or whether they will indeed draft them, maybe even more of them, and use the cap plus the earlier signing deadline to leverage players against each other, sign a few, and leave the rest to go to college."

Yep. To me, it is hard to see them changing who they want much. I think it is far more likely they change their negotiation in light of differing leverage points.

quote:

"When we think there are roughly 3-5 team selections per draft who get on a ML roster, I can see teams using the cap to draft the best players and leverage them. Of course if the HS player takes himself out early in the negotiations, that leaves more for the rest, but does not free spots for a senior sign/draft pick.'

Agreed. Pretty much 100%.

quote:

"Having $100,000 for picks after round 10 which does not count in the total could give teams plenty of opportunities to draft/sign JC players and college juniors and really leverage college juniors."

Seems likely. And if that is so, then that is how they free up the money for top HS players, no? Beginning to think it is difficult to see this as a positive for college draftees (sorry, floridafan).

quote:

"My other effort is to analyze the overall impact of advancing the signing date.
"For college players in Omaha, they might only have 14-15 days after the end of the college season to strike a deal or be looking at heading back to college for a senior season, again perhaps with no baseball scholarship available to them. Now that would be tough. While HS players might be restricted in terms of $5,000,000 plus contracts, players in Omaha could really be in a tough bind facing a return for a senior year."

Seems so. And it would increase the pressure to align with "advisors" and the like - that can't be good.

quote:

"Overall all, my initial read is this would be good for college coaches and college baseball. I can envision some real hardship and tough life lessons for the college players, however."

I agree. And a lot more money for veteran MLB free agents is freed up at the expense of these amateurs, both American and apparently foreign (if the link I posted before is accurate, and total foreign bonuses are limited to something close to a typical amount a top foreign signee currently gets....

quote:

Originally posted by EdgarFan:

I also can't believe that this won't see a legal challenge, as the owners and players are essentially bargaining away the rights of amateur players who have had no place at the bargaining table. Worse yet, they do so while leaving in place a system for foreign amateur players that gives them a significant leg up on American players. Boras will be all over this.

I read this a few times and really like all your analysis. Can you please explain the above a little more EdgarFan?

How can a non-employee be materially harmed for a potential position, when he does not yet have that position? It is like if a company chooses to eliminate health benefits for all new employees hired after a certain date. A potential employee does not have any means of using the legal system to make sure that the company gives health care to new employees. Is baseball different because of their labor exemption?

The rich get richer!

This makes no sense. Seniors taken after the 10th round now usually get little or no signing bonus because they have zero leverage. I know kids taken in the 11th round that got Zero signing bonuses. Hard to see how this could hurt them any more. Ditto for seniors taken in the top 10 rounds. They usually get much less than slot because of the "senior discount." Hard to imagine things getting any worse for drafted seniors.

quote:

Originally posted by EdgarFan:
....[In fact, I can see a scenario where a college senior, the drafted player with the least negotiating leverage, does worse now. Here's how:

The cumulative bonus amount is said to be about $11.5M, but there is no hard slot for any particular pick, and draftees from round 11 on can be offered up to $100K in bonus money before it counts toward that cumulative bonus cap above which the tax applies. In that scenario, if you want to sign the Bubba Starlings or Austin Jacksons of the world, you can go "over slot" and make it up by offering some other round 1-10 draft pick, or the 11th round or later guys most likely to get $100K+ bonuses, less than slot. The guy most likely to be squeezed in that way are the college seniors, because their only real leverage is to go play independent ball for a lot less money for a year. Sorry to be such a killjoy....

The way I understood the draft and bonuses for players after the 10th round, is the money was a way to compensate for minuscule salary in the lower levels of the milb. I'd read that the milb salary was also going up, but the figures seemed to be for AAA. Needs to be addressed if bonuses are evaporating.

Also, scouting will have to change fundamentally with this new system. Appears to me that a wide net was cast at the high school level essentially rolling the dice on unproven talent and immature kids. It may help the college student/athlete in that they have at least proven they can survive and play on their own. College level ball will indeed become a mini farm system.

