Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
The new CBA is out via MLB while Ryan Braun wins the NL MVP (332/397/597 in LF) over Matt Kemp (324/399/586 in CF, HR & RBI titles, 3rd in Avg).

Edit: Kelly Johnson to be modified type A - Jays get pick before team that signs him (if the Jays don't).

The new CBA lasts through the 2016 season which means since the lost 1994 WS we'll have 21 years of labour peace to which we all can go 'woohoo'.

Highlights include...
  • A raise in the minimum salary from $414,000 this year to $480,000 in 2012, and ultimately to more than $500,000;
  • Blood testing for human growth hormone as early as next spring, with a 50-game suspension for a first failed test;
    • All players will be tested for HGH during Spring Training, and for reasonable cause at any time during the season. Players will be subject to random, unannounced offseason testing starting in 2012-13. The parties agreed to jointly study the possibility of expanding it to include random in-season testing.
  • Luxury tax on teams that spend above an agreed-upon figure for players signed through the annual First-Year Player Draft;
    • The penalties for exceeding a calculated monetary figure on Draft picks -- who can be signed only to Minor League contracts -- will be between 75 and 100 percent of the overage, as well as the potential loss of first- and second-round selections.
    • via Biz of Baseball, a Luxury Tax for international free agents will also be implemented but that "there will be a separate threshold and tax with penalties, and there will be a study committee that could put a new system in place later during the agreement.
    • The international signing limits won't affect the posting system for players from Japan
  • Changes in Draft-pick compensation for the signing of free agents.
    • No more Type A and Type B rankings for free agents. From now on compensation only comes if their former club offers a guaranteed one-year contract with a salary equal to the average salary of the 125 highest-paid players from the prior season
    • Teams that sign players who have been offered these one-year deals will surrender their first round draft choice. However, teams with top-ten picks will give up their second-highest pick instead. (via MLB Trade Rumors)
  • Teams with the lowest revenues and in the smallest markets will have an opportunity to obtain additional Draft picks through a lottery.
  • The 15 teams in the largest markets will be disqualified from receiving revenue sharing by 2016, and active rosters will increase from 25 to 26 for select doubleheaders.
  • The players must conceal tobacco products and may not carry tobacco products in their uniforms or on their bodies when fans are in the ballpark.
  • Increased Number of Super Twos Ė About 5-6 more players will be "Super Twos". These are players have the highest level of Major League Service Time that are between 2 and 3 years of ML service time. The current agreement sees the top 17% of those players in terms of service time. That will rise to 22% for the upcoming agreement.
Interesting stuff. For AA this just jumps the value of scouting the current minor leagues and looking for guys other teams release or are willing to trade. Any more details?
New CBA & NL MVP | 145 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
sam - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 02:48 PM EST (#247102) #
Oh god, some of the details of the CBA that MLBTR is reporting do not bode well for the Jays. A $2.9 million cap on international spending. Loss of draft picks for going over slot by 15%. Yikes. Even worse, the lowest 10 revenue generating teams enter into a lottery for 6 extra picks between the first and second round. The Jays will likely exist in that purgatory between not being part of that group and not being part of the group of teams that generates substantial revenue.

I really wonder if players are going to sign anymore out of high school. I guess the level of college baseball will go up, but I don't know if that's necessarily a good thing for professional baseball. Not to knock college programs, but generally speaking college instruction is significantly worse than professional development. Moreover, the wear and tear of college pitching is quite demanding on college arms. Overall, I think you might see a drop in the level of play at the professional level, or the more likely scenario in which players generally will have shorter careers. I don't know how the players union accepted this. I mean, does allowing relief pitchers more bargaining power and a slight increase in the major league minimum justify eating the young of the game and effectively decreasing the potential career earnings of all players?
BalzacChieftain - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 02:49 PM EST (#247103) #

I've heard through the twitterverse there is also a cap on international signings, which really hurts the teams (Jays included) who have heavily invested in international scouting and development.

The tax rates for spending "over slot" in the draft, coupled with potential loss of draft picks for doing so are 2 other dreadful changes.

sam - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 02:51 PM EST (#247104) #
Also, considering teams will be limited in the amount of prospects they can bring in each year, the Jays will probably want to hold onto a lot of their younger prospects.
greenfrog - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 02:52 PM EST (#247105) #
mlbtraderumors.com also states that:

- The international signing limits won't affect the posting system for players from Japan

- Cubans under 23 years old with less than three years of professional experience will be considered amateurs and count against international spending limits. 26-year-old Yoenis Cespedes won't be subject to these limits

IMO at first blush the new CBA looks like a big negative for the Jays, but let's wait until all the details are in. I do feel that in light of the new draft spending cap, the Jays would have been better off signing Beede for around $3M last summer, although of course hindsight is 20/20. It would seem to make sense for the Jays to go hard after Darvish (and maybe Cespedes) this off-season, if those marquee players are indeed exempt from the new IFA rules. Gotta take advantage of the gaps in the new system while they're still available.

Also, I'm still not clear - is there now a cap on each team's overall per-draft spending, or are teams subject to per-player limits based on slot (with no overall limit)? The latter would be better for the Jays in 2012, as they should have a number of extra picks.
BalzacChieftain - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 02:52 PM EST (#247106) #
The fact that the MLBPA agreed to these changes for amateur players show they're really only looking out for current union members. Not that they don't have that prerogative, but come on. This is just ludicrous as far as parity goes, in my opinion. Cost-efficient ways to improve an MLB team are going out the window.
John Northey - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 02:59 PM EST (#247107) #
MLB trade rumours (linked in article) is a great source. It will make it challenging for AA, but also will open opportunities if he looks for loopholes (the ability to trade to increase your $ limit for example) and digs deeper into the trade market (which is where he was hunting hard from day one).

