Draft - June 9th

[nymr83]

]According to calculations by Baseball America, the Mets spent the least of all 30 teams in the top 10 rounds of the draft in June

the mets didnt have a first round pick, and thats where over 50% of some teams' draft money goes, how bout making a calculation that factors that in before you starting writing 'freddy coupon' articles?

[Guest Edgy DC]

Thank you.

A fake control group doesn't work any better than no control group.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Well, it's three guys the team missed signing... but that three includes two of the top four picks.

Matz seems like a good get. But it's notable for its being an exception-- in many quarters, the story isn't all about Matz, so much as it is that the Mets paid someone over slot. They didn't go above recommendation for a single other draftee in the early rounds. (There are some teams you could say this for... but they're rapidly decreasing in number, and are all dealing with much tighter budgets.)

I'm not a "Coupons" screamer by any means... but I will agree that the organization's decision-making seems strange. In terms of developing/retaining talent, a few hundred thousand dollars here goes further than the same expenditure does at any other point in a player's career; just like profit from good-egg credit customers makes the risk of giving cards to deadbeats, when development is handled smoothly, those prospects that pay out more than make up for the "deadbeat" washouts. And yet, while the purse seems more or less wide open (to a point) for free-agent acquisitions and short-term needs, there's seems an apparent effort to hold costs down-- whether for actual monetary reasons, remaining in "good standing" with the MLB folk, or another reason to which we're not privy-- where it means more.

Not to get all WFAN here, but this is the second-richest franchise in baseball; this team should almost NEVER have an unsigned player. (That-- along with the ability to take on salary in trades-- is the real gift of deep pockets.)

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

To me the thing is if they didn't go around buying the relief pitcher with the most saves every other year they could easily afford to run a draft or two with the goal of really loading up and who knows, in a few years have developed a closer of their own.

[nymr83]

I don't fault the Mets for throwing money at Rodriguez, the bullpen was the #1 reason the Mets weren't in the postseason last year. They could have used a bat and they could have used a better starter than Perez, but the bullpen had to be the top concern... The Mets were 23rd in bullpen ERA last year while being 7th in starters ERA and 8th in runs scored (behind only 1 NL team)

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Fair enough. One could argue that the bullpen had to be the chief concern... but not necessarily the number one cost-center. You can find effective relievers for relatively low cost. Big-bat OFs and starters? Not so.

One could also argue that if your closer's one of your most expensive players, your team's got an architecture problem.

(This is leaving aside the let's-address-last-year's-problem-exclusively-because-nothing-else-will-go approach to roster building-- or, rather, patching-- that seems to have pervad-- you know what? I won't get started.)

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":36mzc1yn]Fair enough. One could argue that the bullpen had to be the chief concern... but not necessarily the number one cost-center. You can find effective relievers for relatively low cost. Big-bat OFs and starters? Not so. One could also argue that if your closer's one of your most expensive players, your team's got an architecture problem. (This is leaving aside the let's-address-last-year's-problem-exclusively-because-nothing-else-will-go approach to roster building-- or, rather, patching-- that seems to have pervad-- you know what? I won't get started.)[/quote:36mzc1yn] Egg-zactly my problem with the Mets. And Shirley going out and buying not one but two Big-Name Closers was as much to make a show of their acknowledging the relief problem as it was to address it. Oh by the way the strategy hasn't worked all that great either.

Gwreck Aug 19 2009 11:55 AM

Our bullpen ERA is 4th best in the league and Rodriguez hasn't exactly been terrible. (Granted we do have a lot of quality innings from carryovers Feliciano and Stokes). --- The Mets also have an advantage -- for the next couple of years -- in that they can pay a bit more for a closer if they want given that two of the team's best players aren't earning as much (Reyes and Wright). Our top 10 salaries: 1. Santana 2. Beltran 3. Delgado 4. Perez 5. Rodriguez 6. Wright 7. Castillo 8. Reyes 9. Putz 10. Schneider That's 6 of the 8 starting position players, plus two starters and two relievers. That doesn't seem like that flawed an architechture.

Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 12:05 PM

]Fair enough. One could argue that the bullpen had to be the chief concern... but not necessarily the number one cost-center. You can find effective relievers for relatively low cost. Big-bat OFs and starters? Not so reliever contracts have been pretty absurd, remember what the Orioles gave Bradford? you're not getting proven relief pitching in free agency cheap anymore than you are other positions. ]Egg-zactly my problem with the Mets. And Shirley going out and buying not one but two Big-Name Closers was as much to make a show of their acknowledging the relief problem as it was to address it. they only bought one, Putz was a trade.. you want to say the Mariners knew something about his arm that the Mets didn't, fine, but Putz is making 5 mil this year with green and reed under a million, while Chavez pulls in 1.8, Heilman gets 1.6, and vargas and smith under a million so the trade wasn't a big payroll-increaser, not sure where you get "buying" from and Putz certainly didnt prevent the mets from spending cash elsewhere

Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 12:19 PM

="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Well, it's three guys the team missed signing... but that three includes two of the top four picks. Well, sure, but the guys who you would most encourage a team to go "over slot" are the guys who come after, maybe 8-15. ]Matz seems like a good get. But it's notable for its being an exception-- in many quarters, the story isn't all about Matz, so much as it is that the Mets paid someone over slot. They didn't go above recommendation for a single other draftee in the early rounds. Yeah, but the early rounds aren't the issue --- at least not to me --- it's the guys in the later rounds who slipped there because of perceived or real bonus demands. ]I'm not a "Coupons" screamer by any means... but I will agree that the organization's decision-making seems strange. In terms of developing/retaining talent, a few hundred thousand dollars here goes further than the same expenditure does at any other point in a player's career; just like profit from good-egg credit customers makes the risk of giving cards to deadbeats, when development is handled smoothly, those prospects that pay out more than make up for the "deadbeat" washouts. I'm disagreeing here. A few hundred thou pays off from time to time, but goes nowhere often enough. You have to be smart and broad in your thinking. ]And yet, while the purse seems more or less wide open (to a point) for free-agent acquisitions and short-term needs, there's seems an apparent effort to hold costs down-- whether for actual monetary reasons, remaining in "good standing" with the MLB folk, or another reason to which we're not privy-- where it means more. There's also the foreign free-agent market, where that money can and often is re-invested, and the Mets might well have been measuring their dollars for these draftees against what that money could buy them elsewhere among players not using college for leverage. ]Not to get all WFAN here, but this is the second-richest franchise in baseball; this team should almost NEVER have an unsigned player. (That-- along with the ability to take on salary in trades-- is the real gift of deep pockets.) Eh, all teams work within budgets. And as soon as it became obvious that the team made it a personal point that no player should go unsigned, Scott Boras or somebody else would leverage that issue by advising his players that the Mets will always cough up more, because it's their policy to leave nobody on the field. Sometimes, I guess, you get players to accede by a demonstrated willingness to walk away from other players. It works that way with women, I think.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 19 2009 12:39 PM