With the roster restrictions, eligibility rules, limited scholarships, and written in stone transfer rules, I can see some pressure to change college rules.

For those that follow, it's going to be interesting.

why shouldn't ccollege ball become the farmsystem? it works for the NFL

As it relates to seniors and the future draft and signing, I think there are two separate questions.
The first is the very legitimate interest question of floridafan, which is will these changes result in less HS players being drafted and the opening of more draft opportunities for a college senior?
As I posted previously, I think this is a reasonable result with some teams, especially after the 10th round where a bonus is capped at $100,000. Teams who have drafted HS players in the 30th round and offered 3rd to 5th round(or higher) money cannot do that it appears. Depending on the teams needs to fully staff their short season rosters, seniors and JC players are likely picks, along with college juniors who can be squeezed, especially if their baseball scholarship was allocated elsewhere by a coaching staff anticipating the player not returning.
The 2nd question is do these changes impact any bonus to be paid to a senior sign? My view is similar to MTH. I don't think so after the 10th round for sure. If they were offered $1,000 before, that will be the offer now. They just have no options.
Where some could be impacted will be those picked in rounds 1-10. They have no leverage. As MTH noted, those picks usually got less than slot in past drafts. I would expect the offers/signing amount to be even less so teams can allocate more to the top 3-4 picks who they surely will want to sign.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
why shouldn't ccollege ball become the farmsystem? it works for the NFL

I think it's a good idea. I have no personal experience of what it is like for any level milb player, but from all accounts it is a tough transition and ends up being a grind to say the least. Freshman year college isn't so easy either - and it's a somewhat protected environment.

Another thought, talent will probably be spread more widely through the college level, and early verbals to the first school that comes a calling for the stud player won't be happening either. I really think it's going to be interesting. The so called non-elite schools will be picking up some talent, but I wonder how the JUCO system will fare?

Baseball is exempt from the anti-trust rules under a Supreme Court ruling in 1922 that has existed so long the Court has stated that if it is to change, Congress will need to act. Congress has threatened the exemption a few times, most recently during the steroid hearings, as a means of trying to push MLB to do one thing or another, but the clowns in Washington are more dysfunctional than all of Hollywood combined so it's highly unlikely they'll ever legislatively remove the exemption.

With the exemption, litigation of the sort suggested on behalf of the future potential MLB players would be pretty much fruitless and dead on arrival.

quote:

Originally posted by 55mom:

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
why shouldn't ccollege ball become the farmsystem? it works for the NFL

I think it's a good idea. I have no personal experience of what it is like for any level milb player, but from all accounts it is a tough transition and ends up being a grind to say the least. Freshman year college isn't so easy either - and it's a somewhat protected environment.

Another thought, talent will probably be spread more widely through the college level, and early verbals to the first school that comes a calling for the stud player won't be happening either. I really think it's going to be interesting.

I don't feel they can be compared.
Football has 85 roster spots and 85 scholarships.
Baseball has 35 roster spots and 11.7.
Players come out of college and can compete for playing time on an NFL roster, with a draft lasting only 7 rounds.
Baseball clearly is so different with it being a rare player who can compete on a MLB field within one year of his last college game. bbscout used to tell us it takes upwards of 1,000 Milb AB's for a position player to be in a position to matriculate to the MLB game. Those AB's are against better pitchers than exist in the college game,for the most part.

One thing that nobody has mentioned thus far is what effect all of this will have on retention of college players. Let's assume that more top flight HS players end up going to college. College coaches are going to have to open roster spots for them somewhere. I can see a couple of possibilities.

Option 1 would be for the college coach to pass on a lower level recruit. The kid that might have ended up at Big State U now ends up at Big State Mid-Major. Obviously there will be a trickle down effect. For every HS star that goes to college, somewhere down the line another kid will lose the opportunity to play college ball.

Option 2 would be for the college coach to run somebody off. Will it be last year's freshman that underperformed? Or the Senior who has hit a ceiling?

The other thing that has not been mentioned is which college teams will benefit most. IMHO it will be primarily the high level D1's who lose a prime recruit to the draft ever year or two. I guess the lower level teams will benefit from the trickle down effect, but I really think the big name powers will benefit the most.

