August 16, 2008
Improving the Draft
19 June 2008: Tampa Bay Rays 2008 first overall pick Tim Beckham takes batting practice with his new team after signing his contract at Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg, Fl. Beckham received $6.15 million.
Photo: Icon SMI
With so many players signing above their slot value this season, and with the kickback scandal among Latin American free agents, it seems like a good time to re-examine the baseball draft.
Baseball instituted the draft in the mid 1960s as part of a long war between the rich and poor clubs over the distribution of talent. Before the draft, players were free agents, able to sign with the club of their choice, usually for a high bonus. The complaint was that the rich teams gained an advantage by being able to sign players for bigger bonuses. Once signed, the reserve clause controlled costs since teams could simply renew players if they didn't reach an agreement, and the only recourse for the player was not to play. So rich teams could pay out a high initial cost for the player, knowing that long term their costs were under control.
To keep the rich teams from signing all the good players, the league instituted bonus baby rules. High priced signees had to stay on the major league roster for a fixed amount of time. The rich teams found ways around this by getting some poor teams to sign the player, then trade that player to the rich team when he was major league ready.
Finally, MLB decided on a draft that would allow the worst performing franchises a chance at the best talent. It worked. The Oakland Athletics of the 1970s were a result of the ability to sign the best talent in the late 1960s without interference. The Mets of the mid 1980s were built on the draft picks resulting from their terrible performances in the late 1970s and early 1980s. All went well with the draft until the early 1990s.
That's when the Athletics realized they could sign unsignable players. Todd Van Poppel was going to go to college. Thirteen teams passed him by before the Oakland Athletics took him with their pick. They offered him a ton of money, and suddenly college wasn't that important. This was the start of a breakdown in the system. As signing bonuses went higher, better players kept slipping down the draft list as the poorer teams decided they couldn't afford to sign them. No longer were the teams that needed the talent getting a fair shot at the best talent.
In the early days of the draft, teams used their leverage as the only employer to sign drafted players cheaply. Now, amateurs use their leverage of limited supply to demand large bonuses. Limited supply seems to have won over restricted demand.
In addition, MLB teams started looking overseas for players. These players were not covered by the draft, so the highest bidders could sign the best players, often at a lower cost than if the player were drafted. Again, this gave teams with more money, who were able to put scouts and academies in places like the Dominican Republic an advantage. We're basically back to the wealthier teams getting the best talent.
My first preference would be to abolish the draft, but that's not going to happen nor would it be desirable. Injecting poor performing teams with good talent is good for the game. We want different teams rising into the playoffs and winning the World Series.
My proposal would be to give each team a shot at fifteen players per round over a few rounds (four or five). MLB would create a ranked list of players, order 1 to 200 (for five rounds). The teams with the first five picks in the current system get to try to sign one of the top 15 players on the list. The teams with the next five picks get to negotiate with players six through twenty. Teams with picks in the range 11-15 can talk to players 11 through 25, and so on. When the draft would return to the team with the number one pick, they will be competing with some of the best teams in the league for talent. At the end, the top five teams would be the only ones allowed to sign the five lowest ranked players in the draft. Anyone not ranked on the top 150 would be a free agent and can sign with any team.
If a player doesn't sign, he would be ineligible to sign anywhere until two drafts have passed (someone who didn't sign in 2009 can't be drafted or signed until 2012). So high school players who say they want to got to college get to spend three years getting an education and playing ball. Any team failing to sign one of the fifteen players assigned to their slot simply loses out on that round.
The master list would be drawn up from the draft lists of the 30 teams. They would submit a ranked list of players, 1-200. A Borda count would be used to rank the players, with this exception. Only the ballots for the team with the first five draft picks would determine the top five players in the draft. Five more teams would be added to determine the top ten, and so forth through the first round of the draft. That way, teams with low draft picks can't game the system to force good players to drop down.
This style of draft might not make for exciting television, but it would improve some current problems with the system.
- More choices for teams mean that they are more likely to sign some talented player. If a player like Aaron Crow asks for too much money, the team can simply move on to a more reasonable player.
- It gives the player more of a choice. Maybe the draftee wants to play close to home. Maybe there's more of an opening for his position on a particular team. He has a choice, and might be willing to take less money for these other considerations.
- Players can't fall that far through the draft. The five best players sign with the five worst teams or day are out of a job for three years. The World Champions would not have access to the best 25 players in the draft.
- Internationals players can easily be integrated into the system without without totally losing the free agent right they currently possess.