="Gwreck":y5vp6ggd]Our bullpen ERA is 4th best in the league and Rodriguez hasn't exactly been terrible. (Granted we do have a lot of quality innings from carryovers Feliciano and Stokes).[/quote:y5vp6ggd] That's pretty much what I'm saying. This is without Wagner's $$ and including Putz' "contributions" -- it's come from guys like Feliciano and Stokes who improved and/or basically lucked into staying with the team, and dirt cheapies like Parnell, Dessens, Misch... etc. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 19 2009 01:38 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 19 2009 02:41 PM ="Nymr83":2ilmsci4] reliever contracts have been pretty absurd, remember what the Orioles gave Bradford? you're not getting proven relief pitching in free agency cheap anymore than you are other positions.[/quote:2ilmsci4] And the pens of many other contenders-- both of last year's WS participants, for instance-- were built on Rule Vers, others' waiver wires, and relatively cheap trade. Getting caught up in other people's buying runs doesn't make for smart FA shopping. There's looking at your usage of the guys that are already there, and whether that decision-making left something to be desired. There's buying low on previous good producers who had a bad year, owing to the vagaries of misuse/nagging injuries/a couple of blowups skewing things statistically (the Putz trade looked like a decent one early on for this reason). Spending gobs of FA money on bullpen folk should be the exclusive province of teams that DON'T have any other needs. Most objective, reasonable evaluators of this team saw at least two-- corner OF and SP. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 19 2009 01:47 PM ="Gwreck"]Our bullpen ERA is 4th best in the league and Rodriguez hasn't exactly been terrible. (Granted we do have a lot of quality innings from carryovers Feliciano and Stokes). --- The Mets also have an advantage -- for the next couple of years -- in that they can pay a bit more for a closer if they want given that two of the team's best players aren't earning as much (Reyes and Wright). Our top 10 salaries: 1. Santana 2. Beltran 3. Delgado 4. Perez 5. Rodriguez 6. Wright 7. Castillo 8. Reyes 9. Putz 10. Schneider That's 6 of the 8 starting position players, plus two starters and two relievers. That doesn't seem like that flawed an architechture. It's not the Cincinnati Reds (where Francisco Cordero has the team's highest '09 figure). But Perez and Rodriguez as two of the top 5 on a team with a $140M payroll... I'd argue against that being a good sign of the team's budget health (albeit one largely balanced out by the under-market deals Reyes* and Wright have). I'm not arguing that Rodriguez is crap. I'm just saying that, relative to real value, you pay an EXORBITANT amount for "premium" closer performance, and tend you get much better value elsewhere. *One could argue quite persuasively that if you felt secure about your GM job, now would be the PERFECT time to sign Reyes to an extension. MFS62 Aug 19 2009 01:51 PM Sometimes the guys who drop are highly rated prospects who teams avoid drafting because of "signability issues". Then, because they drop, the slots in which they are chosen have lower slot price tags. I'm not sure if that is a vicious cycle or a self-fulfilling prophecy. Later LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 19 2009 02:16 PM ="Edgy DC"] ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Well, it's three guys the team missed signing... but that three includes two of the top four picks. Well, sure, but the guys who you would most encourage a team to go "over slot" are the guys who come after, maybe 8-15. Meh. Depends on the guys. ="Edgy DC"] ]Matz seems like a good get. But it's notable for its being an exception-- in many quarters, the story isn't all about Matz, so much as it is that the Mets paid someone over slot. They didn't go above recommendation for a single other draftee in the early rounds. Yeah, but the early rounds aren't the issue --- at least not to me --- it's the guys in the later rounds who slipped there because of perceived or real bonus demands. Wasn't Capt. Magnifico one of these? Was Buchanan? ="Edgy DC"] ]I'm not a "Coupons" screamer by any means... but I will agree that the organization's decision-making seems strange. In terms of developing/retaining talent, a few hundred thousand dollars here goes further than the same expenditure does at any other point in a player's career; just like profit from good-egg credit customers makes the risk of giving cards to deadbeats, when development is handled smoothly, those prospects that pay out more than make up for the "deadbeat" washouts. I'm disagreeing here. A few hundred thou pays off from time to time, but goes nowhere often enough. You have to be smart and broad in your thinking. You don't need to win as often as you lose-- the payoff from one winning ticket in this lottery is immense enough to offset any losses (even a middling reliever or benchwarmer developed in-house ends up saving you 1-3 million a year while he's under your control). With smarter, savvier talent eval, you're tipping the scales even more in your favor. "Smart and broad?" Am listening. Explain? ("Spread it around"? A plea for general prudence?) ="Edgy DC"]There's also the foreign free-agent market, where that money can and often is re-invested, and the Mets might well have been measuring their dollars for these draftees against what that money could buy them elsewhere among players not using college for leverage. True. But this is virtually the only reason the Mets farm system has gotten to "pretty good, if shallow" from "good and tur'ble." (And sure, there's no college-leverage... there's only potential suitors from every organization in MLB to outbid.) Other big-market peers-- be they MFY, Dodger or Sawx-- have made strides or maintained a competitive advantage here while getting better at acquiring and using the domestic first-year player draft. Success in one doesn't-- and shouldn't-- preclude the other for a team with so much income. ="Edgy DC"]Eh, all teams work within budgets. And as soon as it became obvious that the team made it a personal point that no player should go unsigned, Scott Boras or somebody else would leverage that issue by advising his players that the Mets will always cough up more, because it's their policy to leave nobody on the field. Yeah, I don't think you necessarily announce this. That probably would not be too prudent a negotiation tactic. And if you're going to overpay in the millions for, oh, say Ollie Perez, you might as well overpay in the thousands for His Magnifico-ence*. *I'll be honest-- I think a little part of me wanted him just for the muddin'. Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 02:30 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 19 2009 09:02 PM Smart and broad. It's better to pay for a lot of somewhat talented guys than to pay for a few very talented guys. This is more true of pitching, and even more true of high school pitching. Finding a Parnell or two or nine in the later rounds is where the genius lies. Magnifico is an entertaining prospect --- nobody thinks so more than me --- but a hard-throwin' high school pitcher who can't or won't spell correctly and has a bulletproof attiude may be the place to take a pass if they're negotiating hard. And it isn't a question of a few thousand to negotiators. If you offer a million, and the prospect wants $1.05, you walk away with the full amount to spend elsewhere. I think we agree mostly that the slotting system is stupid and the Mets should have nothing to do with it. But I think it's no stupider than the draft itself, and I'd love to have seen the Mets make an offer to Steven Strassburg and --- when reminded of the rules ---- invite the Nats and MLB to sue them. MFS62 Aug 19 2009 03:36 PM I'd bet there will be a whole bunch of lawyers lining up to take that career-making (well, at least it would get them a lot of press) case pre-bono. Later LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 19 2009 03:52 PM ="Edgy DC":1xxdq7nc]I think we agree mostly that the slotting system is stupid and the Mets should have nothing to do with it. But I think it's no stupider than the draft itself, and I'd love to have seen the Mets make an offer to Steven Strassburg and --- when reminded of the rules ---- invite the Nats and MLB to sue them.[/quote:1xxdq7nc] (Immoral) apples and (inefficient) oranges, though. The draft may be patently unfair to labor, and the whole idea is kinda without parallel-- and would be unacceptable-- in any other industry but professional sports (all in the name of competitiveness). But while the draft may be immoral... the slotting system that's in place is simply bad, efficacy-wise. Poorly conceived, and almost as poorly executed, it doesn't do what it's supposed to. Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 06:36 PM Oh, I think the draft is bad for everybody --- players, fans, agents, and organizations --- except owners, of course. It's about controlling costs while pretending to be about competitiveness. And what's so great about givng a competitive edge to a team as a reward for coming in last, anyhow? True competitiveness is about pursuing victory and claiming the spoils. Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 06:59 PM ="Edgy DC"]Oh, I think the draft is bad for everybody --- players, fans, agents, and organizations --- except owners, of course. It's about controlling costs while pretending to be about competitiveness. whether its a positive or negative for fans really depends on the individual fan's perspective. I'm sure the Nationals fans who just got Strasburg are pretty happy that theres a draft to give them a shot at these players. the yankee fans who envision their team signing the best prospect at every position might disagree. as for players, it depends which players you are talking about. its bad for the amateurs in the draft but its good for the veterans because every dime not spent elsewhere is more money they can ask for, this is how the NBA/NFL ended up with drafts more restrictive than baseball's, and why MLB might end up there too. i'm not sure about agents, but the system shouldnt be designed to care about them anyway, if whatever system is in place is good for them, fine, if its bad for them thats fine too, they shouldnt factor in the 'equation' (the system negotiated by the owners and players) ]And what's so great about givng a competitive edge to a team as a reward for coming in last, anyhow? giving the fans of losing teams a reason to show up. unlike the NBA you wont see the results right away, but i'll bet the Nationals have higher attendance on the days Strasburg pitches, and the owners and players all have an interest in keeping all the franchises afloat (they're really just one big business, and they should organize as such like MLS does, but thats a whole different topic) Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 07:53 PM ="Nymr83"]whether its a positive or negative for fans really depends on the individual fan's perspective. I'm sure the Nationals fans who just got Strasburg are pretty happy that theres a draft to give them a shot at these players. the yankee fans who envision their team signing the best prospect at every position might disagree. The Yankees competitive disadvantage is the result another artificial and anti-competitive construct. A second artificial and anti-competitive creation which provides some (but only a small amount of) drag on this advantage is not the answer. ]as for players, it depends which players you are talking about. its bad for the amateurs in the draft but its good for the veterans because every dime not spent elsewhere is more money they can ask for, this is how the NBA/NFL ended up with drafts more restrictive than baseball's, and why MLB might end up there too. The players who should get the money should be decided by supply, demand, and the open market. Whether these be vets or rookies, I don't care. ]giving the fans of losing teams a reason to show up. They shouldn't be given anything. The team should fight their way back, and the fans should root for their team to fight their way back. And if the team can't find a way to compete --- if they can't build a team on the open market--- let the Peoria Painters join the league to try. Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 09:04 PM ="Edgy DC":313685ht]but a hard-throwin' high school pitcher who can't or won't spell correctly and has a bulletproof attiude may be the place to take a pass if they're negotiating hard.[/quote:313685ht] Lest we forget the lesson of John Holdzkom. Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 09:14 PM ]The players who should get the money should be decided by supply, demand, and the open market. Whether these be vets or rookies, I don't care. i was, quite clearly, responding only to your earlier claim that "players" are hurt by the draft, when in fact veteran players are not hurt and are likely helped by the draft. i believe in the open market only as long as the market is truly open, once you put rules in place that benefit the employees (300k minimum salaries) its only fair that the owners get rules benefitting them too. ]The Yankees competitive disadvantage is the result another artificial and anti-competitive construct. A second artificial and anti-competitive creation which provides some (but only a small amount of) drag on this advantage is not the answer i assume you meant to say competitive advantage or else that sentence makes no sense to me, what disadvantage are the yankees at? Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 09:47 PM ="Nymr83"]i was, quite clearly, responding only to your earlier claim that "players" are hurt by the draft, when in fact veteran players are not hurt and are likely helped by the draft. I don't think I said otherwise. All veteran players were once rookies and therefore screwed by the system. All players who never achieve veteran status were once rookies and screwed by the system. ="Nymr83"]i believe in the open market only as long as the market is truly open, once you put rules in place that benefit the employees (300k minimum salaries) its only fair that the owners get rules benefitting them too. Nobody "put" such a rule in place. It was won at the bargaining table by collectively bargaining at great risk against a longtime hugely exploitative system that held players as chattel --- a system with large vestiges still in place today. (Question: has baseball ever been so relatively profitable for owners as it has been during these last decades where players have won increasing amounts of autonomy?) ]i assume you meant to say competitive advantage or else that sentence makes no sense to me, what disadvantage are the yankees at? Yes, that's a mistake. Sorry. Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 11:39 PM ]It was won at the bargaining table by collectively bargaining the current draft structure is a result of the same process, as of a 1992 arbitration ruling that the draft was subject to collective bargaining after the union brought a grievance to proposed unilateral changes by the owners. there is certainly nothing unusual about a union 'negotiating' on behalf of the potential future (as of yet unidentified) employees of the company with which that union negotiates. if you go to work for con edison, your contract has already been determined by a negotuation between management and a union to which you did not at the time belong. i assume the yankee advantage to which you are refferring is the inability of teams to move about freely. i'd certainly do away with that, because the wrath of fans (declining revenues from fans who dont care about the traveling mercenary show) would imo prevent excessive moving after an initial wave of moves. the only proviso i'd want is that a team can't break a lease with a state/city if their stadium was publicly financed. and eliminating that rule would likely help create a more even playing field, especially if you allowed the owners to demand payments NOT to move from the better-situated owners. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 19 2009 11:54 PM From a Davidoff Newsday article-- if true, it doesn't help my vague heartburn-y feeling. ]In Buchanan's case, the Mets knew before drafting him that the young man wanted a $200,000 signing bonus, not outrageous (albeit over slot). Yet by the time they bid $185,000 this past week, Buchanan already had moved into his residence at Georgia State, secured loans and grants and taken a team photo. At that point, he wasn't going to accept an offer he probably would have taken in July. Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 11:58 PM Now that is pretty dumb of the Mets, to not make an offer until the guy is already set in college. I know negotiating is a process but why not make him your best offer the day before he signs his loan papers and makes his admission to Georgia final? Frayed Knot Aug 20 2009 06:59 AM ] ... the current draft structure is a result of the same process, as of a 1992 arbitration ruling that the draft was subject to collective bargaining after the union brought a grievance to proposed unilateral changes by the owners. there is certainly nothing unusual about a union 'negotiating' on behalf of the potential future (as of yet unidentified) employees of the company with which that union negotiates. if you go to work for con edison, your contract has already been determined by a negotuation between management and a union to which you did not at the time belong. The main reason the draft is subject to collective bargaining is that the FA compensation system incorporates the movement of some of those draft picks as part of the "price" of a player's FAgency. IOW, as long as it affects the players their union has a right to a say in how it's conducted. That's why there's at least some sentiment among owners to do away with draft pick compensation and thereby de-link the draft from the CBA. There actually was an agreement to do just that (I think it was two CBAs ago) but when it came down to finalizing it the two sides realized they couldn't agree on exactly what they thought they had agreed to and so the issue was left status quo. Edgy DC Aug 20 2009 07:46 AM The draft has been changed by negotiations at bargaining time. The draft itself is not the result of negotiations or arbitration decisions emanating from negotiations. It was imposed under a very different regime to protect owners from the bonuses they were giving out. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 20 2009 10:44 AM Somewhat coincidentally, Dave Cameron thought out loudon Fangraphs this morning about the subject. ]Abolish the draft, set budgets for teams to sign players via a pool of money pulled from revenue sharing, and open the bidding for any player not under contract to a professional team each summer. It's not exactly a free market, but it's a lot freer than the current system, decreases the amount of revenue-sharing money going directly into owners' pockets, lets market forces dictate deals, keeps costs down and, intriguingly, it opens the door to more locally-drawn local nines (and dozens of other intriguing strategies). That said, it fosters-- among other things-- an even-more drastic punishment of winning ballclubs than the reverse-standing-order draft. Thoughts? Edgy DC Aug 20 2009 11:05 AM Abolish the welfare system of revenue sharing, and instead divy up revenues at the gate. Give each a opponent a cut --- say, 35% --- from the day's stadium earnings, concessions, and broadcast revenues. I'd even make it 40% if they win and 30% if they lose, putting a purse on each game. Than let teams go nuts in pursuit of all the amateur booty they want. Nymr83 Aug 20 2009 11:31 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Somewhat coincidentally, Dave Cameron thought out loudon Fangraphs this morning about the subject. ]Abolish the draft, set budgets for teams to sign players via a pool of money pulled from revenue sharing, and open the bidding for any player not under contract to a professional team each summer. It's not exactly a free market, but it's a lot freer than the current system, decreases the amount of revenue-sharing money going directly into owners' pockets, lets market forces dictate deals, keeps costs down and, intriguingly, it opens the door to more locally-drawn local nines (and dozens of other intriguing strategies). That said, it fosters-- among other things-- an even-more drastic punishment of winning ballclubs than the reverse-standing-order draft. Thoughts? so he's advocating the MLS model? (which they then broke anyway) ="edgy"]Abolish the welfare system of revenue sharing, and instead divy up revenues at the gate. Give each a opponent a cut --- say, 35% --- from the day's stadium earnings, concessions, and broadcast revenues. I'd even make it 40% if they win and 30% if they lose, putting a purse on each game. Than let teams go nuts in pursuit of all the amateur booty they want. i don't see how thats any different from the current system, you're counting the money up differently but its still the same result, the rich teams pay the poor teams. they're already splitting the gate revenue by the way. Edgy DC Aug 20 2009 11:42 AM ="Nymr83"]i don't see how thats any different from the current system, You really don't? They're very different. ]you're counting the money up differently but its still the same result, the rich teams pay the poor teams. Yeah, it's a different model, and it's silly to summarize them all as "the rich teams pay the poor teams. ]they're already splitting the gate revenue by the way. Yes, I know. They pool and re-distrubute.

