RoadRunner posted:

“The NCAA is yet to decide whether to extend an extra year of eligibility for all Division I spring-sport athletes, just seniors or none at all. If the NCAA decides to extend eligibility for no D-I spring sport athletes or only seniors, it would leave undrafted juniors with a pair of poor choices. In a normal year, a college junior picked between the sixth and 15th rounds could expect to normally sign for between $125,000 and $250,000. In 2020, if they go undrafted, they can either sign for a maximum of $20,000 or return to school, knowing their negotiating leverage will be limited the following year as a senior sign. Depending on the NCAA’s decision on eligibility, they would also have to risk returning and competing for bonuses next year with a much larger pool of senior players on top of competing for playing time with an extremely talented incoming freshman class.”

This is what I’m talking about, when I say difficult. Direct quote from the article https://www.baseballamerica.co...rts-incoming-talent/ in case some do not want to read the entire thing. 

I’m going to make this simple since you don’t seem to grasp the concept. To make it simple I’m going to round off the math. There were 1200 players taken in the 2019 mlb draft. 300 were HS kids, 100 JuCo,  & approx 100 international players.  That leaves a balance of 700 college players. Some of those were seniors and some were draft eligible sophomores. Say that total is another 100. It’s actually probably higher. That would leave a total of 600 college juniors that were selected.  There are 301 baseball teams in D1 alone. Assume 10 juniors on each team. That’s a total of 3000 college juniors in D1 alone. If 600 out of 3000 get drafted that is 20%.  So 20% (or less) of college juniors stand to be negatively impacted by what’s happening. I’m not arguing that. What I’m saying is damn near 100% of incoming college freshmen will be negatively impacted, over 50% of JuCo transfers will be negatively impacted, and a lot seniors will be impacted one way or the other. 100%, 50%, and “a lot” are all greater than 20%. That’s what I’m saying. Besides that, as I said earlier, the elite juniors are still going to be drafted so the 20% would be reduced by that amount. 

adbono posted:

Yes I read it.  And what I said is correct. MOST college juniors weren’t going to be drafted even in a 40 round draft. So MOST of them aren’t affected too badly. On the other hand MOST incoming freshmen & MOST Juco transfers ARE negatively impacted. And for college seniors it could be good or bad but it will affect MOST of them too. 

You're right, most college juniors would not have been drafted. But there are a lot who would have been drafted and signed and that is no longer the case. 

For now it is the P5 programs and the quality mid majors that are going to have the biggest problems. For these schools, they need juniors, draft eligible sophs, and high schoolers to get drafted in order to make that 11.7 work. When those round 5+ guys don't sign (as they shouldn't) it creates the backlog. 

NLIs were offered on the basis that the MLB draft would happen as planned and players would leave. After these meetings take place the conversation is going to be - forget the eligibility, how am I going to get 15.4 down to 11.7? 

I know at our school (P5) there were 4-6 guys who were expecting to get drafted and sign. Only one of them is likely to leave now. With at least 10 more coming in, that is going to be a problem. 

The MLB/MLBPA basically gave the finger to the NCAA and told them to figure it out. The figuring out is where the craziness starts and it will be crazy. 

PABaseball posted:
adbono posted:

Yes I read it.  And what I said is correct. MOST college juniors weren’t going to be drafted even in a 40 round draft. So MOST of them aren’t affected too badly. On the other hand MOST incoming freshmen & MOST Juco transfers ARE negatively impacted. And for college seniors it could be good or bad but it will affect MOST of them too. 

You're right, most college juniors would not have been drafted. But there are a lot who would have been drafted and signed and that is no longer the case. 

For now it is the P5 programs and the quality mid majors that are going to have the biggest problems. For these schools, they need juniors, draft eligible sophs, and high schoolers to get drafted in order to make that 11.7 work. When those round 5+ guys don't sign (as they shouldn't) it creates the backlog. 

NLIs were offered on the basis that the MLB draft would happen as planned and players would leave. After these meetings take place the conversation is going to be - forget the eligibility, how am I going to get 15.4 down to 11.7? 

I know at our school (P5) there were 4-6 guys who were expecting to get drafted and sign. Only one of them is likely to leave now. With at least 10 more coming in, that is going to be a problem. 

The MLB/MLBPA basically gave the finger to the NCAA and told them to figure it out. The figuring out is where the craziness starts and it will be crazy. 

I agree with everything you said. See my previous posts 

So wouldn't be the easiest solution to not give seniors an extra year? Would suck for them but at least they got to play about a third of their final season  so at least they got  something and this would relieve the roster crunch especially since the draft also creates some crunch and mlb doesn't care about that aspect.