Overall, this plan should force good talent onto weak teams without handcuffing either side. I'm curious to hear what readers think of this plan.
Posted by David Pinto at
02:44 PM
|
Draft
|
TrackBack (0)
I see where you're coming from. I just wouldn't like to see the set of players from which a team can choose artificially limited.
Also, I think that understanding your likelihood to sign a player before you draft him is a skill that some GMs have and some apparently don't. The Brewers have signed every one of their 2008 draft picks from the first 22 rounds, That's shrewd picking in my mind.
I would really prefer a system where teams held rights to a drafted player regardless of whether they went to college. For example, the first four years after being drafted or the first three years after they sign - whichever is longer. Then, in many cases it would be beneficial to the Major League teams if some of their players went to college - even if for only a year. I think it would strengthen the college game. I think hockey does something like this.
Then, I think every player entering the Majors should be required to come through the draft. I think that's that biggest loophole in the current system. If you're going to have a draft at all, you might as very make it air tight.
Interesting ideas. As it now stands, if a high school kid forgoes the draft he has to spend three years at college (or doing something else, he's just ineligible for the next three drafts)
Joey, that's not true.
A player drafted out of high school can play independent ball or go to a JuCo and be draft eligible the next year. It's only when a player goes to a four-year school that he is ineligible to be drafted for three years.
I think there's some sense in this. I'll have to read again and give it some more thought.
I'd also like to see some kind of salary cap on drafted players.
I would like to see the same system s the NFL. A team could trade draft picks for already signed players ( minor league or major league) or for a lower draft pick plus players. A drafted player could be traded at any time, not a one year "freeze" as is now.
harry
I would like to see the same system s the NFL. A team could trade draft picks for already signed players ( minor league or major league) or for a lower draft pick plus players. A drafted player could be traded at any time, not a one year "freeze" as is now.
harry
I would like to see the same system s the NFL. A team could trade draft picks for already signed players ( minor league or major league) or for a lower draft pick plus players. A drafted player could be traded at any time, not a one year "freeze" as is now.
harry
Way to complicated and way too likely to just drive up cost. The Owners (and for that matter the Players association) will never agree to.
What I expect to ultimately happen is for the players association to agree to an international draft with fixed pay scale (like the NBA) that frees up mor money for MLB to spend on the players already in the Players Association as opposed to those trying to eventually take their jobs.
What if the teams were allotted an amount to sign their drafted players and if they don't sign a player, he becomes a free agent. Then if a team wanted to spend all their money on a first round pick, they could, but they'd have less money with which to sign the other players. The teams could be allotted amounts based on their records to allow worse teams an advantage.
Alot of these schemes are ways to get around the fact that some teams will spend more money on players than other teams, either because their owners are willing to, or the teams take in more revenue.
Ultimately, the only way you "fix" this is to either limit the league to teams run by owners willing to spend, using minimum salaries and expenditure; and/ or set maximum salaries or expenditure; or have players sign directly with the league instead of the team. Unless you address the fundamental problem you are just creating a complicated system that can be gamed.
re: the draft and elemental game theory & economics
the problem with the draft, or any draft really, is that it ignores basic economics and basic game theory.
if you have a zero sum (or non-zero sum) game involving three or more players, it is fairly easy to demonstrate that in a three player game, two of the players will collude or cooperate vs. the remaining player to their mutual advantage, and to the disadvantage of the remaining player.
applying this to a thirty player game, it's easy to see that the rich teams will cooperate or collude to exclude the poor ones from signing the talented draft picks whether there is a draft or not.
even with a draft in place now, small market teams avoid drafting any player with a large price tag or whose agent has made it known he wants a lot of money. this is obviously a case of collusion with the major market teams with the agents to price smaller market teams out of some of the best talent.
game theory dictates that no matter what system you put into place, alliances and strategic cooperative agreements will form to defeat the purpose of the system. Equality cannot be achieved in an economic system because all of the players are gaming the system, as it were, to maximize their output, which in this case, is winning.
--art kyriazis, philly
This system is a good idea but it seems unecessarily complicated.
Why not eliminate most of the rounds (it has 113 currently) and tell the players to declare themselves eligbible forthe draft.
-If a player gets drafted in the first round they have to sign at a specific rate (which is based on draft position and adjusted each year for inflation and every five years the rate for each slot would be adjusted by the league)
-any player drafted outside of the first round negotiates with the team that drafted him only. (like NFL)
- Any player that is undrafted but declared eligible for the draft retains NCAA eligibility