Worst Farm System in Baseball

[DirtySox]

But outside of those first few rounds, the small market teams aren't signing anyone that that is falling for signability reasons.

 

 

This is tremendously false. The Royals, Pirates, and Nationals have made a living at signing players seeking significantly over-slot. In latter rounds as well.

[LittleHurt05]

This is tremendously false. The Royals, Pirates, and Nationals have made a living at signing players seeking significantly over-slot. In latter rounds as well.

 

Apparently, that's been very successful for those teams too.

[bigruss]

Honestly in my view, a hard slot with a world wide draft is the biggest thing that could bring some semblance of parody back to baseball. That way the worst team would have first dibs at the top players in the world. The system now just rewards the rich teams at every level.

 

International free agents, international prospects, and national prospects are all dominated by the highest spending teams. If you break up that monopoly, even in one or two of those levels, it can level the playing field for the KCs and Pittsburghs of the world.

To expand more, KC, DC, Pitt, etc, yea they may be spending more in the draft, but the Yanks and Red Sox spend just as much if not more even when picking 25+ picks later each round. Why is that? What does that mean about how the draft operates? It is pretty much stating that teams already on top are paying and lobbying to stay on top.

[iamshack]

This is tremendously false. The Royals, Pirates, and Nationals have made a living at signing players seeking significantly over-slot. In latter rounds as well.

So who are these signability risks (taken after round 3) they have signed that they are making a living off of?

Edited November 1, 2011 by iamshack

[Paint it Black]

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.

[bigruss]

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.

In hard slotting you have 2 options, draft the best player available (why would you otherwise?) or forfeit the pick, so it essentially forces teams to draft the best player available. How exactly is that bad??

[NorthSideSox72]

You are in the absolute minority that thinks that. 95% of baseball hates the idea. This is not hyperbole. It's why hard-slotting isn't even close to becoming reality. Thankfully.

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.

 

[Paint it Black]

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?

[iamshack]

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?

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?

[Balta1701]

Honestly in my view, a hard slot with a world wide draft is the biggest thing that could bring some semblance of parody back to baseball.

[Paint it Black]

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.

[LittleHurt05]

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?

 

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.

[Paint it Black]

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.

[iamshack]

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.

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.

Edited November 1, 2011 by iamshack

[LittleHurt05]

"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?

 

I'm sure I can find more, but here is one that immediately popped in my head.

 

ARLINGTON, Texas -- The Tigers took another gamble in today's draft, picking New Jersey high school right-hander Rick Porcello in the first round of the draft.

 

Porcello is a highly-rated pitcher, considered by some to be the best high school pitcher in the draft, but his advisor is Scott Boras, and he's considered one of the toughest players to sign in the entire draft. Of course, the Tigers have a good history with tough signs, having picked Justin Verlander, Cameron Maybin and Andrew Miller in the first round the last three years.

 

If not for signability, Porcello would have been drafted much higher, possibly as high as second overall to Kansas City.

 

 

[Paint it Black]

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.

[Paint it Black]

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.

[iamshack]

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.

No one is saying that small market teams don't compete in the draft. What people are saying is that a hard slot puts the big market teams at a tremendous disadvantage in the draft, provided they are actually realizing their financial advantage during the season in the form of a better win-loss record. This is the entire point of having an actual draft order, one in which the best players are drafted in that order as opposed to in the order of who wants how big a signing bonus.

[Paint it Black]

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?

[iamshack]

I was thinking Procello. My bad.

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.

[Paint it Black]

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?

Edited November 1, 2011 by Paint it Black

[iamshack]

And the Royals ended up with Mike Moustakas. Not bad, no?

Moustakas was the second overall pick in the draft!

 

 

[Paint it Black]

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.

[iamshack]

I'm confused (sorry I have multiple things going on). Did you make a typo?

No, that is exactly what I meant to say.

 

I think you are misunderstanding the issue here, to be honest.

[Paint it Black]

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.