2018 MLB Draft Day Discussion

[julio]

Heimlich not drafted yet?

Not yet.

[andyb]

Fangraphs NL Recap (AL Link in there too):

National League Draft Recap | FanGraphs Baseball

[andyb]

And MLB. com picks the best drafts. The Phillies (28th) do not fare well on their simplistic "prospect points" Which gives points for the top 200 in their rankings, though to be fair, any ranking which scales from 200 to 1 point is kind of messed up when you think they give more value to a team that drafts the 99th and 100th best prospect to a team that drafts the top prospect.

These teams did the best in the MLB Draft

Adding in the Keith Law review. He is actually a fan of our 5th round pick which surprises me some.

Keith Law's draft recap: NL team-by-team breakdowns

[Squire]

Hmmm......RHP Ethan Hankins has signed on to Chipola JC. He's still negotiating with the Indians but might be willing to do the JUCO route for one year and re-enter.

[teabag259]

Interesting. Probably a negotiating ploy. But I’m pretty sure that this sort of move wouldn’t be unprecedented.

[andyb]

Mize signs for $7.5 million. The top 8 picks that have signed have all signed below slot. Bohm was the furthest under. Picks 13 and 14 were the highest pick to get slot money and it was exactly slot.

Sign of what people consider a mediocre top of the draft? Or a sign of the future where more high picks typically sign for under slot?

[bkeich]

Mize signs for $7.5 million. The top 8 picks that have signed have all signed below slot. Bohm was the furthest under. Picks 13 and 14 were the highest pick to get slot money and it was exactly slot.

Sign of what people consider a mediocre top of the draft? Or a sign of the future where more high picks typically sign for under slot?

Actually, makes me suspect that MLB may further "flatten" the bonuses. I know that this was setup as a "game" of balancing players and bonus to get the most value (some teams probably shoot for best player, some shoot for best value player thinking about getting extra HS signings by going for guys that will go under slot), but if all the players sign under slot then one has to think that the slots are too high. Might lead to slots in later rounds (2-5) getting a bump and the first slots being given a hit (after any inflation increase).

Probably good for the Phils since we hope we arent drafting this early again for awhile.

[Squire]

3 first rounders (Braves, DBacks, Dodgers) and a high supplemental first rounder (Pirates) fail to sign.

[julio]

3 first rounders (Braves, DBacks, Dodgers) and a high supplemental first rounder (Pirates) fail to sign.

Which presumably means four compensatory picks added to next June's draft (assuming only that all four clubs met the requirement of an offered bonus of I believe 40%of slot?).

[phillychuck]

Wow...Braves screw up a first-rounder.

[julio]

Wow...Braves screw up a first-rounder.

Apparently he injured his wrist, and they tried to low-ball him on the bonus - but offered him enough to assure a compensatory pick next June. If the wrist injury is serious, it may have been the smart move.

[phillychuck]

Still, they swung and missed on this year's pick...

[julio]

Still, they swung and missed on this year's pick...

Indeed.

They'll get the 9th pick next year, as compensation...in addition to their regular 1st round pick (which should be later, given that they're playing well). If they take a college pitcher of similar potential as Stewart, they could wind up with a major league pitcher sooner than had they signed Stewart.

[phillychuck]

That "next year pick" compensation for not signing your first round pick has always seemed sort of a stupid idea. Much stupider now that it benefits the Braves.

[Purduke]

From an owners perspective not stupid at all. Big factor in changing the negotiating dynamics almost 100% from the "Bad Old Boras" days. And at what cost -- MLBPA probably gives you that more easily than trying to save $2\day in a player's travel money.

[jimbomill]

I still believe that until a person has signed a first an MLB contract, that draftee should be able to act like a free agent. If the team drafting you doesn't offer you enough to sign, then find someone else who will.

If the MLB team is allowed a compensatory pick for not signing a player, why shouldn't the player be allowed to seek like compensation from another team? Negotiations go both ways.

Now, once a player signs, the CBA becomes in effect. Regularly scheduled programming applies

[zambonir]

In theory I would get rid of the reserve clause and pay everyone whatever they deserve. But that is not the system. If all domestic amateurs were free agents half the teams in baseball would be sunk. Of course I guess that is already true, and on purpose in many cases.

[julio]

In theory I would get rid of the reserve clause and pay everyone whatever they deserve. But that is not the system. If all domestic amateurs were free agents half the teams in baseball would be sunk. Of course I guess that is already true, and on purpose in many cases.

MLB would have to couple full free agency with full (or nearly full) revenue sharing. Most important, they would have to eliminate the financial advantage that big-market teams get from local TV revenues. If all broadcast revenues (local TV, local radio, in addition to network payments, mlb.tv, mlb.com, etc.) were pooled and shared equally, all 30 clubs would have the revenue they need to compete for talent.

This won't happen, of course. TPTB love having monopoly profits, without having to share those profits equally among themselves - and the big-market organizations appear to dominate the Commissioner's Office, as well.

It's fundamentally corrupt - but ignoring corruption, more and more, appears to be "the American way."

[phillychuck]

I wouldn't call it corrupt. It's just as "corrupt" to insist that teams that "earn" more due to higher attendance and better TV revenue give it away to other teams. In that scenario there would be no incentive for teams to try to do better economically...what difference would it make for me (as a team) to improve my fan experience in person or on TV so that attendance or ratings go up? If I earn more revenue I just have to give 95% of it away to my "competitors".

MLB is in a tough position balancing economics with on-field competition. They are trying to find the right balance so that the lower earning teams aren't at an impossible disadvantage with respect to the big-market teams. We can argue about where that balance is, and whether St. Louis deserves revenue sharing, etc. But they HAVE made it possible for teams like KC, Miami, and Baltimore to be competitive if they are run well (at least in the short term) and StL has been more than competitive in the long term. Many of us believe they could (or should) do more for the small market teams, or that they need to better define "small market", but many fans don't share that belief. Some of us are not too upset that we're in the running to sign Manny Machado, for example, and BALT and Miami aren't. But we are upset that the NYY and LAD have an edge on us, I guess!

It's only fundamentally corrupt if you believe that each team deserves precisely even revenue. But I wouldn't call disagreeing with that belief corrupt. It's just a matter of philosophical disagreement, and I hesitate to label those who disagree with me corrupt.

[julio]

I wouldn't call it corrupt. It's just as "corrupt" to insist that teams that "earn" more due to higher attendance and better TV revenue give it away to other teams. In that scenario there would be no incentive for teams to try to do better economically...what difference would it make for me (as a team) to improve my fan experience in person or on TV so that attendance or ratings go up? If I earn more revenue I just have to give 95% of it away to my "competitors".

This doesn't seem to cause problems for the NFL - where ALL broadcast revenue is pooled and shared.