I also suspect that the teams that will benefit the most are public schools in states with lots of HS talent, like Florida, Texas, and California. Some kids that sign out of HS do so in part because of family finances. Now they will have to pay part of junior's tuition for 3 years. Lot easier to afford that in state public school.

Finally, how many kids are we really talking about here? My GUESS is the power programs will end up AVERAGING 1 extra prime recruit per year. But there will probably be occassions when Whatsamatta U pulls in 2-3 extra recruits, maybe for 2 or 3 years in a row.

In the first round 11 high schoolers were drafted, and in the supplemental round 16 were. I'm positive someone has the numbers as to who signed (at least one I know of turned down seven figures to go to school) - I wasn't expecting such a high number of high schoolers.

quote:

Originally posted by Backstop-17:

quote:

Originally posted by EdgarFan:

"I also can't believe that this won't see a legal challenge, as the owners and players are essentially bargaining away the rights of amateur players who have had no place at the bargaining table. Worse yet, they do so while leaving in place a system for foreign amateur players that gives them a significant leg up on American players. Boras will be all over this."

"I read this a few times and really like all your analysis. Can you please explain the above a little more EdgarFan?

I'll try. I'm certainly not an expert in labor relations law, just somebody with enough legal background to be dangerous, so take whatever I say with an appropriate number of grains of salt.

It's important to point out, as hokieone already has, that baseball has an antitrust exemption, by Supreme Court precedent. I don't think, however, that necessarily means (as hokieone suggests) that "[w]ith the exemption, litigation of the sort suggested on behalf of the future potential MLB players would be pretty much fruitless and dead on arrival." Maybe, maybe not.

First, it was in the wake of litigation led by Curt Flood to challenge the reserve clause that we got the breakthrough that led to free agency. The threat of litigation making its way to the Supreme Court, where it isn't a given that baseball's antitrust exemption would be upheld (though it likely would be, if for no other reason than the priciple of stare decisis, in essence a presumption of deference to already decided precedent), itself could force changes to the new CBA.

Second, I don't think you would have to challenge MLB's antitrust exemption in order to challenge the legality of collective bargaining that limits the rights of parties who are not represented by the union and not party to the negotiation. This is really nothing more than a somewhat educated WAG on my part, but I think there could be some creative legal theories that could form the basis of a challenge to the CBA without necessarily challenging the antitrust exemption - though I would expect there would be a challenge to that, too, as an alternative theory.

The reason I think that is because MLB did not impose these new draft rules unilaterally, as an antitrust-exempt monopolistic organization; they did it within the context of collective bargaining. I would think that labor relations law applies as much as antitrust law here, and while not enough of an expert to know, I would think there is case law on the the limitations of and extent of the ability of parties to a collective bargaining agreement to contract away rights of others who are not party to that agreement.

And that was really my only point. I would not be surprised to see some super-agent file suit on behalf of one of his prospective high first-round players perhaps as a class on behalf of "other similarly situated players" and essentially say "you guys can't bargain away my guy's right to freely negotiate a deal with the team that drafts him when he wasn't part of the union that bargained away that right. That right was not theirs to give up." I'm not sure what legal theory they might actually use, I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised to see it and I don't think the antitrust exemption stands as the legal or practical obstacle to that kind of litigation that others seem to think it will be.

quote:

"How can a non-employee be materially harmed for a potential position, when he does not yet have that position? It is like if a company chooses to eliminate health benefits for all new employees hired after a certain date. A potential employee does not have any means of using the legal system to make sure that the company gives health care to new employees. Is baseball different because of their labor exemption?

There is an important difference between your scenario/analogy and the CBA draft limitations.

First, you are describing ONE COMPANY, and one apparently that is not unionized, deciding that it will stop offering something to new employees. They have every right to do that (absent legislation or collective bargaining requiring otherwise), and none of the mass of unemployed but theoretically "prospective employees" would have the right or standing to challenge that.