Talk of the D1 council meeting being delayed until June. 
Not that I have any special insight, but it would seem to me that the longer this is dragged out, the greater the possibility that additional eligibility will not be granted. 

adbono posted:

I don’t think you are seeing the big picture. Not only do seniors have the option of coming back but with MLB draft reduced to what appears to be 5 rounds many juniors that would have been drafted in a normal year won’t be. Most wont want to sign as a FA for a fraction of what they expected so many of them will be back too.  I’m going to use a specific D1 school as an example.  They have 10 seniors and expected 2 or 3 of them to be drafted. With only 5 rounds maybe none of them get drafted. They also expected one Jr to be drafted. That’s also not likely. They signed 6 HS seniors and are bringing in 5 Juco transfers. They already had 3 redshirts. In the fall they could have 49 guys competing for 35 roster spots. It will take years to clean up that mess and this situation could be typical not isolated. And you think this will be easy for coaches to resolve? Couldn’t disagree more. Has the potential to be a fiasco. 

There are plenty of programs who already have larger fall player participation than you have in your example, Fish-n-sail remarked his sons D1 program had well over 50 I recall. This was before this situation. Sounds like business as usual.

If 600 out of 3000 get drafted that is 20%.  So 20% (or less) of college juniors stand to be negatively impacted by what’s happening. I’m not arguing that. What I’m saying is damn near 100% of incoming college freshmen will be negatively impacted, over 50% of JuCo transfers will be  impacted, and a lot seniors will be impacted one way or the other. 100%, 50%, and “a lot” are all greater than 20%. That’s what I’m saying. Besides that, as I said earlier, the elite juniors are still going to be drafted so the 20% would be reduced by that amount. 

So your logic says that only the JRs that should have been drafted and weren’t are affected?  But all freshman are affected?  Or do you mean all freshman would have been drafted “100%” and got screwed outta being drafted?  (Not a real question). If all the freshman are affected, even those that normally would NOT have been drafted, then why does that same logic not apply to the Jrs? (Rhetorical question). You are comparing several different groups against one another while using different standards for each group. So forgive me for saying, but I don’t think you grasp the concept, even if you did read the article. 

Last edited by RoadRunner
PABaseball posted:
adbono posted:

Yes I read it.  And what I said is correct. MOST college juniors weren’t going to be drafted even in a 40 round draft. So MOST of them aren’t affected too badly. On the other hand MOST incoming freshmen & MOST Juco transfers ARE negatively impacted. And for college seniors it could be good or bad but it will affect MOST of them too. 

You're right, most college juniors would not have been drafted. But there are a lot who would have been drafted and signed and that is no longer the case. 

For now it is the P5 programs and the quality mid majors that are going to have the biggest problems. For these schools, they need juniors, draft eligible sophs, and high schoolers to get drafted in order to make that 11.7 work. When those round 5+ guys don't sign (as they shouldn't) it creates the backlog. 

NLIs were offered on the basis that the MLB draft would happen as planned and players would leave. After these meetings take place the conversation is going to be - forget the eligibility, how am I going to get 15.4 down to 11.7? 

I know at our school (P5) there were 4-6 guys who were expecting to get drafted and sign. Only one of them is likely to leave now. With at least 10 more coming in, that is going to be a problem. 

The MLB/MLBPA basically gave the finger to the NCAA and told them to figure it out. The figuring out is where the craziness starts and it will be crazy. 

How the heck is the MLB in any way responsible for the NCAA’s problems? Last time I checked, they didn’t pay for the lights to stay on and were not voting members.

I guess the entire economy gave the middle finger to the graduating class of 2020 in general. Sucks. It really does, and don’t think I am not sympathetic, but life throws curveballs and apparently just learned how to throw an unhittable slider.

RoadRunner posted:

If 600 out of 3000 get drafted that is 20%.  So 20% (or less) of college juniors stand to be negatively impacted by what’s happening. I’m not arguing that. What I’m saying is damn near 100% of incoming college freshmen will be negatively impacted, over 50% of JuCo transfers will be  impacted, and a lot seniors will be impacted one way or the other. 100%, 50%, and “a lot” are all greater than 20%. That’s what I’m saying. Besides that, as I said earlier, the elite juniors are still going to be drafted so the 20% would be reduced by that amount. 

So your logic says that only the JRs that should have been drafted and weren’t are affected?  But all freshman are affected?  Or do you mean all freshman would have been drafted “100%” and got screwed outta being drafted?  (Not a real question). If all the freshman are affected, even those that normally would NOT have been drafted, then why does that same logic not apply to the Jrs? (Rhetorical question). You are comparing several different groups against one another while using different standards for each group. So forgive me for saying, but I don’t think you grasp the concept, even if you did read the article. 

OMG!  I’m not talking about the impact of a smaller draft on how many incoming freshmen and JuCo transfers do or don’t get drafted. I’m talking about the overall affect on college baseball of a limited draft, giving existing players another year of eligibility, and potentially increasing roster sizes. The draft is one component of a multifaceted problem. 

adbono posted:
RoadRunner posted:

If 600 out of 3000 get drafted that is 20%.  So 20% (or less) of college juniors stand to be negatively impacted by what’s happening. I’m not arguing that. What I’m saying is damn near 100% of incoming college freshmen will be negatively impacted, over 50% of JuCo transfers will be  impacted, and a lot seniors will be impacted one way or the other. 100%, 50%, and “a lot” are all greater than 20%. That’s what I’m saying. Besides that, as I said earlier, the elite juniors are still going to be drafted so the 20% would be reduced by that amount. 

