Paint it Black

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 4, 2011 -> 08:57 PM) If it's "Just another reason", then you're explained to me why it's very likely unimportant compared to other issues. Issues are not simply black and white. Hard slot has many negative impacts. Simply, if the draft was skewed to favor big market teams than the Royals would not have had one of the best systems EVER. The Rays would not Have been abele to do what they do. And also, the small market teams seem to be doing ok with signing international talent as well. Tis may be shocking, but the big boys are not outspending in that area either.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 4, 2011 -> 08:48 PM) So...because college baseball doesn't offer full ride scholarships...baseball can't have a hard slotting system. Hell, I bet you could get MLB to contribute $10 million to scholarships a year in exchange for a hard slotting system. You're missing my point. You rdeduce the pool of athletes to choose from because kids know they can make more money in football quicker. Mix that with the fact that most would rather go to college for free than pay for it. Hard slotting is just another reason why kids choose football and basketball. Plus, if hard slotting is so good for the NBA than why exactly do the small market teams never win a damn thing? And last, I can never understand why people are for giving the eowowns more money. That's what a hard slot does.

QUOTE (Paint it Black @ Nov 4, 2011 -> 08:45 PM) Two points. One being kids chose football lever baseball in college because for football you get a full ride, as with baseball you don't. Second, you get paid much quicker in the NBA and NFL than thou do in baseball. Meaning, in baseball you have your minor league stuff THEN you are still under control for years once (if) you make the big leagues. I should add too that there is much more money to be made in inducements in basketball and football as well.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 4, 2011 -> 08:29 PM) Why? Do athletes avoid the NBA or NFL because of their hard slotting system? Two points. One being kids chose football lever baseball in college because for football you get a full ride, as with baseball you don't. Second, you get paid much quicker in the NBA and NFL than thou do in baseball. Meaning, in baseball you have your minor league stuff THEN you are still under control for years once (if) you make the big leagues.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 4, 2011 -> 08:20 PM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Harrington Ok...and he bet on himself and it didn't work out. Why are we mad that the Rockies didn't get a future bust?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 4, 2011 -> 08:10 PM) There are still usually what, 2-3 first round picks who don't sign during a normal year? So? Some guys go back to school (or go depending on if they're high school talent). They're betting on themselves and think they can get a berthed draft option down the road. Or put another way, IIRC Gerrit Cole was taken by the Yankees in 2008 with their first round pick but chose to go to UCLA and was then chosen number one this year by Pittsburgh. The bull crap that big markets spend more than small markets in the draft is so wrong. Pretty much all teams besides the white sox spend similar amounts total in the draft. And again, to hammer this point home, a hard slot only turns away athletic players (potential stars).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2011 -> 01:29 PM) Except now a person can refuse to sign and hold the Yankees/Red Sox/Tigers/Angels over the head of the team negotiating with that player. Except no players do this ever.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2011 -> 12:47 PM) 2004, Padres take Matt Bush first overall in no small part because of signability concerns, Justin Verlander goes 2nd to the Tigers, Jared Weaver falls to 12th because of signability concerns, Boras negoatiates for a full year before getting a deal done. Add Jared Weaver to the 2007 Padres. Well one of the reasons the Padres also took Bush because he was a local kid. And doesn't this just speak to my point of "draft the best talent and pay them" instead of "restrict their pay because it's not fair."