Good news for the Jays on one area - http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/11/modified-procedure-for-type-a-free-agents.html - Johnson is still worth 2 draft picks.
Gerry - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 03:04 PM EST (#247108) #

Under this new CBA, and the new draft rules, the dollars you have to spend are a finite resource.  How you use them is key and that puts the importance back on scouting.  The Jays ability to spend is reduced but they still can try and be smarter than other teams.

At least AA had a couple of years to fill the system before these brakes were put on.  

How do you think the Beede family feels today?  While we don't know the team limits for the new deal, I am sure he won't get as much dollars in three years as he could have this year.

85bluejay - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 03:09 PM EST (#247109) #
While I initially agreed with what sam said, maybe there is a plus for the Jays - because of the spending limits, scouting will be even more important - while its great to sign Cardona, the more Nestor Molina and Henderson Alvarez a team can sign the better - same with the draft, the more Syndergaard & Gabrow (both unerslot) a team can discover the better. My biggest regret is that AA probably didn't expect such a big change or he would likely have spent more esp. with Breede - definitely more high school kids will go to college - does anyone know if the slot recommendations penalty apply to all draft picks or only the first 10 rds. ? 
Ron - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 03:17 PM EST (#247110) #
This CBA is horrible for Jays fans. It's going to be a really hard decision if you want to go over the slot pool because the punishment is swift. I thought their was a loophole for going over slot after the 10th round but I just checked the CBA and it says "Players selected after the 10th round do not count against a Clubís Signing Bonus Pool if they receive bonuses up to $100,000. Any amounts paid in excess of $100,000 will count against the Pool." Teams that like to collect Comp picks are also screwed. Under the new system, players like Gregg and Molina won't be offered the new 1 year contract.

The new CBA also made the Super 2 situation even worse by expanding the player pool. You're going to see teams hold back players in the minors for even a longer period now. This hurts the Team, Player, and Fans who pay for tickets.

The only new wrinkle to the CBA that I'm a fan of is moving up the draft signing deadline to the middle of June. This increases the chances we see these players play in the minors in their draft year.


85bluejay - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 03:18 PM EST (#247111) #
The news on Johnson is fantastic - hope the Jays don't sign  him - there was no mention if there is a restriction regarding if a bottom 15 team signs a modified A type - if Houston signs Johnson , then do the Jays get a pick before Houston (#1 pick) - i would think not!  
Mike Green - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 03:33 PM EST (#247112) #
They should run the draft/international signings as an auction.  Each teams gets to spend X "player acquisition bucks", with lower finishing clubs having the opportunity to spend somewhat more (maybe by a factor of 1.2 or something; you could do it in a tiered way).  If you're going to put dollar signs on the muscle, why not flex 'em and let everyone see? 



TamRa - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 03:40 PM EST (#247113) #
This part:

The penalties for exceeding a calculated monetary figure on Draft picks -- who can be signed only to Minor League contracts -- will be between 75 and 100 percent of the overage, as well as the potential loss of first- and second-round selections.
via Biz of Baseball, a Luxury Tax for international free agents will also be implemented but that "there will be a separate threshold and tax with penalties, and there will be a study committee that could put a new system in place later during the agreement.



Is madness, IMO. Who spent the most on amateurs this year? Wasn't it Pittsburgh?

Unbelieveable.
sam - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 03:40 PM EST (#247114) #
I'm looking at the revenue situation. According to Forbes the Jays were 23rd in revenue generation in 2010. So they would be among that group of teams that would still receive revenue sharing, but not extra draft picks. Teams like Arizona, Cleveland, and Milwaukee will really get screwed by this as they won't qualify for revenue sharing anymore, yet have very little operating income.
Gerry - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 03:47 PM EST (#247115) #

The new CBA rules for the draft is basically hard slotting except the hard slot is on a pool rather than on a pick.  Teams with worse records will have more money to spend.

If a team can find players who will sign for less than slot, then they will have more dollars for players to go over slot.

If a team drafts a player who won't sign, then they can reallocate those dollars to a signable player.

85bluejay - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 03:47 PM EST (#247116) #

Sam,

        Correct me if I'm wrong - but since the teams with the 10 lowest revenues get to share in the draft lottery & the Jays were 23rd, doesn't that qualify them to participate since there are only 30 teams.

James W - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 03:49 PM EST (#247117) #
What is the relevance of who spent the most on the draft? If it was the Angels or Phillies, would this new rule be more understandable? Less?

There is a feeling that too much money is spent on amteurs, and/or ownership is sick of seeing amateurs holding out for a bigger deal, or that the worst teams have to skip over picking the best players for signability. A strict slot system would have been better for that.
Glevin - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 03:58 PM EST (#247118) #
I think there's a lot of overreaction here. I don't think the new CBA will have much of aa negative effect on anyone except on the draft which I think needed a slotting system. Small market teams have lost out on superior prospects because they knew other teams were willing to offer huge contracts. The free agent ranking system was always ridiculous.
Paul D - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 03:58 PM EST (#247119) #

The international number should be more like $2.9 million per player, not per team. 

Paul D - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 04:00 PM EST (#247120) #

The small market teams are the ones getting the biggest benefit for going over slot.

I also think this could be devastating for international baseball.

