PDA

View Full Version : Why should a team be rewarded an Xtra 1st round pick?


Rockabilly
10-06-2010, 01:41 AM
If they didn't have the resources to sign their 1st round draft pick last year.

IMO its a stupid rule.

TDog
10-06-2010, 02:57 AM
If they didn't have the resources to sign their 1st round draft pick last year.

IMO its a stupid rule.

It's not a matter of not having the resources to sign a first-round pick. It's generally a matter of a first-round pick with no professional experience demanding too much to sign.

It is ridiculous how much amateurs demand for signing when they can only negotiate with one team.

Instead of having an extra first-round pick, it would make more sense if a player drafted in the first round were bound to negotiating with that team for more than one year. That would drive down the unreasonable demands of high school and college players and preserve the spirit of the draft instead of funneling the best players to the teams that can afford to gamble on talent that may never develop into major league talent.

voodoochile
10-06-2010, 03:13 AM
It's not a matter of not having the resources to sign a first-round pick. It's generally a matter of a first-round pick with no professional experience demanding too much to sign.

It is ridiculous how much amateurs demand for signing when they can only negotiate with one team.

Instead of having an extra first-round pick, it would make more sense if a player drafted in the first round were bound to negotiating with that team for more than one year. That would drive down the unreasonable demands of high school and college players and preserve the spirit of the draft instead of funneling the best players to the teams that can afford to gamble on talent that may never develop into major league talent.

I don't think they could get away with that legally. Since the leagues are defacto monopolies in all the major sports, giving an amateur player only one option and then locking them into it probably violates some kind of law...

Tragg
10-06-2010, 10:19 AM
If they didn't have the resources to sign their 1st round draft pick last year.

IMO its a stupid rule.
I agree. And if you get one, only a late supplemental.
I also don't think that teams should lose draft choices for signing free agents....especially as these A, B designations are often ludicrous.
I think teams losing free agents should be a supplemental pick between rounds.

asindc
10-06-2010, 10:31 AM
I don't think they could get away with that legally. Since the leagues are defacto monopolies in all the major sports, giving an amateur player only one option and then locking them into it probably violates some kind of law...

That is essentially what happens now in every pro league draft, and by design. You might be on to something in that even the existing draft rules might be vulnerable to a well-organized challenge (unlike Maurice Clarett's ill-advised challenge).

I'd like to see three things change about the baseball draft:

1) Foreign players must be included in the draft. No more of the Jose Contreras/Dice-K insanity (yes, I realize that we might not have Alexei if this proposal had been the rule three years ago).

2) Make a draftee ineligible to re-enter the draft a minimun of two years after he is originally drafted. The draftee may negotiate with the team that drafted him at any time during the two-year period.

3) Rookie wage scale that includes bonus limits. I would be surprised if a union comprised of current MLB players would not approve of this.

I believe that adopting these changes would bring the MLB draft more in line with its original intent, which was to give lesser performing teams a better opportunity to improve than their more successful rivals. It would also add more cost-certainty to player acquisition and development.