Draft Changes As Result of New CBA

Very  confusing, Jeremy.  Is it a lottery among the worst six teams only?  Or as you hinted at, do all 30 teams participate in the lottery, with the best teams getting a tiny chance...say one of 50 balls in the hopper?  Other sports have only those teams not advancing to the playoffs in the lottery, is that what baseball is doing?

Expect we are going to have to wait and see something that is clear before knowing.

I at first thought the lottery would not fix tanking, because rarely do you have a clear number 1 pick, once like every 10 years will you have a pick that is so clear number 1 people would really care if they got it.  However, lowering picks if you routinely stay in the lottery may have the desired affect. 

The Kumar rule may not address his issue, but there was no rule in place that he would have to get contract at 75% slot value.  I think it is a good rule for both sides.  It will make all the teams get a chance to see the physical and they can decide to take the risk or not, and if they do the player gets a deal no matter what, if they want to take it.  

Sure it may lead to some guys dropping more than expected, but that is a risk the player will have to decide.  If they do not share the info they will run risk of no offer at all, like Rocker got. 

I can see why the league (at least the lower ranking teams) don't want draft pick trades. This would allow the rich teams to trade tons of mediocre minor league players for top draft talent, cementing the perennial advantage of the rich teams. Even if limited to outside the top ten picks, it helps maintain the separation of rich v poor teams. 

1 hour ago, Trov said:

I at first thought the lottery would not fix tanking, because rarely do you have a clear number 1 pick, once like every 10 years will you have a pick that is so clear number 1 people would really care if they got it.  However, lowering picks if you routinely stay in the lottery may have the desired affect. 

The Kumar rule may not address his issue, but there was no rule in place that he would have to get contract at 75% slot value.  I think it is a good rule for both sides.  It will make all the teams get a chance to see the physical and they can decide to take the risk or not, and if they do the player gets a deal no matter what, if they want to take it.  

Sure it may lead to some guys dropping more than expected, but that is a risk the player will have to decide.  If they do not share the info they will run risk of no offer at all, like Rocker got. 

Having Pick #1 is a clear advantage
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19VfDcfllzN6AsgZouf829ldQ9eO3ZGRU/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=113796250486978022042&rtpof=true&sd=true

I'm not a fan of the lottery, especially the part where they punish a team for being in the bottom 10 teams twice in a row.  The players union has to accept that certain teams just can't spend openly like a lot of other teams.  I don't think punishing them for being bad will make them anything but worse than they already were.

I also think the idea of teams tanking specifically so they can draft higher is often overstated.  For example, the A's are not shedding payroll so they can redraft a team with top picks.  They are cashing in on players about to reach free agency for their next wave of cheap talent.  It is much easier (and quicker) to restock your system when you trade anyone close to being a free agent.  It seems like this is often misinterpreted as tanking for a higher draft pick when they usually make out better on these selloffs than with a single draft.  I just don't think there are that many teams that are actively trying to finish last with the sole reason of getting that pick.  Baltimore and Pittsburgh are the two that come to mind.  I would say the Pirates have been trying to inject their system with talent as quickly as possible by trading their players like Josh Bell and maybe Bryan Reynolds soon. 

Lets be honest, will there ever be a time when Pittsburgh or Baltimore are spending big money?  They kind of need the draft for any chance to build a strong core.  Forcing these teams to draft a top 6 pick, then an 11th pick, then another top 6 pick will only make the rebuilds take longer than if they had 3 years of the top 1 or 2 picks.  It will make these annual bottom dwellers less competitive for longer.

1 hour ago, Trov said:

I at first thought the lottery would not fix tanking, because rarely do you have a clear number 1 pick, once like every 10 years will you have a pick that is so clear number 1 people would really care if they got it.  However, lowering picks if you routinely stay in the lottery may have the desired affect. 

The Kumar rule may not address his issue, but there was no rule in place that he would have to get contract at 75% slot value.  I think it is a good rule for both sides.  It will make all the teams get a chance to see the physical and they can decide to take the risk or not, and if they do the player gets a deal no matter what, if they want to take it.  

Sure it may lead to some guys dropping more than expected, but that is a risk the player will have to decide.  If they do not share the info they will run risk of no offer at all, like Rocker got. 

Maybe I'm not following what you're saying (which is a definite possibility), but I don't think it's saying that teams have to offer a draft pick a contract.  Just that if they do, it can't be less than 75% of their slot value. 

So a team could still draft  a player and then not offer him a contract (which of course seems monumentally silly to waste a pick like that, but it's not as if it hasn't happened before).