John Northey - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 04:03 PM EST (#247121) #
The more I think about it the more I like the cap on the draft. It rewards teams who think ahead. If you draft multiple 'hard signs' and sign just one that one can get more of a bonus thus allowing you to get that very good player at the cost of losing a few 'easy signs'. Or you can go for signing a lot at slot. Or you can go for slot picks then not sign them so you can sign a hard pick that fell to you in the 3rd round or something.

This is the type of thing a very smart front office can play with and find advantages. The more complex the rules, the better if you are smart.
Ron - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 04:03 PM EST (#247122) #
I noticed the CBA doesn't reveal what would happen if a team (who wasn't in the bottom 10) who doesn't have a pick in the 1st round (due to going way over slot pool the previous season) goes out and signs a top free agent (who was offered a 1 year contract by their former club to get a 1st round pick in return if he bolts).

We could also run into a situation where signing a single player like Strasburg would push a team over the slot pool and cause them to lose 2 first round draft picks. I think there's a chance we might see some teams only draft a couple of players instead of the usual 40+.

TamRa - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 04:03 PM EST (#247123) #
Tweeted by parkes:

Highest spenders at the draft over last 5 yrs: PIT, WAS, KCR, BOS, BAL, TBR, TOR, SEA, SDP & ARI.

*sigh*

One silver lining - if the Jays anticipate having less freedom to throw money at amateurs next year (and after) does that increase the likelihood of throwing more money at Darvish?

(albeit, technically, that would apply to any other interested team too I guess)
Forkball - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 04:06 PM EST (#247124) #
A few points:
  • With the change in free agency compensation we will likely see more trades.  Instead of holding onto a type B player now and taking a comp pick you either have to trade the player or get nothing if they leave.  Plus, they cleaned up the compensation so it makes more sense.  Good move.
  • Changing the Super 2 players doesn't make sense to me.  The problem is that teams were burying players in the minors over service time.  It's no better now, and perhaps it's worse (as if it's 22% instead of 17% you'll have to keep a player down longer).  Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't like it.
  • I'm not getting too hung up on draft caps.  I think you'll see teams manipulate that as well.  For example, taking two top prospects looking for big money and then essentially punting your mid-round picks to fund it.  The good thing about this is we won't see any single team scooping up players that only fall over money.  The bad news is that the Jays were likely to be one of those teams.  It also may drive away a few multi-sport players.
Overall, I think there's more good than bad, and most importantly, this was completed easily and w/out even a threat of lost games (in contrast to the other team sports).

sam - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 04:16 PM EST (#247125) #
Sorry 85bluejay, you're right. If our revenue situation stayed the same, we would qualify as part of a lottery for an extra pick. However, that lottery is also influenced by winning percentage. So based on the 2010 revenue numbers and winning percentages, we would likely have the ninth best opportunity of the ten teams of winning one of those picks.

The bottom 10 teams from least amount of revenue to most are:
1. Florida
2. Pittsburgh
3. Oakland
4. Kansas City
5. Tampa Bay
6. San Diego
7. Minnesota
8. Toronto
9. Cincinnati
10. Cleveland

We had the second best record to the Rays. So depending on how they calculate the odds, we would presumably have a very low chance of winning a pick.
finch - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 04:49 PM EST (#247126) #
I'm not too worried about this new CBA agreement regarding draft and international spending. AA is a sharp MLB mind, he'll strategize something where it has the other GMs following in his footsteps.

As crazy as it sounds, I wouldn't be surprised to see AA overspend in a strong draft year and forgoing 2 future #1s. This would allow for taking hard sign guys in the mid rounds and throwing early round money at them. With all the draft picks we'll have, including 3 first room picks and up to 5 additional sandwich picks, AA and the Jays will surely be at the spending ceiling of 11.5 mil. This won't affect us this draft so expect AA to keep stocking the shelves with high upside players.

And I might be inclined the think that the Jays might take an Expos approached to trading players. I say this with Omiya (spelling?) now on board with the Jays. I might even think AA expected something along these lines and he was getting his ducks in a row prior to other GMs.
sam - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 04:50 PM EST (#247127) #
I just don't know how the players agreed to this. They didn't get anything of any real substantive value.
John Northey - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 04:53 PM EST (#247128) #
I agree that, even though the Jays have been taking advantage of it, removing the type B stuff will make July 31st and August 31st a lot more interesting (trade deadlines) and that is a good thing.

The Super-Two is more due to the union needing something as a gain in light of the loss of draft picks getting tons of cash.

Basically the union won in two areas - Super-Two status and removal of most of free agency compensation. Meanwhile the owners won in drugs, draft, and international signings.

I see this CBA as a win for the owners, but with a few fig leaves for the players. Smart for the owners to allow super-two to expand and free agency compensation to be reduced as those are minor costs vs what the draft and international signings have been costing.

I suspect in 2016's negotiations the players will push for more super-two status (slowly working towards all players with 2 years service being arbitration eligible) while owners will push for tougher drug rules (probably a 2 strikes and out rule) and a lower threshold for the luxury tax along with tighter draft rules (closing any loopholes that show up in the next 5 years plus shifting international players into the draft). Wouldn't be shocked if they push for drafted players to be like they are in the NHL - you are drafted and then you are stuck until you sign.
Paul D - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 04:55 PM EST (#247129) #

I think the international stuff is terrible though - this is a huge restriction and strikes me as vaguely racist.

Gerry - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 04:57 PM EST (#247130) #

Sam:

The minimum wage goes from $411,000 to $500,000 in a couple of years.