[Gwreck]

Our bullpen ERA is 4th best in the league and Rodriguez hasn't exactly been terrible. (Granted we do have a lot of quality innings from carryovers Feliciano and Stokes).

---

The Mets also have an advantage -- for the next couple of years -- in that they can pay a bit more for a closer if they want given that two of the team's best players aren't earning as much (Reyes and Wright).

Our top 10 salaries:
1. Santana
2. Beltran
3. Delgado
4. Perez
5. Rodriguez
6. Wright
7. Castillo
8. Reyes
9. Putz
10. Schneider

That's 6 of the 8 starting position players, plus two starters and two relievers. That doesn't seem like that flawed an architechture.

[nymr83]

]Fair enough. One could argue that the bullpen had to be the chief concern... but not necessarily the number one cost-center. You can find effective relievers for relatively low cost. Big-bat OFs and starters? Not so

reliever contracts have been pretty absurd, remember what the Orioles gave Bradford? you're not getting proven relief pitching in free agency cheap anymore than you are other positions.

]Egg-zactly my problem with the Mets. And Shirley going out and buying not one but two Big-Name Closers was as much to make a show of their acknowledging the relief problem as it was to address it.

they only bought one, Putz was a trade.. you want to say the Mariners knew something about his arm that the Mets didn't, fine, but Putz is making 5 mil this year with green and reed under a million, while Chavez pulls in 1.8, Heilman gets 1.6, and vargas and smith under a million so the trade wasn't a big payroll-increaser, not sure where you get "buying" from and Putz certainly didnt prevent the mets from spending cash elsewhere

[Guest Edgy DC]

="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Well, it's three guys the team missed signing... but that three includes two of the top four picks.

Well, sure, but the guys who you would most encourage a team to go "over slot" are the guys who come after, maybe 8-15.

]Matz seems like a good get. But it's notable for its being an exception-- in many quarters, the story isn't all about Matz, so much as it is that the Mets paid someone over slot. They didn't go above recommendation for a single other draftee in the early rounds.

Yeah, but the early rounds aren't the issue --- at least not to me --- it's the guys in the later rounds who slipped there because of perceived or real bonus demands.

]I'm not a "Coupons" screamer by any means... but I will agree that the organization's decision-making seems strange. In terms of developing/retaining talent, a few hundred thousand dollars here goes further than the same expenditure does at any other point in a player's career; just like profit from good-egg credit customers makes the risk of giving cards to deadbeats, when development is handled smoothly, those prospects that pay out more than make up for the "deadbeat" washouts.

I'm disagreeing here. A few hundred thou pays off from time to time, but goes nowhere often enough. You have to be smart and broad in your thinking.

]And yet, while the purse seems more or less wide open (to a point) for free-agent acquisitions and short-term needs, there's seems an apparent effort to hold costs down-- whether for actual monetary reasons, remaining in "good standing" with the MLB folk, or another reason to which we're not privy-- where it means more.

There's also the foreign free-agent market, where that money can and often is re-invested, and the Mets might well have been measuring their dollars for these draftees against what that money could buy them elsewhere among players not using college for leverage.

]Not to get all WFAN here, but this is the second-richest franchise in baseball; this team should almost NEVER have an unsigned player. (That-- along with the ability to take on salary in trades-- is the real gift of deep pockets.)

Eh, all teams work within budgets. And as soon as it became obvious that the team made it a personal point that no player should go unsigned, Scott Boras or somebody else would leverage that issue by advising his players that the Mets will always cough up more, because it's their policy to leave nobody on the field.

Sometimes, I guess, you get players to accede by a demonstrated willingness to walk away from other players.

It works that way with women, I think.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

="Gwreck":y5vp6ggd]Our bullpen ERA is 4th best in the league and Rodriguez hasn't exactly been terrible. (Granted we do have a lot of quality innings from carryovers Feliciano and Stokes).[/quote:y5vp6ggd] That's pretty much what I'm saying. This is without Wagner's $$ and including Putz' "contributions" -- it's come from guys like Feliciano and Stokes who improved and/or basically lucked into staying with the team, and dirt cheapies like Parnell, Dessens, Misch... etc.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 19 2009 01:38 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 19 2009 02:41 PM