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 1, 2011 -> 12:42 PM) They were 14th in '06 and 9th in '07... They acquired Cabrera and paid him in between those seasons so it makes sense.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 1, 2011 -> 12:41 PM) So all is well in the world then. The Royals took their second choice, but it potentially worked out anyway. Porcello went 29th, how about all the other teams that didn't take him because of $$$$$? So they didn't feel he was worth the risk. What's to say they would have taken Porcello anyways? And again, the draft was viewed much different in the early 2000's than it is now. Teams see the value in the draft now and spend the money in it. The fact of the matter is the White Sox are the team that spends the least in the draft and never produce any impact talent. I guess I just don't understand why, if you want to restrict the draft, then do you restrict free agency in the name of "competative balance"? I'm probbably opening the flood gates but the only thing worse than a hard slot is salary caps and floors.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 1, 2011 -> 12:38 PM) Moustakas was the second overall pick in the draft! Yes. But it's not like the Royals ended up having to draft a soft tossing college arm because they couldn't afford Porcello. My point is, Porcello put a price tag on himself, the Royals felt he wasn't worth the money and risk. Everybody still won. So why should we restrict players by what they can and cannot make.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 1, 2011 -> 12:37 PM) Well the Tigers had a top 10 payroll last season. They are taking two bites of the apple, just as NYY, BOS, etc, by spending both in FA as well as on the draft. They are precisely an example of a team that is hurting the advantage the small market teams should have in the draft. But back when they drafted him they were not a top 10 payroll team. They have a high payroll because they're built to win now.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 1, 2011 -> 12:34 PM) What people are saying is that a hard slot puts the big market teams at a tremendous disadvantage in the draft I'm confused (sorry I have multiple things going on). Did you make a typo?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 1, 2011 -> 12:26 PM) I'm sure I can find more, but here is one that immediately popped in my head. And the Royals ended up with Mike Moustakas. Not bad, no?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 1, 2011 -> 12:24 PM) Didn't Arizona draft Max Scherzer? And he was the 11th pick in the 1st round. I'm talking about guys taken in the later rounds, like 6 forward, that the small market teams are drafting that fell because of signability. Edit: Scherzer was drafted out of high school in the 43rd round by the Cardinals, but chose to go to Missouri instead. I was thinking Procello. My bad.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 1, 2011 -> 12:21 PM) Not necessarily. The Royals/Pirates are drafting much higher in the draft, so they should be spending more money. If the Yankees are spending the same amount lower in the draft, then they are potentially buying players that shouldn't have dropped so low. But again, the players that dropped did so for a number of reasons. If the Royals thought that a player wanted big money WAS WORTH THE MONEY, they would sign him, no? In other words, shouldn't Harper and Strasburg have fallen in the draft because of the amount of money they were asking for?* Further, Bubba Starling wanted huge dollars last year and had HUGE signability concerns (and he had leverage since he could have gone to Nebraska to play football). The Royals took him and did sign him to a 7.5 million dollar deal (spread out over 3 years). Again, peanuts compared to free agency. But small market teams can't compete in the draft. Or something. *I know this is a false dichotomy, but my point being teams draft the best talent and then worry about paying.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 1, 2011 -> 12:17 PM) This theory only holds true if the small market teams are taking players in the later rounds that have fallen for signability concerns while the big market teams are not. Is this true? Are there any big time prospects anyone can name that are examples? I wouldn't consider Detroit a big market, and the only reason they were able to sign Max Scherzer out of High School was because of signability. He fell to the end of the first that year. I know he has not been as good as advertised, but he was a stud coming out of high school.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 1, 2011 -> 12:12 PM) Always helpful to pull numbers out of the air. If you mean 95% of the baseball community, or fans, then there is zero chance you are right. If you mean 95% of players and former players, then it might be right, for the simple reason that they want more money. For baseball as a whole, and fans, hard-slotting offers a lot more pluses than minuses. It demonstrably levels the playing field for smaller market teams, it prevents larger market teams from poaching signability problem players in later rounds, and it takes away a lot of the games played around the draft that end up being more politics and money than baseball. Seems obvious to me it is an improvement. No. It looks like many on Soxtalk are confusing "signability" with "we can't afford that." "It demonstrably levels the playing field for smaller market teams" Right, because having higher picks doesn't do this? "it prevents larger market teams from poaching signability problem players in later rounds" Again, this isn't an issue. The money you give guys in later rounds is peanuts compared to the money given to free agents. Name a player who fell because small market teams could not afford him? If a player thinks he is worth X amount of dollars and says so, who cares? For many of these players this is the ONLY chance they will ever be able to get this kind of money. If teams don't think they're worth it, they won't draft him. Why is this a bad thing? Why is it bad that a player wants to get paid? "Seems obvious to me it is an improvement." No. It just is more incentive for good athletes (read: potential stars) to choose basketball or football. It's bad for the game of Baseball. Or in other words, theres a reason why ONLY the White Sox are following the commisoners offices slot recomendations. Shocklingly, the farm system is complete dog crap.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Nov 1, 2011 -> 11:46 AM) the Yanks and Red Sox spend just as much if not more even when picking 25+ picks later each round. Why is that? Well it's not true they spend more. So that's why. And if they spend the same amount then the system is working, right?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 1, 2011 -> 11:22 AM) Honestly it is one of the few things that the NBA has done right. It works really well for them by getting superstars into markets that need them through the draft. Execpt compthe NBA draft and the MLB draft are not comparable. The NBA has to do that because how many actual NBA players are in the draft? Meaning almost every pick after the 10th one completly sucks. What many fail to realize about hard slotting is that it hurts small market teams. Face it, to sign top tier talent in the draft is no more expensive than giving Yuni Betancort a one year deal. The draft is really the only place a small market team can complete to sign the best talent with the big market because the players are cheap. Further, hard slotting will only make less of the best athletes, those who otherwise play football or basketball, not choose baseball. Instead those players will go to college on a full ride (Baseball scholarships are not full ride) because of the reward to make quick money in football or basketball. Hard slotting sucks and it pointless. It's Uncle Bud trying to keep costs down on players who are already cheap.

Kevin Goldstein of BP said the White Sox system might be the worst he has ever seen. I just wish this team spent money in the draft and didn't follow the Selig slotting reconmendations.

"He backstabbed his fellow coaches, the guys he worked with for years. You got family? That’s fine. Everyone does." Ozzie, you really shouldn't be projecting yourself so much. It looks really bad.

QUOTE (onedude @ Oct 10, 2011 -> 10:33 AM) Mark Mcgwire is a hitting coach.....I think Frank could be one too if he wanted it. I have found that the same people who want the Big Hurt to be the hitting coach hated Walt Hriniak and always wanted him fired when he was here. Thomas is a huge supporter of Hriniack stuff. I'm not singling you out, I just find it to be the case usually. But hitting coaches don't matter... hell I think we'll see "FIRE [insert who they hire as hitting coach here]!!!" like 3 games into spring training.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 28, 2011 -> 11:50 PM) Ozzie wasn't fired. He quit to get more money so he wouldn't die poor. Kenny offered to stand down. Cora was never going to be interim. Cowley isn't a journalist. Greg Walker was responsible for the hitters to a degree. Feel free to add to it. I believe this has been overlooked in this thread.

Dear sox fans, Aaron Rowand sucks. Please stop thinking he was good or still is. Thanks, PiB.