Of course... I may be so wrong in my interpretation that I should be embarrassed ?‍♂️  

2 hours ago, MN_ExPat said:

Maybe I'm not following what you're saying (which is a definite possibility), but I don't think it's saying that teams have to offer a draft pick a contract.  Just that if they do, it can't be less than 75% of their slot value. 

So a team could still draft  a player and then not offer him a contract (which of course seems monumentally silly to waste a pick like that, but it's not as if it hasn't happened before).

Of course... I may be so wrong in my interpretation that I should be embarrassed ?‍♂️  

I read it as if the player submits pre-draft physicals, you do indeed have to offer him a contract, and it has to be for at least 75% of the slot value--this is under the assumption that if you have a player's physicals, and still draft him, you can't then back out by claiming his physicals aren't good.

If I'm right, this opens a potentially nasty can of worms (although the frequency of if happening would probably be pretty low), which is what happens if something non-physical related happens after the pick is made, but the contract is offered?  Say a player is accused of a crime the day after the draft, for example; does the team still have to offer him a contract?

6 hours ago, roger said:

Very  confusing, Jeremy.  Is it a lottery among the worst six teams only?  Or as you hinted at, do all 30 teams participate in the lottery, with the best teams getting a tiny chance...say one of 50 balls in the hopper?  Other sports have only those teams not advancing to the playoffs in the lottery, is that what baseball is doing?

Expect we are going to have to wait and see something that is clear before knowing.

It is indeed the teams who didn't make the playoffs that are in the lottery.  It appears that the worst three teams will have a 16.5% chance in the hopper, whereas the highest ten teams that didn't make the playoffs will each have a 2% chance.  I don't know how the two or more rule will affect the chances (e.g. do you still have the same number of balls in the hopper and just get put in 10th if you get picked or do they remove the balls?).

You say the lottery will be six teams, then talk about the chances of the 10th.

I'll guess that it's the first six draft slots that are determined by the lottery, and all non-playoff teams participate at some level.  I also assume the worst record has a bound of the 7th pick (assuming no tanking penalties).  This article could  probably have more details and be clearer (with examples on the penalties).

The author lost all credibility calling Nick Blackburn a number 1 prospect in an organization that had some gimpy catcher at the same time. If you tru trail hard you could maybe even remember the not great power hitter;s blame. 

We’re the Twins “tanking” when they traded Cruz for two prospects?  

1 hour ago, yeahyabetcha said:

We’re the Twins “tanking” when they traded Cruz for two prospects?  

Were the Ray's tanking when they traded Snell in route to a 100 win season?  Were The White Sox tanking when they traded Sale and Eaton or was it the best way for them to build a contender?  The Cubs and Astros basically did the same thing in route to building WS winners.  The Mariners are looking like they are the latest example. Their rebuild started with trading Cano & Diaz to the Mets which looks pretty darn smart now.

There just HAS to be a way for teams like Baltimore and Pittsburgh to compete.  Heck, when free agency started it was the Baltimore Orioles who signed Reggie Jackson first...NOT the Yankees.  If Baltimore or Pittsburgh REALLY wanted to compete, they'd spend some ####  Money !!  They just like to make bank deposits.  

I don't understand penalizing a team for being bad two years in a row. Most teams that are bad are bad two years in a row. It takes time to improve the roster of the worst team in the league. Some of the teams accused of "tanking" just suck. It wasn't intentional.

Good article, Jeremy.  I like the draft and follow and can see how a team with great scouting and analytics departments could use that to their advantage.  Likewise with the 20 round draft.  There will be nowhere near as many players drafted, so there will be a few hidden gems available to sign after the draft for those teams that have the ability to identify them.  After all, Smoltz, Griffey Sr., Piazza, Keith Hernandez, Buehrle, Kenny Rogers, and many others were drafted after the 20th round.  What is your best guess on whether we will have an international draft?

18 hours ago, Bradfoot said:

I'm not a fan of the lottery, especially the part where they punish a team for being in the bottom 10 teams twice in a row.  The players union has to accept that certain teams just can't spend openly like a lot of other teams.  I don't think punishing them for being bad will make them anything but worse than they already were.

 

I also think the idea of teams tanking specifically so they can draft higher is often overstated.  For example, the A's are not shedding payroll so they can redraft a team with top picks.  They are cashing in on players about to reach free agency for their next wave of cheap talent.  It is much easier (and quicker) to restock your system when you trade anyone close to being a free agent.  It seems like this is often misinterpreted as tanking for a higher draft pick when they usually make out better on these selloffs than with a single draft.  I just don't think there are that many teams that are actively trying to finish last with the sole reason of getting that pick.  Baltimore and Pittsburgh are the two that come to mind.  I would say the Pirates have been trying to inject their system with talent as quickly as possible by trading their players like Josh Bell and maybe Bryan Reynolds soon. 