="Nymr83":2ilmsci4] reliever contracts have been pretty absurd, remember what the Orioles gave Bradford? you're not getting proven relief pitching in free agency cheap anymore than you are other positions.[/quote:2ilmsci4] And the pens of many other contenders-- both of last year's WS participants, for instance-- were built on Rule Vers, others' waiver wires, and relatively cheap trade. Getting caught up in other people's buying runs doesn't make for smart FA shopping. There's looking at your usage of the guys that are already there, and whether that decision-making left something to be desired. There's buying low on previous good producers who had a bad year, owing to the vagaries of misuse/nagging injuries/a couple of blowups skewing things statistically (the Putz trade looked like a decent one early on for this reason). Spending gobs of FA money on bullpen folk should be the exclusive province of teams that DON'T have any other needs. Most objective, reasonable evaluators of this team saw at least two-- corner OF and SP. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 19 2009 01:47 PM ="Gwreck"]Our bullpen ERA is 4th best in the league and Rodriguez hasn't exactly been terrible. (Granted we do have a lot of quality innings from carryovers Feliciano and Stokes). --- The Mets also have an advantage -- for the next couple of years -- in that they can pay a bit more for a closer if they want given that two of the team's best players aren't earning as much (Reyes and Wright). Our top 10 salaries: 1. Santana 2. Beltran 3. Delgado 4. Perez 5. Rodriguez 6. Wright 7. Castillo 8. Reyes 9. Putz 10. Schneider That's 6 of the 8 starting position players, plus two starters and two relievers. That doesn't seem like that flawed an architechture. It's not the Cincinnati Reds (where Francisco Cordero has the team's highest '09 figure). But Perez and Rodriguez as two of the top 5 on a team with a $140M payroll... I'd argue against that being a good sign of the team's budget health (albeit one largely balanced out by the under-market deals Reyes* and Wright have). I'm not arguing that Rodriguez is crap. I'm just saying that, relative to real value, you pay an EXORBITANT amount for "premium" closer performance, and tend you get much better value elsewhere. *One could argue quite persuasively that if you felt secure about your GM job, now would be the PERFECT time to sign Reyes to an extension. MFS62 Aug 19 2009 01:51 PM Sometimes the guys who drop are highly rated prospects who teams avoid drafting because of "signability issues". Then, because they drop, the slots in which they are chosen have lower slot price tags. I'm not sure if that is a vicious cycle or a self-fulfilling prophecy. Later LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 19 2009 02:16 PM ="Edgy DC"] ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Well, it's three guys the team missed signing... but that three includes two of the top four picks. Well, sure, but the guys who you would most encourage a team to go "over slot" are the guys who come after, maybe 8-15. Meh. Depends on the guys. ="Edgy DC"] ]Matz seems like a good get. But it's notable for its being an exception-- in many quarters, the story isn't all about Matz, so much as it is that the Mets paid someone over slot. They didn't go above recommendation for a single other draftee in the early rounds. Yeah, but the early rounds aren't the issue --- at least not to me --- it's the guys in the later rounds who slipped there because of perceived or real bonus demands. Wasn't Capt. Magnifico one of these? Was Buchanan? ="Edgy DC"] ]I'm not a "Coupons" screamer by any means... but I will agree that the organization's decision-making seems strange. In terms of developing/retaining talent, a few hundred thousand dollars here goes further than the same expenditure does at any other point in a player's career; just like profit from good-egg credit customers makes the risk of giving cards to deadbeats, when development is handled smoothly, those prospects that pay out more than make up for the "deadbeat" washouts. I'm disagreeing here. A few hundred thou pays off from time to time, but goes nowhere often enough. You have to be smart and broad in your thinking. You don't need to win as often as you lose-- the payoff from one winning ticket in this lottery is immense enough to offset any losses (even a middling reliever or benchwarmer developed in-house ends up saving you 1-3 million a year while he's under your control). With smarter, savvier talent eval, you're tipping the scales even more in your favor. "Smart and broad?" Am listening. Explain? ("Spread it around"? A plea for general prudence?) ="Edgy DC"]There's also the foreign free-agent market, where that money can and often is re-invested, and the Mets might well have been measuring their dollars for these draftees against what that money could buy them elsewhere among players not using college for leverage. True. But this is virtually the only reason the Mets farm system has gotten to "pretty good, if shallow" from "good and tur'ble." (And sure, there's no college-leverage... there's only potential suitors from every organization in MLB to outbid.) Other big-market peers-- be they MFY, Dodger or Sawx-- have made strides or maintained a competitive advantage here while getting better at acquiring and using the domestic first-year player draft. Success in one doesn't-- and shouldn't-- preclude the other for a team with so much income. ="Edgy DC"]Eh, all teams work within budgets. And as soon as it became obvious that the team made it a personal point that no player should go unsigned, Scott Boras or somebody else would leverage that issue by advising his players that the Mets will always cough up more, because it's their policy to leave nobody on the field. Yeah, I don't think you necessarily announce this. That probably would not be too prudent a negotiation tactic. And if you're going to overpay in the millions for, oh, say Ollie Perez, you might as well overpay in the thousands for His Magnifico-ence*. *I'll be honest-- I think a little part of me wanted him just for the muddin'. Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 02:30 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 19 2009 09:02 PM Smart and broad. It's better to pay for a lot of somewhat talented guys than to pay for a few very talented guys. This is more true of pitching, and even more true of high school pitching. Finding a Parnell or two or nine in the later rounds is where the genius lies. Magnifico is an entertaining prospect --- nobody thinks so more than me --- but a hard-throwin' high school pitcher who can't or won't spell correctly and has a bulletproof attiude may be the place to take a pass if they're negotiating hard. And it isn't a question of a few thousand to negotiators. If you offer a million, and the prospect wants $1.05, you walk away with the full amount to spend elsewhere. I think we agree mostly that the slotting system is stupid and the Mets should have nothing to do with it. But I think it's no stupider than the draft itself, and I'd love to have seen the Mets make an offer to Steven Strassburg and --- when reminded of the rules ---- invite the Nats and MLB to sue them. MFS62 Aug 19 2009 03:36 PM I'd bet there will be a whole bunch of lawyers lining up to take that career-making (well, at least it would get them a lot of press) case pre-bono. Later LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 19 2009 03:52 PM ="Edgy DC":1xxdq7nc]I think we agree mostly that the slotting system is stupid and the Mets should have nothing to do with it. But I think it's no stupider than the draft itself, and I'd love to have seen the Mets make an offer to Steven Strassburg and --- when reminded of the rules ---- invite the Nats and MLB to sue them.[/quote:1xxdq7nc] (Immoral) apples and (inefficient) oranges, though. The draft may be patently unfair to labor, and the whole idea is kinda without parallel-- and would be unacceptable-- in any other industry but professional sports (all in the name of competitiveness). But while the draft may be immoral... the slotting system that's in place is simply bad, efficacy-wise. Poorly conceived, and almost as poorly executed, it doesn't do what it's supposed to. Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 06:36 PM Oh, I think the draft is bad for everybody --- players, fans, agents, and organizations --- except owners, of course. It's about controlling costs while pretending to be about competitiveness. And what's so great about givng a competitive edge to a team as a reward for coming in last, anyhow? True competitiveness is about pursuing victory and claiming the spoils. Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 06:59 PM ="Edgy DC"]Oh, I think the draft is bad for everybody --- players, fans, agents, and organizations --- except owners, of course. It's about controlling costs while pretending to be about competitiveness. whether its a positive or negative for fans really depends on the individual fan's perspective. I'm sure the Nationals fans who just got Strasburg are pretty happy that theres a draft to give them a shot at these players. the yankee fans who envision their team signing the best prospect at every position might disagree. as for players, it depends which players you are talking about. its bad for the amateurs in the draft but its good for the veterans because every dime not spent elsewhere is more money they can ask for, this is how the NBA/NFL ended up with drafts more restrictive than baseball's, and why MLB might end up there too. i'm not sure about agents, but the system shouldnt be designed to care about them anyway, if whatever system is in place is good for them, fine, if its bad for them thats fine too, they shouldnt factor in the 'equation' (the system negotiated by the owners and players) ]And what's so great about givng a competitive edge to a team as a reward for coming in last, anyhow? giving the fans of losing teams a reason to show up. unlike the NBA you wont see the results right away, but i'll bet the Nationals have higher attendance on the days Strasburg pitches, and the owners and players all have an interest in keeping all the franchises afloat (they're really just one big business, and they should organize as such like MLS does, but thats a whole different topic) Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 07:53 PM ="Nymr83"]whether its a positive or negative for fans really depends on the individual fan's perspective. I'm sure the Nationals fans who just got Strasburg are pretty happy that theres a draft to give them a shot at these players. the yankee fans who envision their team signing the best prospect at every position might disagree. The Yankees competitive disadvantage is the result another artificial and anti-competitive construct. A second artificial and anti-competitive creation which provides some (but only a small amount of) drag on this advantage is not the answer. ]as for players, it depends which players you are talking about. its bad for the amateurs in the draft but its good for the veterans because every dime not spent elsewhere is more money they can ask for, this is how the NBA/NFL ended up with drafts more restrictive than baseball's, and why MLB might end up there too. The players who should get the money should be decided by supply, demand, and the open market. Whether these be vets or rookies, I don't care. ]giving the fans of losing teams a reason to show up. They shouldn't be given anything. The team should fight their way back, and the fans should root for their team to fight their way back. And if the team can't find a way to compete --- if they can't build a team on the open market--- let the Peoria Painters join the league to try. Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 09:04 PM ="Edgy DC":313685ht]but a hard-throwin' high school pitcher who can't or won't spell correctly and has a bulletproof attiude may be the place to take a pass if they're negotiating hard.[/quote:313685ht] Lest we forget the lesson of John Holdzkom. Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 09:14 PM ]The players who should get the money should be decided by supply, demand, and the open market. Whether these be vets or rookies, I don't care. i was, quite clearly, responding only to your earlier claim that "players" are hurt by the draft, when in fact veteran players are not hurt and are likely helped by the draft. i believe in the open market only as long as the market is truly open, once you put rules in place that benefit the employees (300k minimum salaries) its only fair that the owners get rules benefitting them too. ]The Yankees competitive disadvantage is the result another artificial and anti-competitive construct. A second artificial and anti-competitive creation which provides some (but only a small amount of) drag on this advantage is not the answer i assume you meant to say competitive advantage or else that sentence makes no sense to me, what disadvantage are the yankees at? Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 09:47 PM ="Nymr83"]i was, quite clearly, responding only to your earlier claim that "players" are hurt by the draft, when in fact veteran players are not hurt and are likely helped by the draft. I don't think I said otherwise. All veteran players were once rookies and therefore screwed by the system. All players who never achieve veteran status were once rookies and screwed by the system. ="Nymr83"]i believe in the open market only as long as the market is truly open, once you put rules in place that benefit the employees (300k minimum salaries) its only fair that the owners get rules benefitting them too. Nobody "put" such a rule in place. It was won at the bargaining table by collectively bargaining at great risk against a longtime hugely exploitative system that held players as chattel --- a system with large vestiges still in place today. (Question: has baseball ever been so relatively profitable for owners as it has been during these last decades where players have won increasing amounts of autonomy?) ]i assume you meant to say competitive advantage or else that sentence makes no sense to me, what disadvantage are the yankees at? Yes, that's a mistake. Sorry. Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 11:39 PM ]It was won at the bargaining table by collectively bargaining the current draft structure is a result of the same process, as of a 1992 arbitration ruling that the draft was subject to collective bargaining after the union brought a grievance to proposed unilateral changes by the owners. there is certainly nothing unusual about a union 'negotiating' on behalf of the potential future (as of yet unidentified) employees of the company with which that union negotiates. if you go to work for con edison, your contract has already been determined by a negotuation between management and a union to which you did not at the time belong. i assume the yankee advantage to which you are refferring is the inability of teams to move about freely. i'd certainly do away with that, because the wrath of fans (declining revenues from fans who dont care about the traveling mercenary show) would imo prevent excessive moving after an initial wave of moves. the only proviso i'd want is that a team can't break a lease with a state/city if their stadium was publicly financed. and eliminating that rule would likely help create a more even playing field, especially if you allowed the owners to demand payments NOT to move from the better-situated owners. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 19 2009 11:54 PM From a Davidoff Newsday article-- if true, it doesn't help my vague heartburn-y feeling. ]In Buchanan's case, the Mets knew before drafting him that the young man wanted a $200,000 signing bonus, not outrageous (albeit over slot). Yet by the time they bid $185,000 this past week, Buchanan already had moved into his residence at Georgia State, secured loans and grants and taken a team photo. At that point, he wasn't going to accept an offer he probably would have taken in July. Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 11:58 PM Now that is pretty dumb of the Mets, to not make an offer until the guy is already set in college. I know negotiating is a process but why not make him your best offer the day before he signs his loan papers and makes his admission to Georgia final? Frayed Knot Aug 20 2009 06:59 AM ] ... the current draft structure is a result of the same process, as of a 1992 arbitration ruling that the draft was subject to collective bargaining after the union brought a grievance to proposed unilateral changes by the owners. there is certainly nothing unusual about a union 'negotiating' on behalf of the potential future (as of yet unidentified) employees of the company with which that union negotiates. if you go to work for con edison, your contract has already been determined by a negotuation between management and a union to which you did not at the time belong. The main reason the draft is subject to collective bargaining is that the FA compensation system incorporates the movement of some of those draft picks as part of the "price" of a player's FAgency. IOW, as long as it affects the players their union has a right to a say in how it's conducted. That's why there's at least some sentiment among owners to do away with draft pick compensation and thereby de-link the draft from the CBA. There actually was an agreement to do just that (I think it was two CBAs ago) but when it came down to finalizing it the two sides realized they couldn't agree on exactly what they thought they had agreed to and so the issue was left status quo. Edgy DC Aug 20 2009 07:46 AM The draft has been changed by negotiations at bargaining time. The draft itself is not the result of negotiations or arbitration decisions emanating from negotiations. It was imposed under a very different regime to protect owners from the bonuses they were giving out. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 20 2009 10:44 AM Somewhat coincidentally, Dave Cameron thought out loudon Fangraphs this morning about the subject. ]Abolish the draft, set budgets for teams to sign players via a pool of money pulled from revenue sharing, and open the bidding for any player not under contract to a professional team each summer. It's not exactly a free market, but it's a lot freer than the current system, decreases the amount of revenue-sharing money going directly into owners' pockets, lets market forces dictate deals, keeps costs down and, intriguingly, it opens the door to more locally-drawn local nines (and dozens of other intriguing strategies). That said, it fosters-- among other things-- an even-more drastic punishment of winning ballclubs than the reverse-standing-order draft. Thoughts? Edgy DC Aug 20 2009 11:05 AM Abolish the welfare system of revenue sharing, and instead divy up revenues at the gate. Give each a opponent a cut --- say, 35% --- from the day's stadium earnings, concessions, and broadcast revenues. I'd even make it 40% if they win and 30% if they lose, putting a purse on each game. Than let teams go nuts in pursuit of all the amateur booty they want. Nymr83 Aug 20 2009 11:31 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Somewhat coincidentally, Dave Cameron thought out loudon Fangraphs this morning about the subject. ]Abolish the draft, set budgets for teams to sign players via a pool of money pulled from revenue sharing, and open the bidding for any player not under contract to a professional team each summer. It's not exactly a free market, but it's a lot freer than the current system, decreases the amount of revenue-sharing money going directly into owners' pockets, lets market forces dictate deals, keeps costs down and, intriguingly, it opens the door to more locally-drawn local nines (and dozens of other intriguing strategies). That said, it fosters-- among other things-- an even-more drastic punishment of winning ballclubs than the reverse-standing-order draft. Thoughts? so he's advocating the MLS model? (which they then broke anyway) ="edgy"]Abolish the welfare system of revenue sharing, and instead divy up revenues at the gate. Give each a opponent a cut --- say, 35% --- from the day's stadium earnings, concessions, and broadcast revenues. I'd even make it 40% if they win and 30% if they lose, putting a purse on each game. Than let teams go nuts in pursuit of all the amateur booty they want. i don't see how thats any different from the current system, you're counting the money up differently but its still the same result, the rich teams pay the poor teams. they're already splitting the gate revenue by the way. Edgy DC Aug 20 2009 11:42 AM ="Nymr83"]i don't see how thats any different from the current system, You really don't? They're very different. ]you're counting the money up differently but its still the same result, the rich teams pay the poor teams. Yeah, it's a different model, and it's silly to summarize them all as "the rich teams pay the poor teams. ]they're already splitting the gate revenue by the way. Yes, I know. They pool and re-distrubute.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

="Nymr83":2ilmsci4] reliever contracts have been pretty absurd, remember what the Orioles gave Bradford? you're not getting proven relief pitching in free agency cheap anymore than you are other positions.[/quote:2ilmsci4] And the pens of many other contenders-- both of last year's WS participants, for instance-- were built on Rule Vers, others' waiver wires, and relatively cheap trade. Getting caught up in other people's buying runs doesn't make for smart FA shopping. There's looking at your usage of the guys that are already there, and whether that decision-making left something to be desired. There's buying low on previous good producers who had a bad year, owing to the vagaries of misuse/nagging injuries/a couple of blowups skewing things statistically (the Putz trade looked like a decent one early on for this reason). Spending gobs of FA money on bullpen folk should be the exclusive province of teams that DON'T have any other needs. Most objective, reasonable evaluators of this team saw at least two-- corner OF and SP.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 19 2009 01:47 PM

="Gwreck"]Our bullpen ERA is 4th best in the league and Rodriguez hasn't exactly been terrible. (Granted we do have a lot of quality innings from carryovers Feliciano and Stokes). --- The Mets also have an advantage -- for the next couple of years -- in that they can pay a bit more for a closer if they want given that two of the team's best players aren't earning as much (Reyes and Wright). Our top 10 salaries: 1. Santana 2. Beltran 3. Delgado 4. Perez 5. Rodriguez 6. Wright 7. Castillo 8. Reyes 9. Putz 10. Schneider That's 6 of the 8 starting position players, plus two starters and two relievers. That doesn't seem like that flawed an architechture. It's not the Cincinnati Reds (where Francisco Cordero has the team's highest '09 figure). But Perez and Rodriguez as two of the top 5 on a team with a $140M payroll... I'd argue against that being a good sign of the team's budget health (albeit one largely balanced out by the under-market deals Reyes* and Wright have). I'm not arguing that Rodriguez is crap. I'm just saying that, relative to real value, you pay an EXORBITANT amount for "premium" closer performance, and tend you get much better value elsewhere. *One could argue quite persuasively that if you felt secure about your GM job, now would be the PERFECT time to sign Reyes to an extension.