The players who qualify for arbitration as super 2's goes from 17% to 22%.

There is no restraint on salaries and the luxury tax threshold rises significantly in 2014.

The restraint on some free agents under the A and B system has been reduced letting those players get better deals.

Benefits have been improved.

The major give-aways were to minor leaguers and international players who are not union members.  In fact, if teams spend less on signing amateur players they may increase their budget for their major league team, another win for the players.

Ron - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 05:03 PM EST (#247131) #
Basically the union won in two areas - Super-Two status and removal of most of free agency compensation. Meanwhile the owners won in drugs, draft, and international signings.

The Union also gained an increase in the minimum salary, better chance for their players to play in the playoffs/win a World Series, and perhaps an increase on spending on major league players (savings from the draft/international signings that will now go towards MLB players).

I'm not sure if the issue of HGH testing is really a win for the Owners. Let's say for example Bautista gets busted for HGH and gets suspended for 50 games, this would hurt the Jays in the standings and probably financially (less tickets sold, not being in the playoff race, smaller ratings, etc...). This could also hurt the other Owners if fans are no longer going to buy tickets because they know Bautista won't be playing.
greenfrog - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 05:05 PM EST (#247132) #
Recommended reading (and listening): "Did a Steinbrenner Write the New CBA?" by Dave Cameron of Fangraphs. The site also includes a 24-min podcast conversation with Cameron on the new CBA.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/did-a-steinbrenner-write-the-new-cba/
metafour - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 05:08 PM EST (#247133) #
No surprise, the players association throws amateur players under the bus to get a few extra bucks.  It is sickening to think that they are going to kill the Latin market, where we are literally talking about kids and families with nothing.
Mike Green - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 05:12 PM EST (#247134) #
The major give-aways were to minor leaguers and international players who are not union members.  In fact, if teams spend less on signing amateur players they may increase their budget for their major league team, another win for the players.

...or the owners might pocket it.  That is one of the troubles with billionaires, as the saying goes.

The age-old question is what percentage of overall business revenues go to workers and what percentage go to owners.  In the case of baseball, measuring the overall business revenues is tricky because of the media convergence.  You have to look no farther than the home nine to see its importance.
sam - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 05:44 PM EST (#247135) #
Gerry I agree there are some advantages, but they significantly outweigh the disadvantages. Teams will likely get around the Super Two threshold, so I don't see that as an added benefit. Even the amount of players who would qualify that hadn't before will be very small.

There was no restraint on salaries before and the luxury tax had increased throughout the last labour agreement. Even then there were only a few teams who approached that limit and I think you could say Yankee or Red Sox, or even Phillies spending was not significantly influenced by the threshold.

I think this notion that players were at a significant financial disadvantage because they qualified for draft pick compensation is relatively new and a bit ludicrous. Take last year for example. Middle relievers like Joaquin Benoit and Scott Downs got significant deals despite their type-A status. I can't really think of a situation in which a type-A did not receive a long-term contract or market value because of his draft pick compensation. Heath Bell is accepting arbitration each year because he wants to stay on the west coast and receive an award of upwards to $10 million. He's been vocal in saying this.

I'm not sure what benefits have improved, baseball already has the best pension guarantees and health assurances of all the major sports.

Also, I don't think you'll see the Pirates turn around and say OK, we'll have an extra $5 million this year from the draft, so we'll go out and spend that on a new player. I doubt very much teams will be throwing "extra" money at ML players because they have left over money from amateur spending. From what I understand, baseball organizations don't necessary operate like this. Also, that $5 million bought a prospect who had potential to develop into a significant asset. The extra $5 million spent on a ML roster really doesn't amount to much. I just don't see teams rationalizing that way.

I think the disadvantages are significant and play out over the long-run. The obvious disadvantages are amateurs no longer receive financial incentive to play baseball. Less athletes playing baseball and more kids going to college. Great, so you've got more baseball players in college. Does this necessarily mean more people getting college educations? No. College baseball programs have very few scholarships. Players going to college who would've gone pro before would displace kids who had college scholarships under the old system. College baseball programs also offer significantly worse instruction then professional baseball. As a result, I think you'll see a drop off in play. There'll be a lot of guys too getting injured in college and not getting money they might get as bonuses before. Also, guys who would be signing as high schoolers are delaying their earning potential and decreasing their career earnings under this system. I think you'll also see fewer lower minor league teams with this CBA.

Here take someone like Kevin Gausman in this years draft. Gausman turned down $1 million out of high school. Hell likely go in the first round so he'll probably get that bonus and then some this time around. He won't have his college education because he's a sophmore. He's also three years older with significantly more mileage on his arm. He gets drafted, signs, starts in high-A. So he's by-passed three levels of baseball. Gausman, however, still has significant delivery issues and only two pitches. Team A develops him slowly, not wanting to risk having him count as a super two, the team waits until he develops. Three years later, he breaks into the big leagues, he's 25. Like most prospects, he yo-yo's back and forth from the Minor Leagues to the ML's. By 27, he's a member of Team A's rotation. So Gausman wouldn't hit free agency until 31. At this point, he's logged significant innings and also probably had an injury or two.

