redshirt leverage

spizzlepop, my view would be that his draft leverage, in general, is going to be based on his ability and projectability and not so much on having 2 years of college left.
To my way of thinking, his leverage will come from his draft round and whether he is taken by a big market vs small market team. With the new CBA, if a team picks a player in the first few rounds and does not sign them by 8/15, they get that same pick the following year. My reading suggests the small market teams will use this as their leverage. If you don't sign for their offer, they get that pick next year so they have leverage they never had before.
The bottom line answer for me would be talent. If you are good enough at age 21 to be drafted in the top rounds, then having 2 years of college could afford some leverage, with certain clubs, i.e., big market clubs who will pay for that talent rather than take a pick in the next draft. Absent that level of talent, I am not sure having 2 years, as opposed to one, of college to play would be of much importance to an MLB club.
Again these are general concepts. If the draft is weak one year vs the next, that influences these types of considerations also.

As usual, infielddad has given a super answer to your question.

Redshirt option should never be used for the premise it will increase one's draft leverage.

How can a coach make a statment that your son will be drafted? And that it will give him more leverage if he redshirts. IMO, I think the coach is looking for justification for his recommendation.

One player I know (pitcher) put in 16 innnigs only his freshman year. He is projected in the first round as a true junior. His ability will dictate his draft position, not how many innings he played as a freshman.

Thanks for the responses. Not sure that I framed the question well enough. I don't think anyone was suggesting this could improve his draft standing, only talent will do that. I think he was telling me that others (including his coach) were suggesting that he could be in a better position to sign (negotiate?)if he were drafted, and they felt he would be. I'm surely not up on the draft process so please excuse me if I'm way off base here.

TPM, I would have to assume this coach has a pretty good idea of who has projectable talent for the draft. Is that different than what the pitcher you mentioned is hearing?

I'm sorry for the confusion, but please understand this is a a confusing time for both of us. He wants to play now, and I would rather him play now. We both want him to be able to make an informed decision.

spizzlepop,
My interpretation of your post was pretty much what you just described.
In 2006, the CBA was changed in a number of ways. In my opinion, until we see how the clubs use those changes, this is a huge guess for anyone. If the coaches are basing their comments on what occured before, my feeling is past experience may not be fully reliable.
My sense is the CBA changes lessens leverage for many players.
All players who are drafted must be signed by 8/15 or they cannot be signed. If the player is not signed, and he is a high round pick, the team that was unable to sign him gets that pick again the next June draft.

Bottom line, my sense is that most clubs are not going to be leveraged over that extra year of college if they get the pick back next year, absent either a terrific individual talent, a need, or a draft class that is short on talent.
After the 5th round or so, there aren't very many situations where the player has more leverage on slot money based on having two years of school as opposed to one. Certainly he will have more leverage than a senior sign, but everyone does.
I think your son, when he gets to age 21 and has 2 more years of college eligibility left is a lot like a JC guy. I don't think he has distinctly any more or less leverage than that type of player, other than he will be one year older. In JC situations I have seen reported, I think transfer to a 4 year program did, in the past, get them some additional dollars. I don't have anywhere near enough knowledge to guess at what the 2006 CBA changes will mean in 2 years when a player like your son may/will have 2 years of eligibility left. For the most part, more cards are with the clubs than before, so we need to see how they play them to know whether the coaches are right or wrong. I just don't feel comfortable that past experience is fully helpful for you other than the JC analogy.

sizzlepop,
I am sorry my answer was confusing.

Only putting in 20 innings may or may not be a good reason to redshirt, depending on the individual.

My point was that sometimes the number of innings you put in will not prevent a talented player from being noticed.
I have found that most freshman redshirt players do remain in school for that extra year before they are drafted.
Telling your son he will be drafted is putting the cart before the horse. One thing I have seen, many things happen while players are in college, nothing is a guarantee. My sons friend was expected to be drafted, but got hurt, he wasn't drafted. Most college coaches won't even discuss draft possibilities until you become draft eligible.

Redshirt is a hard decision, but should be made for the right reasons. Being able to use that extra year to grow and mature is usually why it is taken to better your draft potential, not as a bargaining chip with two years left of school.

I hope you understand my explanation.

JMO.

TPM and infielddad-
Thanks for your posts. Your answers were clear and helpful.

I have been trying to come to grips with the situation as it came up rather suddenly. Son had been going with the assumption that he was going to be used (albeit sparingly) and the draft issue never entered into thoughts. I've gone back through some old threads on the redshirt topic and haven't heard this angle used before, so I brought up the question. I didn’t hear what I wanted to hear, but that’s life. I’ll always appreciate the insight and honesty.

I think you’re probably right about coach using this to justify his recommendation. He probably wanted to boost his player up after letting him down. Unfortunately, due to distance and assumed responsibility, I’m feeling pretty much out of the loop on this one. Who knows how this will turn out, and what lessons are learned or revisited. Patience will be one for sure.

At least now I know it will be at least another year before he gets his chance to pitch at school.
I'm not going to worry about the draft right now.

spizzle,
You are welcome. Best of luck to your son. I do hope that if he takes a redshirt, it will be beneficial for him to grow and learn, and work hard in the classroom.

There is nothing wrong with taking a redshirt year.

spizzle...
...one other area to think about...Redshirting THIS year will give your son more SCHOLLY $$ leverage after his 2nd year playing, when, if I understand the rule correctly, HE WOULD BE DRAFT ELIGIBLE AFTER HIS R/S SOPH SEASON.

Yes, he would be draft eligible after his redshirt soph. season. If I remember correctly, to be draft eligible, a player that attends a four-year college must either be three years out of high school or he must turn 21 years old within 45 days of the draft.

I didn't realize it until I saw it on BA today, but Auburn's Mike Bianucci (who went to high school here in Virginia) will be draft eligible after this year as a true sophomore because he'll turn 21 in June, shortly after the draft takes place. Its fairly rare that the 21 years old stipulation comes into play before the three years out of high school rule, but in this case, good for Mr. Bianucci.

i would say play for today,as life throws many things at you, that you can't control. if he gets a chance as a frosh to step up ,it will go along way to build his self confidence. and his value in his coaches eyes. while planning two years ahead for a draft slot is cool. who knows what tomorrow brings. and in the end if it's meant to be it's meant to be. enjoy the college experience. he won't have another one. it will be interesting to see how these new draft rules will shake out? gives new meaning to signability.