MFS62 Aug 19 2009 01:51 PM

Sometimes the guys who drop are highly rated prospects who teams avoid drafting because of "signability issues". Then, because they drop, the slots in which they are chosen have lower slot price tags. I'm not sure if that is a vicious cycle or a self-fulfilling prophecy. Later

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 19 2009 02:16 PM

="Edgy DC"] ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Well, it's three guys the team missed signing... but that three includes two of the top four picks. Well, sure, but the guys who you would most encourage a team to go "over slot" are the guys who come after, maybe 8-15. Meh. Depends on the guys. ="Edgy DC"] ]Matz seems like a good get. But it's notable for its being an exception-- in many quarters, the story isn't all about Matz, so much as it is that the Mets paid someone over slot. They didn't go above recommendation for a single other draftee in the early rounds. Yeah, but the early rounds aren't the issue --- at least not to me --- it's the guys in the later rounds who slipped there because of perceived or real bonus demands. Wasn't Capt. Magnifico one of these? Was Buchanan? ="Edgy DC"] ]I'm not a "Coupons" screamer by any means... but I will agree that the organization's decision-making seems strange. In terms of developing/retaining talent, a few hundred thousand dollars here goes further than the same expenditure does at any other point in a player's career; just like profit from good-egg credit customers makes the risk of giving cards to deadbeats, when development is handled smoothly, those prospects that pay out more than make up for the "deadbeat" washouts. I'm disagreeing here. A few hundred thou pays off from time to time, but goes nowhere often enough. You have to be smart and broad in your thinking. You don't need to win as often as you lose-- the payoff from one winning ticket in this lottery is immense enough to offset any losses (even a middling reliever or benchwarmer developed in-house ends up saving you 1-3 million a year while he's under your control). With smarter, savvier talent eval, you're tipping the scales even more in your favor. "Smart and broad?" Am listening. Explain? ("Spread it around"? A plea for general prudence?) ="Edgy DC"]There's also the foreign free-agent market, where that money can and often is re-invested, and the Mets might well have been measuring their dollars for these draftees against what that money could buy them elsewhere among players not using college for leverage. True. But this is virtually the only reason the Mets farm system has gotten to "pretty good, if shallow" from "good and tur'ble." (And sure, there's no college-leverage... there's only potential suitors from every organization in MLB to outbid.) Other big-market peers-- be they MFY, Dodger or Sawx-- have made strides or maintained a competitive advantage here while getting better at acquiring and using the domestic first-year player draft. Success in one doesn't-- and shouldn't-- preclude the other for a team with so much income. ="Edgy DC"]Eh, all teams work within budgets. And as soon as it became obvious that the team made it a personal point that no player should go unsigned, Scott Boras or somebody else would leverage that issue by advising his players that the Mets will always cough up more, because it's their policy to leave nobody on the field. Yeah, I don't think you necessarily announce this. That probably would not be too prudent a negotiation tactic. And if you're going to overpay in the millions for, oh, say Ollie Perez, you might as well overpay in the thousands for His Magnifico-ence*. *I'll be honest-- I think a little part of me wanted him just for the muddin'.

Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 02:30 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 19 2009 09:02 PM

Smart and broad. It's better to pay for a lot of somewhat talented guys than to pay for a few very talented guys. This is more true of pitching, and even more true of high school pitching. Finding a Parnell or two or nine in the later rounds is where the genius lies. Magnifico is an entertaining prospect --- nobody thinks so more than me --- but a hard-throwin' high school pitcher who can't or won't spell correctly and has a bulletproof attiude may be the place to take a pass if they're negotiating hard. And it isn't a question of a few thousand to negotiators. If you offer a million, and the prospect wants $1.05, you walk away with the full amount to spend elsewhere. I think we agree mostly that the slotting system is stupid and the Mets should have nothing to do with it. But I think it's no stupider than the draft itself, and I'd love to have seen the Mets make an offer to Steven Strassburg and --- when reminded of the rules ---- invite the Nats and MLB to sue them.

MFS62 Aug 19 2009 03:36 PM

I'd bet there will be a whole bunch of lawyers lining up to take that career-making (well, at least it would get them a lot of press) case pre-bono. Later

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 19 2009 03:52 PM

="Edgy DC":1xxdq7nc]I think we agree mostly that the slotting system is stupid and the Mets should have nothing to do with it. But I think it's no stupider than the draft itself, and I'd love to have seen the Mets make an offer to Steven Strassburg and --- when reminded of the rules ---- invite the Nats and MLB to sue them.[/quote:1xxdq7nc] (Immoral) apples and (inefficient) oranges, though. The draft may be patently unfair to labor, and the whole idea is kinda without parallel-- and would be unacceptable-- in any other industry but professional sports (all in the name of competitiveness). But while the draft may be immoral... the slotting system that's in place is simply bad, efficacy-wise. Poorly conceived, and almost as poorly executed, it doesn't do what it's supposed to. Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 06:36 PM Oh, I think the draft is bad for everybody --- players, fans, agents, and organizations --- except owners, of course. It's about controlling costs while pretending to be about competitiveness. And what's so great about givng a competitive edge to a team as a reward for coming in last, anyhow? True competitiveness is about pursuing victory and claiming the spoils. Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 06:59 PM ="Edgy DC"]Oh, I think the draft is bad for everybody --- players, fans, agents, and organizations --- except owners, of course. It's about controlling costs while pretending to be about competitiveness. whether its a positive or negative for fans really depends on the individual fan's perspective. I'm sure the Nationals fans who just got Strasburg are pretty happy that theres a draft to give them a shot at these players. the yankee fans who envision their team signing the best prospect at every position might disagree. as for players, it depends which players you are talking about. its bad for the amateurs in the draft but its good for the veterans because every dime not spent elsewhere is more money they can ask for, this is how the NBA/NFL ended up with drafts more restrictive than baseball's, and why MLB might end up there too. i'm not sure about agents, but the system shouldnt be designed to care about them anyway, if whatever system is in place is good for them, fine, if its bad for them thats fine too, they shouldnt factor in the 'equation' (the system negotiated by the owners and players) ]And what's so great about givng a competitive edge to a team as a reward for coming in last, anyhow? giving the fans of losing teams a reason to show up. unlike the NBA you wont see the results right away, but i'll bet the Nationals have higher attendance on the days Strasburg pitches, and the owners and players all have an interest in keeping all the franchises afloat (they're really just one big business, and they should organize as such like MLS does, but thats a whole different topic) Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 07:53 PM ="Nymr83"]whether its a positive or negative for fans really depends on the individual fan's perspective. I'm sure the Nationals fans who just got Strasburg are pretty happy that theres a draft to give them a shot at these players. the yankee fans who envision their team signing the best prospect at every position might disagree. The Yankees competitive disadvantage is the result another artificial and anti-competitive construct. A second artificial and anti-competitive creation which provides some (but only a small amount of) drag on this advantage is not the answer. ]as for players, it depends which players you are talking about. its bad for the amateurs in the draft but its good for the veterans because every dime not spent elsewhere is more money they can ask for, this is how the NBA/NFL ended up with drafts more restrictive than baseball's, and why MLB might end up there too. The players who should get the money should be decided by supply, demand, and the open market. Whether these be vets or rookies, I don't care. ]giving the fans of losing teams a reason to show up. They shouldn't be given anything. The team should fight their way back, and the fans should root for their team to fight their way back. And if the team can't find a way to compete --- if they can't build a team on the open market--- let the Peoria Painters join the league to try. Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 09:04 PM ="Edgy DC":313685ht]but a hard-throwin' high school pitcher who can't or won't spell correctly and has a bulletproof attiude may be the place to take a pass if they're negotiating hard.[/quote:313685ht] Lest we forget the lesson of John Holdzkom. Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 09:14 PM ]The players who should get the money should be decided by supply, demand, and the open market. Whether these be vets or rookies, I don't care. i was, quite clearly, responding only to your earlier claim that "players" are hurt by the draft, when in fact veteran players are not hurt and are likely helped by the draft. i believe in the open market only as long as the market is truly open, once you put rules in place that benefit the employees (300k minimum salaries) its only fair that the owners get rules benefitting them too. ]The Yankees competitive disadvantage is the result another artificial and anti-competitive construct. A second artificial and anti-competitive creation which provides some (but only a small amount of) drag on this advantage is not the answer i assume you meant to say competitive advantage or else that sentence makes no sense to me, what disadvantage are the yankees at? Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 09:47 PM ="Nymr83"]i was, quite clearly, responding only to your earlier claim that "players" are hurt by the draft, when in fact veteran players are not hurt and are likely helped by the draft. I don't think I said otherwise. All veteran players were once rookies and therefore screwed by the system. All players who never achieve veteran status were once rookies and screwed by the system. ="Nymr83"]i believe in the open market only as long as the market is truly open, once you put rules in place that benefit the employees (300k minimum salaries) its only fair that the owners get rules benefitting them too. Nobody "put" such a rule in place. It was won at the bargaining table by collectively bargaining at great risk against a longtime hugely exploitative system that held players as chattel --- a system with large vestiges still in place today. (Question: has baseball ever been so relatively profitable for owners as it has been during these last decades where players have won increasing amounts of autonomy?) ]i assume you meant to say competitive advantage or else that sentence makes no sense to me, what disadvantage are the yankees at? Yes, that's a mistake. Sorry. Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 11:39 PM ]It was won at the bargaining table by collectively bargaining the current draft structure is a result of the same process, as of a 1992 arbitration ruling that the draft was subject to collective bargaining after the union brought a grievance to proposed unilateral changes by the owners. there is certainly nothing unusual about a union 'negotiating' on behalf of the potential future (as of yet unidentified) employees of the company with which that union negotiates. if you go to work for con edison, your contract has already been determined by a negotuation between management and a union to which you did not at the time belong. i assume the yankee advantage to which you are refferring is the inability of teams to move about freely. i'd certainly do away with that, because the wrath of fans (declining revenues from fans who dont care about the traveling mercenary show) would imo prevent excessive moving after an initial wave of moves. the only proviso i'd want is that a team can't break a lease with a state/city if their stadium was publicly financed. and eliminating that rule would likely help create a more even playing field, especially if you allowed the owners to demand payments NOT to move from the better-situated owners. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 19 2009 11:54 PM From a Davidoff Newsday article-- if true, it doesn't help my vague heartburn-y feeling. ]In Buchanan's case, the Mets knew before drafting him that the young man wanted a $200,000 signing bonus, not outrageous (albeit over slot). Yet by the time they bid $185,000 this past week, Buchanan already had moved into his residence at Georgia State, secured loans and grants and taken a team photo. At that point, he wasn't going to accept an offer he probably would have taken in July. Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 11:58 PM Now that is pretty dumb of the Mets, to not make an offer until the guy is already set in college. I know negotiating is a process but why not make him your best offer the day before he signs his loan papers and makes his admission to Georgia final? Frayed Knot Aug 20 2009 06:59 AM ] ... the current draft structure is a result of the same process, as of a 1992 arbitration ruling that the draft was subject to collective bargaining after the union brought a grievance to proposed unilateral changes by the owners. there is certainly nothing unusual about a union 'negotiating' on behalf of the potential future (as of yet unidentified) employees of the company with which that union negotiates. if you go to work for con edison, your contract has already been determined by a negotuation between management and a union to which you did not at the time belong. The main reason the draft is subject to collective bargaining is that the FA compensation system incorporates the movement of some of those draft picks as part of the "price" of a player's FAgency. IOW, as long as it affects the players their union has a right to a say in how it's conducted. That's why there's at least some sentiment among owners to do away with draft pick compensation and thereby de-link the draft from the CBA. There actually was an agreement to do just that (I think it was two CBAs ago) but when it came down to finalizing it the two sides realized they couldn't agree on exactly what they thought they had agreed to and so the issue was left status quo. Edgy DC Aug 20 2009 07:46 AM The draft has been changed by negotiations at bargaining time. The draft itself is not the result of negotiations or arbitration decisions emanating from negotiations. It was imposed under a very different regime to protect owners from the bonuses they were giving out. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 20 2009 10:44 AM Somewhat coincidentally, Dave Cameron thought out loudon Fangraphs this morning about the subject. ]Abolish the draft, set budgets for teams to sign players via a pool of money pulled from revenue sharing, and open the bidding for any player not under contract to a professional team each summer. It's not exactly a free market, but it's a lot freer than the current system, decreases the amount of revenue-sharing money going directly into owners' pockets, lets market forces dictate deals, keeps costs down and, intriguingly, it opens the door to more locally-drawn local nines (and dozens of other intriguing strategies). That said, it fosters-- among other things-- an even-more drastic punishment of winning ballclubs than the reverse-standing-order draft. Thoughts? Edgy DC Aug 20 2009 11:05 AM Abolish the welfare system of revenue sharing, and instead divy up revenues at the gate. Give each a opponent a cut --- say, 35% --- from the day's stadium earnings, concessions, and broadcast revenues. I'd even make it 40% if they win and 30% if they lose, putting a purse on each game. Than let teams go nuts in pursuit of all the amateur booty they want. Nymr83 Aug 20 2009 11:31 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Somewhat coincidentally, Dave Cameron thought out loudon Fangraphs this morning about the subject. ]Abolish the draft, set budgets for teams to sign players via a pool of money pulled from revenue sharing, and open the bidding for any player not under contract to a professional team each summer. It's not exactly a free market, but it's a lot freer than the current system, decreases the amount of revenue-sharing money going directly into owners' pockets, lets market forces dictate deals, keeps costs down and, intriguingly, it opens the door to more locally-drawn local nines (and dozens of other intriguing strategies). That said, it fosters-- among other things-- an even-more drastic punishment of winning ballclubs than the reverse-standing-order draft. Thoughts? so he's advocating the MLS model? (which they then broke anyway) ="edgy"]Abolish the welfare system of revenue sharing, and instead divy up revenues at the gate. Give each a opponent a cut --- say, 35% --- from the day's stadium earnings, concessions, and broadcast revenues. I'd even make it 40% if they win and 30% if they lose, putting a purse on each game. Than let teams go nuts in pursuit of all the amateur booty they want. i don't see how thats any different from the current system, you're counting the money up differently but its still the same result, the rich teams pay the poor teams. they're already splitting the gate revenue by the way. Edgy DC Aug 20 2009 11:42 AM ="Nymr83"]i don't see how thats any different from the current system, You really don't? They're very different. ]you're counting the money up differently but its still the same result, the rich teams pay the poor teams. Yeah, it's a different model, and it's silly to summarize them all as "the rich teams pay the poor teams. ]they're already splitting the gate revenue by the way. Yes, I know. They pool and re-distrubute.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Guest