So your logic says that only the JRs that should have been drafted and weren’t are affected?  But all freshman are affected?  Or do you mean all freshman would have been drafted “100%” and got screwed outta being drafted?  (Not a real question). If all the freshman are affected, even those that normally would NOT have been drafted, then why does that same logic not apply to the Jrs? (Rhetorical question). You are comparing several different groups against one another while using different standards for each group. So forgive me for saying, but I don’t think you grasp the concept, even if you did read the article. 

OMG!  I’m not talking about the impact of a smaller draft on how many incoming freshmen and JuCo transfers do or don’t get drafted. I’m talking about the overall affect on college baseball of a limited draft, giving existing players another year of eligibility, and potentially increasing roster sizes. The draft is one component of a multifaceted problem. 

Indeed. 

adbono posted:

I don’t think you are seeing the big picture. Not only do seniors have the option of coming back but with MLB draft reduced to what appears to be 5 rounds many juniors that would have been drafted in a normal year won’t be. Most wont want to sign as a FA for a fraction of what they expected so many of them will be back too.  I’m going to use a specific D1 school as an example.  They have 10 seniors and expected 2 or 3 of them to be drafted. With only 5 rounds maybe none of them get drafted. They also expected one Jr to be drafted. That’s also not likely. They signed 6 HS seniors and are bringing in 5 Juco transfers. They already had 3 redshirts. In the fall they could have 49 guys competing for 35 roster spots. It will take years to clean up that mess and this situation could be typical not isolated. And you think this will be easy for coaches to resolve? Couldn’t disagree more. Has the potential to be a fiasco. 

Good one.

CollegebaseballInsights posted:
Showball$ posted:

Most southern D2's had played 50 to 60% of their schedule already. Is that enough to say full season?

East Coast Conference has only played 12 to 15.

 

MIAA (Ok, Ark, KS) had played 40% of their regular season. 

SEC had only played 17/18 games which is about 1/3 of their season.  But what will be the big question is what do they do with all the hardship cases that will apply.  Almost every pitcher had not played in 30% of their games and this has to be determined to be a natural disaster or calamity.  How can you keep all of those guys from getting a hardship redshirt?  Only 15 guys of the 35 at Vandy had played in more than 30% of their games.  All players who are eligible will apply even if they are not planning on needing it just to be safe.  Every pitcher that is thinking about being drafted will apply because that adds leverage to their negotiating power.  A junior that did not get drafted this year will apply so he is a redshirt junior next year and still has leverage.  A freshman will apply because they will be eligible their redshirt sophomore year, redshirt junior year, and redshirt senior year.  So the stockpile for pitchers and many position players is still there.  I don't see how they can deny the hardship cases because the rules right now are clear. 

Longenhagen said in the podcast that bonus pools in the draft won't increase the next 3 years. He also thinks that mlb could use that to permanently contract the draft. 

It won't stay 5 rounds hopefully but mlb wanted to contract the minors and safe money on this for a long time and this is the perfect opportunity.

Really amateur players have no leverage here except when they are multi sports guys like murray and MLB is using this.

The union won't help amateurs and minor leaguers either, if anything they will sell them as a bargaining chip because they have so little leverage against the owners.

TerribleBPthrower posted:

What is the likelihood the various schools take every senior granted an extra year? Do they have to hold a roster spot for them?

See thread titled NCAA grants an extra year of eligibility 

I think domestic players already should have been warned about mlb cutting pay on amateurs when they cut pay of international free agents and ohtani could only get 3m instead of 40 like moncada.

Many domestic players thought this was only fair since they could not get that much and that is probably right but what is the worth of fairness if your situation doesn't improve and only the other one is doing worse.

The international draft is the next thing and this time it is the domestic amateurs turn to pay. Amateurs have no leverage except when they are multi sport guys and mlb is abusing this situation.

I think this pay cut share for the amateurs might be permanent, mlb just has zero incentive to walk back from that.

What incentive does mlb have to not stick with 5 rounds forever? 

Do the amateurs have any leverage? 

5 real prospects in a draft is probably all the real prospects a team needs and the rest can probably be filled with kids signing for 20k or international kids especially if every team is contracting one or two minor league affiliates thus needing less roster fillers.

This would of course affect poorer players more. Wealthy families can afford supporting their son for trying pro ball 2-3 years "for fun" and then start work life but for players from less affluent backgrounds it could be hard to get by by 20k and minor league salary for 6 months of the year.

This could affect talent pool long term, not necessarily the real prospects but the competiton they get to play in the minors.

 

 

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×