It seems to me that, in the spirit of the thing, If the team with the 10th worst record in 2012 (the Mets) doesn't get their pick protected because Pittsburgh bumped them to the 11th pick based on not signing their top pick from 2011, the team with the 11th best pick (checking: it was Oakland) from 2011 should have had their pick protected, because theirs was, in practice, the 10th pick, Pittsburgh's pick being essentially nullified. But, of course, that pick could not be protected because there was no way of knowing at the time of the draft that Pittsburgh would fail to sign their man. Am I overthinking this? Yes, I am. And it hurts. Too much is made of Scott Boras. He's just a man.