 

Lets be honest, will there ever be a time when Pittsburgh or Baltimore are spending big money?  They kind of need the draft for any chance to build a strong core.  Forcing these teams to draft a top 6 pick, then an 11th pick, then another top 6 pick will only make the rebuilds take longer than if they had 3 years of the top 1 or 2 picks.  It will make these annual bottom dwellers less competitive for longer.

 

 

The union wants to stop teams from doing what the As are going to do IMO. I am shocked the union didn't get a floor salary # for every team. 

27 minutes ago, HrbieFan said:

The union wants to stop teams from doing what the As are going to do IMO.

I'm not sure the A's are going to do that anymore. They are going to receive revenue sharing money now after being excluded in the last CBA. That should provide them enough resources to keep their entire roster.

1 hour ago, HrbieFan said:

The union wants to stop teams from doing what the As are going to do IMO. I am shocked the union didn't get a floor salary # for every team. 

I support the union on a number of topics but they can be very damaging to the sports competitiveness.  They just don't seem to understand the degree of variance in marketplaces.  They would rather let the Dodgers and Yankees run wild uncapped then have a balanced league and I think that is horrible for the sport.  They want to take away every rule that helps small market teams (Competitive balance tax, Qualifying Offer, etc.),  They have a weird belief that these teams can just magically support a much higher payroll year after year.  The League is super greedy but at least they wanted to make the sport more competitive with some of their bargaining desires, the union was all about the money.

We hear the Twins use this phrase occasionally, "we will increase payroll when our competitive window opens."  Not to debate how much they live up to that or not but it is clear that it is not easy for a team to patch a competitor together with free agents alone.  If the Twins just roll out a $130M payroll every year (or even $160M) for a decade it will do nothing to compete with the big markets.  I don't think the Pirates can realistically just buy a playoff team in the next 5 years.  They need to acquire as many prospects as possible for a "future core" and when the time is right supplement that with free agents.  I know it hurts to watch a team struggle so bad for a few years but it is the best path towards a winning team.

Take the Timberwolves for example, they never win the lottery, they are not an appealing destination for free agents, they are destined for long runs of disappointing seasons.  Teams that tank for a few years like the Pirates (or the 2014-15 Royals) have a better shot of a championship than the T-Wolves do.

Injury-risk players are going to slide right out of the first round. You can always go over slot but now you can only go down to 75% of slot. Better to grab those guys in the 5th round or lower. Also, doesn't this mean that there is less flexibility signing players for way below slot? Top 300 players is anyone selected in the top 8 rounds. Is the 'top 300' ranking before or after the draft happens?

Where the 75% of slot hurts is signing a senior in the 9th round and paying him $15k, then using the extra to go over slot on another pick.

5 hours ago, Jeremy Nygaard said:

I would think if you're one of those teams and you can't move up in the lottery, you just wouldn't be a part of it. If you're the worst team, you'd draft 7th. If you were the best non-playoff team, you'd stay in your original place. You simply can't move into the Top 6 picks.

That sounds reasonable.  The only quibble is that if you are a team that pays into revenue sharing, you can't draft higher than 10th more than a single year in a row, so if you're 7th, you get bumped down to 10.  Those that receive money from revenue sharing can't draft higher than 10th more than two years in a row.  Which leaves the question of, if you were the worst team, but not eligible for the lottery, do you slot into pick number 10 before or after the lottery (e.g. if it's before, you start at 10, but if six teams behind you win the six lottery slots, you get bumped down to 16; if it's after, you're just 10 no matter who won the lottery).  So there's some extra wrinkles there, which results in three issues - you may be in the lottery, you may be out of the lottery, and you may actually be required to be moved down from your position outside of the lottery system.

17 hours ago, Jeremy Nygaard said:

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, but Baseball America ranked Blackburn as the organization's #1 prospect in 2008 and #56 overall in baseball. These facts are easily verifiable using Google search.

That Blackburn was a top 100 in Baseball prospectus and nowhere else should be an indication something is wrong with the metric. That Blackburn was number one when others had him so much lower should be a clue that something is wrong. You can call it a fact, but it is an opinion that is so far out of line with others it should be a red flag unless you a mocking prospect rankings. If you were mocking them, good job