I just don't see where the benefit comes in for the player? If he gets to the big leagues, he gets an extra $80,000 for one or two years. Does it outweigh the guarantee of an extra million or two out of high school? Now even though Gausman chose to attend college, other players will likely have that choice made for them. They'll have less long-term earning potential.
sam - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 05:47 PM EST (#247136) #
I have to echo the Latin American comments as well. I agree Metafour that it's quite sickening to think. I honestly want to know what Latin baseball players have to say about this. I mean they voted on this.
sam - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 05:48 PM EST (#247137) #
It gets worse for Jays fans. Kelly Johnson is no longer a Type-A.
Brian W - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 05:55 PM EST (#247138) #
Doesn't affect the Jays.  They still would get a first round pick if another team signs him, it just won't be a pick taken away from the signing team.  Instead it's a new pick inserted just before the signing team's pick.  So if the team with the 20th pick signs him the Jays get pick 20, the signing team gets 21 and everybody moves back one spot from there.
sam - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 05:56 PM EST (#247139) #
Sorry, I stand corrected.
greenfrog - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 06:18 PM EST (#247142) #
I want to see the details on IFAs, but if the total bonuses allocated to Latin American players is severely curtailed, I'm with metafour on this issue.
sam - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 06:33 PM EST (#247143) #
I have a quick question. Is there a set salary for a Minor League Baseball player? What's to prevent the Jays from drafting a player and giving him a significantly higher Minor League salary to supplement a lower bonus? Is common sense the answer?
Brent S - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 06:35 PM EST (#247144) #
One other interesting wrinkle in terms of international free agents is that in order for a player to sign with a major league team, they must first register with MLB.

Effectively, this will remove some of the ability for teams with aggressive Latin America operations to find "hidden gems" as their names will show up in a MLB database before the signing period. I'm sure this directly affects the Jays as they have had luck in the past using their considerable network and resources to find lesser known players (especially in Venezuela).

The sad consequence of all of this, as metafour alludes to, is that this is really a no-win for the entire Latin American market. The North American amateur market still has options under the new CBA -- go to college, play football, etc. The average 16 year old Dominican kid is still going to sign, the only thing that will change is that he will do so for less money.



ayjackson - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 06:40 PM EST (#247145) #

If the draft budget is cumulative instead of per pick, it's not really that bad and shouldn't dilute the talent.  Baseball will still have the richest draft of the major four sports and players will be able to demand their number.

Agree with the general sentiment on Int'l FA.  However, bonuses were poised to take off there.  The cap seems low though.  There has been a suggestion that Int'l Cap room can be traded between teams.  The cumulative cap would be $87m for the league - is that about what they currently spend as a group?

I've also heard that the comp picks to the 10 small market clubs can be traded - has that been confirmed.

My initial reaction to the new CBA was quite negative.  However, there is some intrigue about it and would like to consider it further before jumping to the common conclusion.

Thomas - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 07:00 PM EST (#247146) #
This CBA is a big negative for the Blue Jays, for the amateur players and, potentially, for the talent-level in the sport. The very few positives are outweighed by the large number of negatives.
ayjackson - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 07:12 PM EST (#247147) #

Just because a clause is a negative for the Jays, doesn't mean it isn't a good clause.  For example, draft pick compensation was created because poorer clubs needed to be compensated for being unable to re-sign their expensive free agents.  It didn't do this.  The new CBA attempts to ensure that only expensive FA's garner their former club compensation.

Reading a little more on the International Cap, it seems to still be a work in process with the $2.9m limit applying only to next year (or two) until a new system can be developed.

Thomas - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 07:30 PM EST (#247148) #
Just because a clause is a negative for the Jays, doesn't mean it isn't a good clause.

I never said it wasn't or that the CBA was devoid of positive elements. The draft pick compensation is one of the few positive parts of this CBA. And, as for this $2.9 million limit being temporary, this number is all we have to evaluate the CBA on right now and, in my opinion, that number is a joke.

TamRa - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 07:56 PM EST (#247149) #
couple of thoughts - the cap on international signing budget makes me thing that this is Bud's compensation prize for not being able to sell an international draft.

the idea being folks will be so hacked off by it that the international draft will be seen as an improvement in 2016

also - am I the only one that thinks Beeston brought a truck load of "insider trading" info with him when he came back from MLB (in terms of what Bud wanted in the next CBA) and was able to integrate that with AA's vision in order to best map out a plan to be "organization building" up to now, then flip over to "big market muscle" when things changed?
greenfrog - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 08:02 PM EST (#247150) #
I think the new CBA makes it less likely that AA blithely packages off multiple young prospects in trades. With the new draft and IFA restrictions and the removal of the Type A/B system, young, cheap, cost-controlled talent is going to be more valuable than ever.

I also think that AA needs to be very aggressive in going after Darvish (even if the competition is going to be fierce). In the brave new world of the 2011-16 CBA, Darvish essentially becomes a giant freebie: a chance for AA to do an end run around the draconian new rules and land himself a #2 starter in his prime for the next five years without being penalized or forced to give up a draft pick. The Jays have the money and the opportunity makes more sense than ever. It may represent the Jays' best chance to vault into playoff contention over the next few years.
rtcaino - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 08:14 PM EST (#247151) #
It is sickening to think that they are going to kill the Latin market, where we are literally talking about kids and families with nothing.

I don't see much benevolent intent in the old rules.
ayjackson - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 08:25 PM EST (#247152) #

Apparently there's still room for an International draft in this CBA and that will presumably part of the ensuing discussions.

I'm not sure that $87m for latin americans is less than they received last year.

TamRa - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 08:38 PM EST (#247153) #
Maybe not but 2.9 per team? didn't we spend about that much on Cardona?