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

="Gwreck"]Our bullpen ERA is 4th best in the league and Rodriguez hasn't exactly been terrible. (Granted we do have a lot of quality innings from carryovers Feliciano and Stokes). --- The Mets also have an advantage -- for the next couple of years -- in that they can pay a bit more for a closer if they want given that two of the team's best players aren't earning as much (Reyes and Wright). Our top 10 salaries: 1. Santana 2. Beltran 3. Delgado 4. Perez 5. Rodriguez 6. Wright 7. Castillo 8. Reyes 9. Putz 10. Schneider That's 6 of the 8 starting position players, plus two starters and two relievers. That doesn't seem like that flawed an architechture.

It's not the Cincinnati Reds (where Francisco Cordero has the team's highest '09 figure). But Perez and Rodriguez as two of the top 5 on a team with a $140M payroll... I'd argue against that being a good sign of the team's budget health (albeit one largely balanced out by the under-market deals Reyes* and Wright have).

I'm not arguing that Rodriguez is crap. I'm just saying that, relative to real value, you pay an EXORBITANT amount for "premium" closer performance, and tend you get much better value elsewhere.

*One could argue quite persuasively that if you felt secure about your GM job, now would be the PERFECT time to sign Reyes to an extension.

[MFS62]

Sometimes the guys who drop are highly rated prospects who teams avoid drafting because of "signability issues". Then, because they drop, the slots in which they are chosen have lower slot price tags. I'm not sure if that is a vicious cycle or a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Later

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

="Edgy DC"] ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Well, it's three guys the team missed signing... but that three includes two of the top four picks. Well, sure, but the guys who you would most encourage a team to go "over slot" are the guys who come after, maybe 8-15.

Meh. Depends on the guys.

="Edgy DC"] ]Matz seems like a good get. But it's notable for its being an exception-- in many quarters, the story isn't all about Matz, so much as it is that the Mets paid someone over slot. They didn't go above recommendation for a single other draftee in the early rounds. Yeah, but the early rounds aren't the issue --- at least not to me --- it's the guys in the later rounds who slipped there because of perceived or real bonus demands.

Wasn't Capt. Magnifico one of these? Was Buchanan?

="Edgy DC"] ]I'm not a "Coupons" screamer by any means... but I will agree that the organization's decision-making seems strange. In terms of developing/retaining talent, a few hundred thousand dollars here goes further than the same expenditure does at any other point in a player's career; just like profit from good-egg credit customers makes the risk of giving cards to deadbeats, when development is handled smoothly, those prospects that pay out more than make up for the "deadbeat" washouts. I'm disagreeing here. A few hundred thou pays off from time to time, but goes nowhere often enough. You have to be smart and broad in your thinking.

You don't need to win as often as you lose-- the payoff from one winning ticket in this lottery is immense enough to offset any losses (even a middling reliever or benchwarmer developed in-house ends up saving you 1-3 million a year while he's under your control). With smarter, savvier talent eval, you're tipping the scales even more in your favor.

"Smart and broad?" Am listening. Explain? ("Spread it around"? A plea for general prudence?)

="Edgy DC"]There's also the foreign free-agent market, where that money can and often is re-invested, and the Mets might well have been measuring their dollars for these draftees against what that money could buy them elsewhere among players not using college for leverage.

True. But this is virtually the only reason the Mets farm system has gotten to "pretty good, if shallow" from "good and tur'ble." (And sure, there's no college-leverage... there's only potential suitors from every organization in MLB to outbid.)

Other big-market peers-- be they MFY, Dodger or Sawx-- have made strides or maintained a competitive advantage here while getting better at acquiring and using the domestic first-year player draft. Success in one doesn't-- and shouldn't-- preclude the other for a team with so much income.

="Edgy DC"]Eh, all teams work within budgets. And as soon as it became obvious that the team made it a personal point that no player should go unsigned, Scott Boras or somebody else would leverage that issue by advising his players that the Mets will always cough up more, because it's their policy to leave nobody on the field.

Yeah, I don't think you necessarily announce this. That probably would not be too prudent a negotiation tactic.

And if you're going to overpay in the millions for, oh, say Ollie Perez, you might as well overpay in the thousands for His Magnifico-ence*.

*I'll be honest-- I think a little part of me wanted him just for the muddin'.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Smart and broad. It's better to pay for a lot of somewhat talented guys than to pay for a few very talented guys. This is more true of pitching, and even more true of high school pitching. Finding a Parnell or two or nine in the later rounds is where the genius lies.

Magnifico is an entertaining prospect --- nobody thinks so more than me --- but a hard-throwin' high school pitcher who can't or won't spell correctly and has a bulletproof attiude may be the place to take a pass if they're negotiating hard. And it isn't a question of a few thousand to negotiators. If you offer a million, and the prospect wants $1.05, you walk away with the full amount to spend elsewhere.

I think we agree mostly that the slotting system is stupid and the Mets should have nothing to do with it. But I think it's no stupider than the draft itself, and I'd love to have seen the Mets make an offer to Steven Strassburg and --- when reminded of the rules ---- invite the Nats and MLB to sue them.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Guest

[MFS62]

I'd bet there will be a whole bunch of lawyers lining up to take that career-making (well, at least it would get them a lot of press) case pre-bono.

Later

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

="Edgy DC":1xxdq7nc]I think we agree mostly that the slotting system is stupid and the Mets should have nothing to do with it. But I think it's no stupider than the draft itself, and I'd love to have seen the Mets make an offer to Steven Strassburg and --- when reminded of the rules ---- invite the Nats and MLB to sue them.[/quote:1xxdq7nc] (Immoral) apples and (inefficient) oranges, though. The draft may be patently unfair to labor, and the whole idea is kinda without parallel-- and would be unacceptable-- in any other industry but professional sports (all in the name of competitiveness). But while the draft may be immoral... the slotting system that's in place is simply bad, efficacy-wise. Poorly conceived, and almost as poorly executed, it doesn't do what it's supposed to.

Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 06:36 PM

Oh, I think the draft is bad for everybody --- players, fans, agents, and organizations --- except owners, of course. It's about controlling costs while pretending to be about competitiveness. And what's so great about givng a competitive edge to a team as a reward for coming in last, anyhow? True competitiveness is about pursuing victory and claiming the spoils.

Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 06:59 PM

="Edgy DC"]Oh, I think the draft is bad for everybody --- players, fans, agents, and organizations --- except owners, of course. It's about controlling costs while pretending to be about competitiveness. whether its a positive or negative for fans really depends on the individual fan's perspective. I'm sure the Nationals fans who just got Strasburg are pretty happy that theres a draft to give them a shot at these players. the yankee fans who envision their team signing the best prospect at every position might disagree. as for players, it depends which players you are talking about. its bad for the amateurs in the draft but its good for the veterans because every dime not spent elsewhere is more money they can ask for, this is how the NBA/NFL ended up with drafts more restrictive than baseball's, and why MLB might end up there too. i'm not sure about agents, but the system shouldnt be designed to care about them anyway, if whatever system is in place is good for them, fine, if its bad for them thats fine too, they shouldnt factor in the 'equation' (the system negotiated by the owners and players) ]And what's so great about givng a competitive edge to a team as a reward for coming in last, anyhow? giving the fans of losing teams a reason to show up. unlike the NBA you wont see the results right away, but i'll bet the Nationals have higher attendance on the days Strasburg pitches, and the owners and players all have an interest in keeping all the franchises afloat (they're really just one big business, and they should organize as such like MLS does, but thats a whole different topic)

Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 07:53 PM

="Nymr83"]whether its a positive or negative for fans really depends on the individual fan's perspective. I'm sure the Nationals fans who just got Strasburg are pretty happy that theres a draft to give them a shot at these players. the yankee fans who envision their team signing the best prospect at every position might disagree. The Yankees competitive disadvantage is the result another artificial and anti-competitive construct. A second artificial and anti-competitive creation which provides some (but only a small amount of) drag on this advantage is not the answer. ]as for players, it depends which players you are talking about. its bad for the amateurs in the draft but its good for the veterans because every dime not spent elsewhere is more money they can ask for, this is how the NBA/NFL ended up with drafts more restrictive than baseball's, and why MLB might end up there too. The players who should get the money should be decided by supply, demand, and the open market. Whether these be vets or rookies, I don't care. ]giving the fans of losing teams a reason to show up. They shouldn't be given anything. The team should fight their way back, and the fans should root for their team to fight their way back. And if the team can't find a way to compete --- if they can't build a team on the open market--- let the Peoria Painters join the league to try.

Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 09:04 PM

="Edgy DC":313685ht]but a hard-throwin' high school pitcher who can't or won't spell correctly and has a bulletproof attiude may be the place to take a pass if they're negotiating hard.[/quote:313685ht] Lest we forget the lesson of John Holdzkom. Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 09:14 PM ]The players who should get the money should be decided by supply, demand, and the open market. Whether these be vets or rookies, I don't care. i was, quite clearly, responding only to your earlier claim that "players" are hurt by the draft, when in fact veteran players are not hurt and are likely helped by the draft. i believe in the open market only as long as the market is truly open, once you put rules in place that benefit the employees (300k minimum salaries) its only fair that the owners get rules benefitting them too. ]The Yankees competitive disadvantage is the result another artificial and anti-competitive construct. A second artificial and anti-competitive creation which provides some (but only a small amount of) drag on this advantage is not the answer i assume you meant to say competitive advantage or else that sentence makes no sense to me, what disadvantage are the yankees at? Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 09:47 PM ="Nymr83"]i was, quite clearly, responding only to your earlier claim that "players" are hurt by the draft, when in fact veteran players are not hurt and are likely helped by the draft. I don't think I said otherwise. All veteran players were once rookies and therefore screwed by the system. All players who never achieve veteran status were once rookies and screwed by the system. ="Nymr83"]i believe in the open market only as long as the market is truly open, once you put rules in place that benefit the employees (300k minimum salaries) its only fair that the owners get rules benefitting them too. Nobody "put" such a rule in place. It was won at the bargaining table by collectively bargaining at great risk against a longtime hugely exploitative system that held players as chattel --- a system with large vestiges still in place today. (Question: has baseball ever been so relatively profitable for owners as it has been during these last decades where players have won increasing amounts of autonomy?) ]i assume you meant to say competitive advantage or else that sentence makes no sense to me, what disadvantage are the yankees at? Yes, that's a mistake. Sorry. Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 11:39 PM ]It was won at the bargaining table by collectively bargaining the current draft structure is a result of the same process, as of a 1992 arbitration ruling that the draft was subject to collective bargaining after the union brought a grievance to proposed unilateral changes by the owners. there is certainly nothing unusual about a union 'negotiating' on behalf of the potential future (as of yet unidentified) employees of the company with which that union negotiates. if you go to work for con edison, your contract has already been determined by a negotuation between management and a union to which you did not at the time belong. i assume the yankee advantage to which you are refferring is the inability of teams to move about freely. i'd certainly do away with that, because the wrath of fans (declining revenues from fans who dont care about the traveling mercenary show) would imo prevent excessive moving after an initial wave of moves. the only proviso i'd want is that a team can't break a lease with a state/city if their stadium was publicly financed. and eliminating that rule would likely help create a more even playing field, especially if you allowed the owners to demand payments NOT to move from the better-situated owners. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 19 2009 11:54 PM From a Davidoff Newsday article-- if true, it doesn't help my vague heartburn-y feeling. ]In Buchanan's case, the Mets knew before drafting him that the young man wanted a $200,000 signing bonus, not outrageous (albeit over slot). Yet by the time they bid $185,000 this past week, Buchanan already had moved into his residence at Georgia State, secured loans and grants and taken a team photo. At that point, he wasn't going to accept an offer he probably would have taken in July. Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 11:58 PM Now that is pretty dumb of the Mets, to not make an offer until the guy is already set in college. I know negotiating is a process but why not make him your best offer the day before he signs his loan papers and makes his admission to Georgia final? Frayed Knot Aug 20 2009 06:59 AM ] ... the current draft structure is a result of the same process, as of a 1992 arbitration ruling that the draft was subject to collective bargaining after the union brought a grievance to proposed unilateral changes by the owners. there is certainly nothing unusual about a union 'negotiating' on behalf of the potential future (as of yet unidentified) employees of the company with which that union negotiates. if you go to work for con edison, your contract has already been determined by a negotuation between management and a union to which you did not at the time belong. The main reason the draft is subject to collective bargaining is that the FA compensation system incorporates the movement of some of those draft picks as part of the "price" of a player's FAgency. IOW, as long as it affects the players their union has a right to a say in how it's conducted. That's why there's at least some sentiment among owners to do away with draft pick compensation and thereby de-link the draft from the CBA. There actually was an agreement to do just that (I think it was two CBAs ago) but when it came down to finalizing it the two sides realized they couldn't agree on exactly what they thought they had agreed to and so the issue was left status quo. Edgy DC Aug 20 2009 07:46 AM The draft has been changed by negotiations at bargaining time. The draft itself is not the result of negotiations or arbitration decisions emanating from negotiations. It was imposed under a very different regime to protect owners from the bonuses they were giving out. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 20 2009 10:44 AM Somewhat coincidentally, Dave Cameron thought out loudon Fangraphs this morning about the subject. ]Abolish the draft, set budgets for teams to sign players via a pool of money pulled from revenue sharing, and open the bidding for any player not under contract to a professional team each summer. It's not exactly a free market, but it's a lot freer than the current system, decreases the amount of revenue-sharing money going directly into owners' pockets, lets market forces dictate deals, keeps costs down and, intriguingly, it opens the door to more locally-drawn local nines (and dozens of other intriguing strategies). That said, it fosters-- among other things-- an even-more drastic punishment of winning ballclubs than the reverse-standing-order draft. Thoughts? Edgy DC Aug 20 2009 11:05 AM Abolish the welfare system of revenue sharing, and instead divy up revenues at the gate. Give each a opponent a cut --- say, 35% --- from the day's stadium earnings, concessions, and broadcast revenues. I'd even make it 40% if they win and 30% if they lose, putting a purse on each game. Than let teams go nuts in pursuit of all the amateur booty they want. Nymr83 Aug 20 2009 11:31 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Somewhat coincidentally, Dave Cameron thought out loudon Fangraphs this morning about the subject. ]Abolish the draft, set budgets for teams to sign players via a pool of money pulled from revenue sharing, and open the bidding for any player not under contract to a professional team each summer. It's not exactly a free market, but it's a lot freer than the current system, decreases the amount of revenue-sharing money going directly into owners' pockets, lets market forces dictate deals, keeps costs down and, intriguingly, it opens the door to more locally-drawn local nines (and dozens of other intriguing strategies). That said, it fosters-- among other things-- an even-more drastic punishment of winning ballclubs than the reverse-standing-order draft. Thoughts? so he's advocating the MLS model? (which they then broke anyway) ="edgy"]Abolish the welfare system of revenue sharing, and instead divy up revenues at the gate. Give each a opponent a cut --- say, 35% --- from the day's stadium earnings, concessions, and broadcast revenues. I'd even make it 40% if they win and 30% if they lose, putting a purse on each game. Than let teams go nuts in pursuit of all the amateur booty they want. i don't see how thats any different from the current system, you're counting the money up differently but its still the same result, the rich teams pay the poor teams. they're already splitting the gate revenue by the way. Edgy DC Aug 20 2009 11:42 AM ="Nymr83"]i don't see how thats any different from the current system, You really don't? They're very different. ]you're counting the money up differently but its still the same result, the rich teams pay the poor teams. Yeah, it's a different model, and it's silly to summarize them all as "the rich teams pay the poor teams. ]they're already splitting the gate revenue by the way. Yes, I know. They pool and re-distrubute.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Oh, I think the draft is bad for everybody --- players, fans, agents, and organizations --- except owners, of course. It's about controlling costs while pretending to be about competitiveness.

And what's so great about givng a competitive edge to a team as a reward for coming in last, anyhow? True competitiveness is about pursuing victory and claiming the spoils.

[nymr83]

="Edgy DC"]Oh, I think the draft is bad for everybody --- players, fans, agents, and organizations --- except owners, of course. It's about controlling costs while pretending to be about competitiveness.

whether its a positive or negative for fans really depends on the individual fan's perspective. I'm sure the Nationals fans who just got Strasburg are pretty happy that theres a draft to give them a shot at these players. the yankee fans who envision their team signing the best prospect at every position might disagree.

as for players, it depends which players you are talking about. its bad for the amateurs in the draft but its good for the veterans because every dime not spent elsewhere is more money they can ask for, this is how the NBA/NFL ended up with drafts more restrictive than baseball's, and why MLB might end up there too.

i'm not sure about agents, but the system shouldnt be designed to care about them anyway, if whatever system is in place is good for them, fine, if its bad for them thats fine too, they shouldnt factor in the 'equation' (the system negotiated by the owners and players)

]And what's so great about givng a competitive edge to a team as a reward for coming in last, anyhow?

giving the fans of losing teams a reason to show up. unlike the NBA you wont see the results right away, but i'll bet the Nationals have higher attendance on the days Strasburg pitches, and the owners and players all have an interest in keeping all the franchises afloat (they're really just one big business, and they should organize as such like MLS does, but thats a whole different topic)

[Guest Edgy DC]

="Nymr83"]whether its a positive or negative for fans really depends on the individual fan's perspective. I'm sure the Nationals fans who just got Strasburg are pretty happy that theres a draft to give them a shot at these players. the yankee fans who envision their team signing the best prospect at every position might disagree.

The Yankees competitive disadvantage is the result another artificial and anti-competitive construct. A second artificial and anti-competitive creation which provides some (but only a small amount of) drag on this advantage is not the answer.

]as for players, it depends which players you are talking about. its bad for the amateurs in the draft but its good for the veterans because every dime not spent elsewhere is more money they can ask for, this is how the NBA/NFL ended up with drafts more restrictive than baseball's, and why MLB might end up there too.

The players who should get the money should be decided by supply, demand, and the open market. Whether these be vets or rookies, I don't care.

]giving the fans of losing teams a reason to show up.

They shouldn't be given anything. The team should fight their way back, and the fans should root for their team to fight their way back. And if the team can't find a way to compete --- if they can't build a team on the open market--- let the Peoria Painters join the league to try.

[Guest Edgy DC]

="Edgy DC":313685ht]but a hard-throwin' high school pitcher who can't or won't spell correctly and has a bulletproof attiude may be the place to take a pass if they're negotiating hard.[/quote:313685ht] Lest we forget the lesson of John Holdzkom.

Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 09:14 PM

]The players who should get the money should be decided by supply, demand, and the open market. Whether these be vets or rookies, I don't care. i was, quite clearly, responding only to your earlier claim that "players" are hurt by the draft, when in fact veteran players are not hurt and are likely helped by the draft. i believe in the open market only as long as the market is truly open, once you put rules in place that benefit the employees (300k minimum salaries) its only fair that the owners get rules benefitting them too. ]The Yankees competitive disadvantage is the result another artificial and anti-competitive construct. A second artificial and anti-competitive creation which provides some (but only a small amount of) drag on this advantage is not the answer i assume you meant to say competitive advantage or else that sentence makes no sense to me, what disadvantage are the yankees at?