On the other hand, if not one company but an ENTIRE INDUSTRY imposed those limitations, they would run afoul of antitrust laws. Theoretically MLB could do this, because they have an antitrust exemption, but even with that exemption their right to do that sort of thing is limited by their employees' collective bargaining rights, and in turn there HAVE to be some rules about whose rights can be collectively bargained. How can they bargain away the rights of people who aren't represented by the union?

I think there is a difference between somebody who out in the job market not having the right to sue a company over employment policies before they are employed there, and the right and standing of a baseball player who has been drafted but has not yet signed to challenge limitations on his free bargaining rights that have been imposed by collective bargaining between a union and the industry his prospective employer draftor is part of. IMO, he has standing, and he has a right to complain about how somebody who doesn't represent him can bargain away or limit his rights.

There is a pretty decent chance I could be wrong about all of this, but that is the best I can do at explaining what I meant. Hope it helps. If there is a labor attorney out there, feel free to poke holes where appropriate.

quote:

Originally posted by MTH:

"This makes no sense. Seniors taken after the 10th round now usually get little or no signing bonus because they have zero leverage. I know kids taken in the 11th round that got Zero signing bonuses. Hard to see how this could hurt them any more. Ditto for seniors taken in the top 10 rounds. They usually get much less than slot because of the 'senior discount.' Hard to imagine things getting any worse for drafted seniors."

quote:

Originally posted by EdgarFan:

"....In fact, I can see a scenario where a college senior, the drafted player with the least negotiating leverage, does worse now. Here's how:

"The cumulative bonus amount is said to be about $11.5M, but there is no hard slot for any particular pick, and draftees from round 11 on can be offered up to $100K in bonus money before it counts toward that cumulative bonus cap above which the tax applies. In that scenario, if you want to sign the Bubba Starlings or Austin Jacksons of the world, you can go "over slot" and make it up by offering some other round 1-10 draft pick, or the 11th round or later guys most likely to get $100K+ bonuses, less than slot. The guy most likely to be squeezed in that way are the college seniors, because their only real leverage is to go play independent ball for a lot less money for a year. Sorry to be such a killjoy...."

First, I wasn't JUST talking about seniors drafted after the 10th round, but seniors taken anywhere in the draft, and most particularly in the first ten rounds, but....

I'm not sure why this makes no sense to you. Other than not knowing who generally got what amounts in what rounds (which I freely admitted, and said could change the picture), I think we're saying pretty much the same thing: college seniors have the least leverage. I'm just suggesting that, within the new system, to the extent they're getting any money at all now, they are less likely to get it under the new system because teams that want to go over slot will have to skimp elsewhere and it seems to me that means taking from those with the least leverage.

I take your comments to be, essentially - "they get nothing now, it can't get any worse." And that may be so, relatively speaking, but I can't believe there aren't SOME seniors who are getting SOME money now who could be negatively impacted. And as infielddad pointed out, maybe some juniors too, who are getting squeezed by a moved-up signing deadline and the potential for no baseball money to return to in college....

Well I know a senior who would just about play for peanuts

GO TO THE PERFECTGAME website and se their view

Thanks for the tip on the PG view, TRhit.

Here's the link to Perfect Game's view of the new CBA. Not surprisingly, they view it as a positive for college baseball (at least college baseball coaches, maybe less so for prospective college baseball players), and think the rules on bonus money for picks later than round ten will swell the numbers of kids opting for college as pro teams won't risk throwing $500K (or more) and risking the luxury tax. Probably true.

There is some talk about what affect the CBA might have on kids choosing other sports (especially sports with many more funded scholarships) over baseball, and basically calls for the number of baseball scholarships to be increased.

That would be nice.

College coaches are going to have an interesting summer. They normally budget a "draft attrition factor" that could be lower than their yield of players this coming summer.

What happens if a couple of extras show up?

I suspect fall ball will be all the more interesting.

I am in agreement that it will most likely take a draft or two to see how this pans out.
Some of this depends on the $$ recommendations that will be given for each round. If the bonus for rounds 5-10 be more, than more will sign. Also keep in mind that it will affect 300 players, and many of the players rounds 1-10 sign anyway. I am not seeing how it will affect college juniors or seniors any differently than it is now for them. The whole idea IMO, is that it leaves out negotiations (with the earlier signing date as well), in other words, this is it, this is what we can offer you if you want it let us know and we will move onto someone else. I understand that teams like the new date, it means that there is enough time left in the season to get their top picks out and playing, most of them miss an entire season with the late august deadline. I can see how it would work well for both sides.