By the way, Jim Callis at BA is now reportingthat the draft situation might not be as bad as first suspected.

http://ht.ly/7CjAE

Apparently all the initial negative reaction was based on the commissioner's slot recommendation in 2011 which were, in fact, lower than in 2006. under the new CBA those slot recommendations would be negotiated between the league and MLBPA and will surely be considerably higher.

TamRa - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 08:44 PM EST (#247154) #
OT: a reported was quoted on MLBTR saying that the Rockies were interested in Jeremy Guthrie or Carl Pavano for Houston Street.

Am I the only one who thinks Brett Cecil at 24 is a better acquisition than Guthrie at 32 or Pavano at 35?

particularly if you are willing to kick in a second tier prospect?

(and yes, I'm saying I'd offer Cecil for Street without hesitation)
ayjackson - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 08:50 PM EST (#247155) #

Maybe not but 2.9 per team? didn't we spend about that much on Cardona?

I think we spent $2.4m on Cardona and certainly exceeded $2.9m cap.  My contention was that Latin America might not be worse off.  I wouldn't be surprised that $2.9m was chosen because it was the average and that, if a draft isn't brought in for 2014, cap limits will be tradable to ensure that the total investment in Latin America isn't reduced.

Richard S.S. - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 08:58 PM EST (#247156) #

Mlb.com has the CBA, in its entirety. up for access.   Also River Avenue Blues has Maury Brown doing similar, as does this site.   If you have read all three through, and still have questions, welcome, join the crowd.   If you haven't read all three, DO SO; otherwise don't bother us until you have.

The draft limit is approximately $4.5 MM - $11.5 MM, depending on how many picks you have in the first 10 rounds.   That means A.A. can spend $4.7205 MM - $12.0635 in the draft (4.9%) without more than a 75% tax.   International signing limit is $2.9 MM with the similar penalties.   This, IMO, sucks.

Nick Holmes - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 09:01 PM EST (#247157) #
<blockquote>am I the only one that thinks Beeston brought a truck load of "insider trading" info with him when he came back from MLB (in terms of what Bud wanted in the next CBA) and was able to integrate that with AA's vision in order to best map out a plan to be "organization building" up to now, then flip over to "big market muscle" when things changed?</blockquote>

In hindsight it looks like AA was going for broke viz the old draft system. Even if Beeston didn't have anything to say beyond "stuff is going to change, & not necessarily to our advantage," it was a good idea to get while the getting was good.
We get to see if AA can make adjustments now that the league has caught on.
ayjackson - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 09:08 PM EST (#247158) #
MLB.com just summarizes the MOU.  The detail of the CBA has not been finalized as I understand it.
TamRa - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 09:46 PM EST (#247159) #
I note with interest that Twins (#2), Cubs (#6) Marlins (#9), Rockies (#10), Mets (#12), could all use a guy like Kelly Johnson at 2B...just sayin'

sam - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 09:55 PM EST (#247160) #
Ya BA put up their estimated IFA team spending in 2010, the Jays came in at $4.18 million. More than half the league was over $2.9 million. So ya major roll backs. Darvish has got to be the priority with these new rules.
metafour - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 09:56 PM EST (#247161) #
Just because a clause is a negative for the Jays, doesn't mean it isn't a good clause.


Who, exactly, is this a good clause for? Its not even a "good clause" for teams like Pittsburgh who have ramped up spending big time.  Smaller market teams were just starting to clue-in that they could exploit amateur spending, and now they're getting restricted on that.  Sure, this probably isn't going to be as "bad" as the first reaction suggested; but this only benefits the lazy teams that spend the bare minimum in the draft/international free agency.  I think we'll be fine as scouting ability is more emphasized now, and higher importance will be placed on finding kids like Noah Syndergaard (big talent for low price), which we should be able to excel in with our scouting staff...but I'm sure if you asked AA, or anyone in Pittsburgh, KC, etc. etc. they'd say that they'd rather have free reigns to do what they want.


metafour - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 10:10 PM EST (#247162) #
Looking past the Jays and teams in general; this is nothing but detrimental to the overall talent-pool of baseball period.  You're going to hinder production of Latin players, and you're going to start losing more North American kids to football and basketball.  Brandon Jacobs from the Red Sox organization (signed for $750k as a 10th rounder) stated today that he'd probably be playing football at Auburn right now if this new CBA was in effect when he was drafted.  Jacobs was a raw two-sport kid out of HS; but with no punishment the Red Sox were able to throw enough his way to get him to play baseball.  With caps on spending, teams will be much less inclined to actually throw enough money on these raw two-sport kids to get them to sign, because with a system that punishes you for going over-slot you are forced to be much more efficient with regards to who you choose to throw money at.
Mylegacy - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 10:24 PM EST (#247163) #
In the short term the Jays look to be sitting in as great a place come the next June draft as anyone. With up to 8 picks before the second round...Our first, our extra first for not getting Beede, our third first for Johnson, our supplemental first(s) for: Johnson (our second pick from him), Molina, Rauch, Francisco and Camp.

As I see it AA will pick the 8 best guys we can scout and then basically say: "First to sign gets the money." We could get three or four more studs.

Also: I think AA will now be much LESS inclined to trade our younger prospects until he's sure who the keepers are and who can safely be traded. For instance - would you trade one or two of Hutchison, Molina, Syndergaard and Nicolino (our four best young pitching prospects based on projection + performance so far) knowing what we know today? I wouldn't - I'd wait another year  - or even two or three - with all of them to be 100% sure I was keeping the "cream."