Edgy DC Aug 19 2009 09:47 PM

="Nymr83"]i was, quite clearly, responding only to your earlier claim that "players" are hurt by the draft, when in fact veteran players are not hurt and are likely helped by the draft. I don't think I said otherwise. All veteran players were once rookies and therefore screwed by the system. All players who never achieve veteran status were once rookies and screwed by the system. ="Nymr83"]i believe in the open market only as long as the market is truly open, once you put rules in place that benefit the employees (300k minimum salaries) its only fair that the owners get rules benefitting them too. Nobody "put" such a rule in place. It was won at the bargaining table by collectively bargaining at great risk against a longtime hugely exploitative system that held players as chattel --- a system with large vestiges still in place today. (Question: has baseball ever been so relatively profitable for owners as it has been during these last decades where players have won increasing amounts of autonomy?) ]i assume you meant to say competitive advantage or else that sentence makes no sense to me, what disadvantage are the yankees at? Yes, that's a mistake. Sorry.

Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 11:39 PM

]It was won at the bargaining table by collectively bargaining the current draft structure is a result of the same process, as of a 1992 arbitration ruling that the draft was subject to collective bargaining after the union brought a grievance to proposed unilateral changes by the owners. there is certainly nothing unusual about a union 'negotiating' on behalf of the potential future (as of yet unidentified) employees of the company with which that union negotiates. if you go to work for con edison, your contract has already been determined by a negotuation between management and a union to which you did not at the time belong. i assume the yankee advantage to which you are refferring is the inability of teams to move about freely. i'd certainly do away with that, because the wrath of fans (declining revenues from fans who dont care about the traveling mercenary show) would imo prevent excessive moving after an initial wave of moves. the only proviso i'd want is that a team can't break a lease with a state/city if their stadium was publicly financed. and eliminating that rule would likely help create a more even playing field, especially if you allowed the owners to demand payments NOT to move from the better-situated owners.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 19 2009 11:54 PM

From a Davidoff Newsday article-- if true, it doesn't help my vague heartburn-y feeling. ]In Buchanan's case, the Mets knew before drafting him that the young man wanted a $200,000 signing bonus, not outrageous (albeit over slot). Yet by the time they bid $185,000 this past week, Buchanan already had moved into his residence at Georgia State, secured loans and grants and taken a team photo. At that point, he wasn't going to accept an offer he probably would have taken in July.

Nymr83 Aug 19 2009 11:58 PM

Now that is pretty dumb of the Mets, to not make an offer until the guy is already set in college. I know negotiating is a process but why not make him your best offer the day before he signs his loan papers and makes his admission to Georgia final?

Frayed Knot Aug 20 2009 06:59 AM

] ... the current draft structure is a result of the same process, as of a 1992 arbitration ruling that the draft was subject to collective bargaining after the union brought a grievance to proposed unilateral changes by the owners. there is certainly nothing unusual about a union 'negotiating' on behalf of the potential future (as of yet unidentified) employees of the company with which that union negotiates. if you go to work for con edison, your contract has already been determined by a negotuation between management and a union to which you did not at the time belong. The main reason the draft is subject to collective bargaining is that the FA compensation system incorporates the movement of some of those draft picks as part of the "price" of a player's FAgency. IOW, as long as it affects the players their union has a right to a say in how it's conducted. That's why there's at least some sentiment among owners to do away with draft pick compensation and thereby de-link the draft from the CBA. There actually was an agreement to do just that (I think it was two CBAs ago) but when it came down to finalizing it the two sides realized they couldn't agree on exactly what they thought they had agreed to and so the issue was left status quo.

Edgy DC Aug 20 2009 07:46 AM

The draft has been changed by negotiations at bargaining time. The draft itself is not the result of negotiations or arbitration decisions emanating from negotiations. It was imposed under a very different regime to protect owners from the bonuses they were giving out.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 20 2009 10:44 AM

Somewhat coincidentally, Dave Cameron thought out loudon Fangraphs this morning about the subject. ]Abolish the draft, set budgets for teams to sign players via a pool of money pulled from revenue sharing, and open the bidding for any player not under contract to a professional team each summer. It's not exactly a free market, but it's a lot freer than the current system, decreases the amount of revenue-sharing money going directly into owners' pockets, lets market forces dictate deals, keeps costs down and, intriguingly, it opens the door to more locally-drawn local nines (and dozens of other intriguing strategies). That said, it fosters-- among other things-- an even-more drastic punishment of winning ballclubs than the reverse-standing-order draft. Thoughts?

Edgy DC Aug 20 2009 11:05 AM

Abolish the welfare system of revenue sharing, and instead divy up revenues at the gate. Give each a opponent a cut --- say, 35% --- from the day's stadium earnings, concessions, and broadcast revenues. I'd even make it 40% if they win and 30% if they lose, putting a purse on each game. Than let teams go nuts in pursuit of all the amateur booty they want.

Nymr83 Aug 20 2009 11:31 AM

="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]Somewhat coincidentally, Dave Cameron thought out loudon Fangraphs this morning about the subject. ]Abolish the draft, set budgets for teams to sign players via a pool of money pulled from revenue sharing, and open the bidding for any player not under contract to a professional team each summer. It's not exactly a free market, but it's a lot freer than the current system, decreases the amount of revenue-sharing money going directly into owners' pockets, lets market forces dictate deals, keeps costs down and, intriguingly, it opens the door to more locally-drawn local nines (and dozens of other intriguing strategies). That said, it fosters-- among other things-- an even-more drastic punishment of winning ballclubs than the reverse-standing-order draft. Thoughts? so he's advocating the MLS model? (which they then broke anyway) ="edgy"]Abolish the welfare system of revenue sharing, and instead divy up revenues at the gate. Give each a opponent a cut --- say, 35% --- from the day's stadium earnings, concessions, and broadcast revenues. I'd even make it 40% if they win and 30% if they lose, putting a purse on each game. Than let teams go nuts in pursuit of all the amateur booty they want. i don't see how thats any different from the current system, you're counting the money up differently but its still the same result, the rich teams pay the poor teams. they're already splitting the gate revenue by the way.

Edgy DC Aug 20 2009 11:42 AM

="Nymr83"]i don't see how thats any different from the current system, You really don't? They're very different. ]you're counting the money up differently but its still the same result, the rich teams pay the poor teams. Yeah, it's a different model, and it's silly to summarize them all as "the rich teams pay the poor teams. ]they're already splitting the gate revenue by the way. Yes, I know. They pool and re-distrubute.

[nymr83]

]The players who should get the money should be decided by supply, demand, and the open market. Whether these be vets or rookies, I don't care.

i was, quite clearly, responding only to your earlier claim that "players" are hurt by the draft, when in fact veteran players are not hurt and are likely helped by the draft.

i believe in the open market only as long as the market is truly open, once you put rules in place that benefit the employees (300k minimum salaries) its only fair that the owners get rules benefitting them too.

]The Yankees competitive disadvantage is the result another artificial and anti-competitive construct. A second artificial and anti-competitive creation which provides some (but only a small amount of) drag on this advantage is not the answer

i assume you meant to say competitive advantage or else that sentence makes no sense to me, what disadvantage are the yankees at?

[Guest Edgy DC]

="Nymr83"]i was, quite clearly, responding only to your earlier claim that "players" are hurt by the draft, when in fact veteran players are not hurt and are likely helped by the draft.

I don't think I said otherwise. All veteran players were once rookies and therefore screwed by the system. All players who never achieve veteran status were once rookies and screwed by the system.

="Nymr83"]i believe in the open market only as long as the market is truly open, once you put rules in place that benefit the employees (300k minimum salaries) its only fair that the owners get rules benefitting them too.

Nobody "put" such a rule in place. It was won at the bargaining table by collectively bargaining at great risk against a longtime hugely exploitative system that held players as chattel --- a system with large vestiges still in place today. (Question: has baseball ever been so relatively profitable for owners as it has been during these last decades where players have won increasing amounts of autonomy?)

]i assume you meant to say competitive advantage or else that sentence makes no sense to me, what disadvantage are the yankees at?

Yes, that's a mistake. Sorry.

[nymr83]

]It was won at the bargaining table by collectively bargaining

the current draft structure is a result of the same process, as of a 1992 arbitration ruling that the draft was subject to collective bargaining after the union brought a grievance to proposed unilateral changes by the owners.
there is certainly nothing unusual about a union 'negotiating' on behalf of the potential future (as of yet unidentified) employees of the company with which that union negotiates. if you go to work for con edison, your contract has already been determined by a negotuation between management and a union to which you did not at the time belong.

i assume the yankee advantage to which you are refferring is the inability of teams to move about freely. i'd certainly do away with that, because the wrath of fans (declining revenues from fans who dont care about the traveling mercenary show) would imo prevent excessive moving after an initial wave of moves. the only proviso i'd want is that a team can't break a lease with a state/city if their stadium was publicly financed.
and eliminating that rule would likely help create a more even playing field, especially if you allowed the owners to demand payments NOT to move from the better-situated owners.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

From a Davidoff Newsday article-- if true, it doesn't help my vague heartburn-y feeling.

]In Buchanan's case, the Mets knew before drafting him that the young man wanted a $200,000 signing bonus, not outrageous (albeit over slot). Yet by the time they bid $185,000 this past week, Buchanan already had moved into his residence at Georgia State, secured loans and grants and taken a team photo. At that point, he wasn't going to accept an offer he probably would have taken in July.

[nymr83]

Now that is pretty dumb of the Mets, to not make an offer until the guy is already set in college. I know negotiating is a process but why not make him your best offer the day before he signs his loan papers and makes his admission to Georgia final?

[Frayed Knot]

] ... the current draft structure is a result of the same process, as of a 1992 arbitration ruling that the draft was subject to collective bargaining after the union brought a grievance to proposed unilateral changes by the owners. there is certainly nothing unusual about a union 'negotiating' on behalf of the potential future (as of yet unidentified) employees of the company with which that union negotiates. if you go to work for con edison, your contract has already been determined by a negotuation between management and a union to which you did not at the time belong.

The main reason the draft is subject to collective bargaining is that the FA compensation system incorporates the movement of some of those draft picks as part of the "price" of a player's FAgency. IOW, as long as it affects the players their union has a right to a say in how it's conducted.
That's why there's at least some sentiment among owners to do away with draft pick compensation and thereby de-link the draft from the CBA. There actually was an agreement to do just that (I think it was two CBAs ago) but when it came down to finalizing it the two sides realized they couldn't agree on exactly what they thought they had agreed to and so the issue was left status quo.

[Guest Edgy DC]

The draft has been changed by negotiations at bargaining time. The draft itself is not the result of negotiations or arbitration decisions emanating from negotiations. It was imposed under a very different regime to protect owners from the bonuses they were giving out.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Somewhat coincidentally, Dave Cameron thought out loudon Fangraphs this morning about the subject.

]Abolish the draft, set budgets for teams to sign players via a pool of money pulled from revenue sharing, and open the bidding for any player not under contract to a professional team each summer.

It's not exactly a free market, but it's a lot freer than the current system, decreases the amount of revenue-sharing money going directly into owners' pockets, lets market forces dictate deals, keeps costs down and, intriguingly, it opens the door to more locally-drawn local nines (and dozens of other intriguing strategies). That said, it fosters-- among other things-- an even-more drastic punishment of winning ballclubs than the reverse-standing-order draft.

Thoughts?