Unless college goes to wood, it will never be a training ground for MLB in college. The elite college programs, with coaches that know what they are doing in preparing players for proball, will still turn out high draft choices. Just keep in mind that in the end it is usually about talent, and talent very rarely takes a day off, if it's there at the end of HS, it's there three years later.

FWIW, things have changed over the past few years, more and more teams are moving their HS players into the game faster than ever before, the game is now evolving around youth, and there is a ton of young talent out there. A lot has changed, even since son was drafted in 2007.

One thing that doesn't change is, what does the player really wants to accomplish? If it is about getting to MLB before 22-23 then you sign despite the money, if it is about money, then you go to school first.

JMO.

I thought I would bump this thread now that we have some early indications of how college players (and college seniors more particularly) are being handled in the draft under the new CBA rules.

Here is an interesting article from PG concluding that a LOT more college seniors are going higher than they have in the past, with the apparent intent of NOT offering them any more money (because, no leverage) and using that slot money saved for earlier picks and to supplement the $100K limit for draftees taken after the 10th round. Baseball America came to the same conclusion.

Some interesting tidbits: 62 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.

What remains to be seen is whether the strategy will work, but interesting nonetheless. Thoughts?

I agree with what you are saying EF. As I was reading some of the streaming comments from PG last night, they had the same observation. Alot of "talent," in their estimation of what constitutes "talent," went off the board starting in the 11th round. Kids they assumed would have gone much higher, so it appears you may have something here.

The BA article I linked to does a good job of explaining the drivers for this.

Suppose you have two players - one by talent a 4th or 5th round talent (with a lot of, say, $250,000 - I have no idea if this is even close to accurate, just using that figure for illustration), and another a senior who by talent might project to something like a 11th or 12th round pick. Your bonus pool is $10M. The 4th/5th guy is known to be a tough sign, and probably won't sign for less than $350,000. Because he has so little leverage, the 11th/12th kid will sign for $10,000, and would be ecstatic to agree to take $25,000 ahead of time if taken in the 5th.

If you stick strictly to the talent slot, and take the 4th/5th guy in the 5th, and the 11th/12th guy in the 12th, and you can't sign the 4th/5th guy, it costs you $250K in reduced bonus pool available. If you reverse the picks, you now have $325,000 available to try to sign your 4th/5th guy after picking him in the 11th round ($100K that doesn't count against the bonus pool, plus the $225K from that 5th round "slot" you saved by taking the senior) with no penalty against the bonus pool if that won't get the job done and he still doesn't sign.

I think this is the dynamic that is happening - though it has yet to play out and see if it actually works.

your explanation appears to be right on, at least with what I could gleen from yesterdays comments by those who are paid to analyse these things. High school seniors who they were suprised to still see on the board after 10 rounds, suddenly went off in the 11th and 12th.By the way, your 4th and 5th round money is a little lite.

PG has good article...
http://www.perfectgame.org/Art...ew.aspx?article=7156


Looks like teams have found way to get around the new system.

The BA article linked to above is also very good, and Fangraphs also posted a good article about this:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs...-rules-in-the-draft/

This even includes a chart showing the massive increase of college seniors picked in rounds 7-10, as compared to previous years.

Sounds like 1985 all over again.

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:

Originally posted by jazzmik:
PG has good article...
http://www.perfectgame.org/Art...ew.aspx?article=7156


Looks like teams have found way to get around the new system.

quote:

Originally posted by EdgarFan:
The BA article linked to above is also very good, and Fangraphs also posted a good article about this:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs...-rules-in-the-draft/

This even includes a chart showing the massive increase of college seniors picked in rounds 7-10, as compared to previous years.

Two great articles that explain it in a simple way that even I can understand.

I think they are using the wrong term. What good is a slot if they don't have to pay the slot price?