AND - if I traded the "cream" we'd be better to wait until the team we're trading to KNOWS FOR SURE they'll be getting "cream" so they can feel free to trade us the best little trinkets AA can scupper off with. The SHEAR DEPTH of the minor league system has us starting this new CBA in one of the best strategic positions of all 30 teams.

As it says on the money, "In AA we trust."

BlueJayWay - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 10:49 PM EST (#247164) #
Looking past the Jays and teams in general; this is nothing but detrimental to the overall talent-pool of baseball period.  You're going to hinder production of Latin players, and you're going to start losing more North American kids to football and basketball.  Brandon Jacobs from the Red Sox organization (signed for $750k as a 10th rounder) stated today that he'd probably be playing football at Auburn right now if this new CBA was in effect when he was drafted.  Jacobs was a raw two-sport kid out of HS; but with no punishment the Red Sox were able to throw enough his way to get him to play baseball.  With caps on spending, teams will be much less inclined to actually throw enough money on these raw two-sport kids to get them to sign, because with a system that punishes you for going over-slot you are forced to be much more efficient with regards to who you choose to throw money at.

Yeah that concerns me as well, in theory.  I don't know how much that "talent drain" will actually impact things though.  Maybe a lot, maybe not much at all.  A lot of the two sport players seem to be like that Jacobs: raw, longshot take a chance guys.  Players that teams are willing to throw a few hundred more thousand at in the chance he develops into something.  But most likely Brandon Jacobs won't develop into anything much in baseball anyway, being a 10th round pick and all.

The players that *are* in fact really talented and highly thought of, will of course go much higher in the draft, and consequently can get a lot more money.  And that's the other aspect about this we don't know yet: what the actual slot numbers will be for next year.
TamRa - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 10:50 PM EST (#247165) #
How good a prospect would we have to "trade" to the Twins to get them to sign Kelly Johnson?

More realistically - throw in something extra in a trade for Houston Street provided the Rockies sign Johnson?

#alwaysscheming

;)
sam - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 11:11 PM EST (#247166) #
There should be some provision in the CBA that allows teams to sign a two-sport athlete and have only a portion of the bonus count against the cap.

Wasn't it a couple years ago that baseball feared that it was losing athletes to other sports?
Flex - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 11:15 PM EST (#247167) #
There's a misconception that the modified rules for free agents like Kelly Johnson mean that the Jays would get a first-round pick now even if a bottom-15 team signs him. Not the case. The same structure applies as before: if the 1st-round pick would have been protected, the next pick available becomes a 2nd round pick. The difference is the signing team doesn't actually lose the pick; the team that loses the free agent gets the pick immediately before that team's pick.

So the Jays, in other words, wouldn't get a first round pick if the Twins signed Kelly Johnson.

I wish I could find the site that gave the actual wording. All the summations I've seen are missing the nuance.
metafour - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 11:17 PM EST (#247168) #
Wasn't it a couple years ago that baseball feared that it was losing athletes to other sports?


Yes; and now they're giving even less incentive for those kids to choose baseball over other sports.  That makes a whole lot of sense.
TamRa - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 11:30 PM EST (#247169) #
Flex, that's the first I've heard of that.

But I have heard it said that when the first round pick was protected in future years (the top 10) that it would be the "next available pick" not the 2nd round pick)


what you are saying makes no sense though - if, for instance, the Twins were to sign Johnson - why should the jays not get a pick at that level instead of a later one since the Twins don't lose their own pick, there's no "protection" that's applicable.

Are you sure you are not applying things which are true of future years to how they handle the current crop?
John Northey - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 11:31 PM EST (#247170) #
I wonder... could AA get another team who doesn't spend too much on international talent to sign a player for $2 mil then trade someone to them to get that player immediately after?

I can really see guys like AA digging through the new CBA and grinning ear to ear as he finds loopholes and sneaky tricks.
Mylegacy - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 11:42 PM EST (#247171) #
Why can't AA sign a Supplemental First draft pick for - say - $250,000.00 - and then - the next day sign him to a five year minor league deal for $150,000 per year? Only the actual $250,000 of which would be a Signing Draft Bonus...the rest - well - just a normal (but slightly rich) minor league contract...
Magpie - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 12:05 AM EST (#247172) #
A new CBA? An agreement between the players and owners? With no drama? No threats? No deadlines?

What weird parallel universe have I stumbled into?
sam - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 12:20 AM EST (#247173) #
Mylegacy, I had a similar question earlier in the thread. I'm not sure what prevents from doing that. Does anyone know?
jgadfly - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 12:51 AM EST (#247174) #

"the rest - well - just a normal (but slightly rich) minor league contract..." ... Mylegacy 

 OR ...  have Rogers hire him as an intern selling telephones in the off season at a $Million  ...

 OR...   sign him to a personal service contract a la Gretzky - Skalbania ...

  OR...   have the Argos sign him for a $Million contract as a 2 sport guy and only have him hold on field goals ...

jgadfly - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 01:14 AM EST (#247175) #

As per Baseball America ...   "The changes to the amateur scene also affect things internationally, with a cap for the 2012-2013 signing period. Jeff Passan of Yahoo! Sports reported that the cap will be $2.9 million for all teams in the first year, and it will be adjusted for subsequent years based on winning percentage."  (  http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/draft/news/2011/2612639.html )

Now, for the next 6 weeks, we'll have a lot of 15 year old kids saying that they are actually 16 and signing contracts before the new rules apply .

ayjackson - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 01:24 AM EST (#247176) #

I`m pretty skeptical of the impact of losing two sport athletes.  a) baseball`s draft is going to still be richer than any other sport b) we`re still talking about signing for millions or going to college c) they`ll be two sport athletes in college and may still choose baseball.  The may lose some, but it`ll be a marginal impact at the major league level.  As for the Dominican, $87m is still a lot of money, and I think it`s a precursor to a slotted draft.

The CBA takes away opportunities for competitive balance, but I`m not certain it empoverishes nations and diminishes the talent pool significantly.  But then, I`ll reserve judgement until i see the final product.

ayjackson - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 01:26 AM EST (#247177) #

Now, for the next 6 weeks, we'll have a lot of 15 year old kids saying that they are actually 16 and signing contracts before the new rules apply .

The International Signing period is over.

ayjackson - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 01:29 AM EST (#247178) #

what you are saying makes no sense though - if, for instance, the Twins were to sign Johnson - why should the jays not get a pick at that level instead of a later one since the Twins don't lose their own pick, there's no "protection" that's applicable

On the flip side, for these modified FA`s, it makes no sense that we should get access to top 10 draft picks as compensation when we wouldn`t under the old or new system.  I think the top 10 are `protected` for lack of a better term and that we`d get the next Twins draft pick.

I think the Mets are the team we want to sign KJ.

Moe - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 06:10 AM EST (#247179) #
1. The compensation system needed to be fixed and the new system is better than the old system. Although I do find a 12m contract a bit rich. And I don't like that you can't get the comp pick if a player was traded. Basically forces the team to hold on to the player for another 3 months or accept less in return since the new team won't get the comp pick. 

2. The penalty on going over in draft follows a very steep curve: go 15% over and you loose two picks. This is basically a hard cap but if you go over, you might as well go out since above 15% the penalty is only money. So we might see one club going wild one year and go over big time and then dial it back the following year. Another thing that could happen is that some teams continue to be willing to pay and just never draft early. As a result, agents will try and make sure their players fall into the 2nd round to these teams just like right now they are falling into the low first round.  So there could be little change here.

3. The international draft is more of a biggie for me than the rule 4 draft. I really hate that system but I'm not surprised.

4. The extra draft picks for small teams feel like a concession thrown in last second to appease small market teams. 


Moe - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 06:14 AM EST (#247180) #
I think the Mets are the team we want to sign KJ.

That would be the worst possible outcome. In the case of KJ not the new top 10 but the old top 15 rule applies. Him signing with the Mets gives the Jays the lowest possible comp pick (of the teams with need at 2B)

John Northey - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 09:36 AM EST (#247181) #
I suspect there will be interesting fall-out from this deal.

1) International free agents will be far more likely to sign in Japan now as I don't think they have a cap, which will lead to more postings from Japan thus making Japan into even more of a higher minor league by accident (develop international players, then sell them to the majors).

2) We'll see a lot more unsigned guys from the draft, or some teams going nuts every other year, or both. This could be very useful for a team like the Marlins who know they will improve in 2012 (most likely) from a horrid state thus go all out and lose a few lower end first round picks in 2013 while signing higher end picks in 2012. Also would allow a team like the Yankees to go nuts on free agents knowing they will lose later picks due to losing higher picks by going over the limit the year before (ie: if they go over limit for draft picks one year, the next go nuts on free agents knowing they only lose 3rd round picks since they already lost their 1st and 2nd rounds, then draft picks the next year, then free agents the next, etc.).

3) The 125th highest salary requirement for free agent compensation (the $12 mil qualifying offer) will last only one agreement before all compensation is removed.
Paul D - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 09:39 AM EST (#247182) #

I think people think that the slot levels are significantly higher than they actually are.  Slot for the 15th overall is something like $1.5 million.   That means that a two sport athlete drafted in any round after round 2, who has a full college scholarship at a top school, might not be losing that much by going for education.

ayjackson - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 09:58 AM EST (#247183) #

In the case of KJ not the new top 10 but the old top 15 rule applies.

I was not aware of this.  In fact, I have not seen anything in writing from MLB wrt the modified Type A's that would clarify things.  I'm only going off "twitter noise".

Jonny German - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 10:55 AM EST (#247184) #
Speaking of second basemen, what about Orlando Hudson? Word on the street is that the Padres want to move either him or Jason Bartlett, and are expecting Bartlett to be easier to move. I guess the big concern with Hudson is health. He did manage to play virtually every day for the latter 3 months of the 2011 season.
BlueJayWay - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 10:57 AM EST (#247185) #
Now we're starting to get some more of the info.  According to this article the slot amounts will be much higher in 2012:

[url]http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/draft/2011/11/draft-cap-may-not-be-so-harsh/[/url]

John Northey - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 11:08 AM EST (#247186) #
Makes a lot of sense. MLB players union would want any cap to be as loose as possible. The owners would be happy just to get a cap of any size. Thus one with massive amounts that most teams won't ever reach makes a lot of sense (ala the luxury tax that hits 1-3 teams a year).
John Northey - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 11:12 AM EST (#247187) #
If the Jays just want a one year stop-gap until Adieny is ready to take over SS (with Escobar moving to 2B) then Hudson would make a lot of sense. His contract is a bit high ($5.5 next year with $2 mil buyout for 2013 $8 mil option) but that would probably make him cost less in prospects. The Jays certainly could do worse. For what its worth, since 2004 (his 2nd full season) FanGraphs has him over $8 mil in value all but one season (where he is listed at $7.2).
Richard S.S. - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 11:19 AM EST (#247188) #

4. The extra draft picks for small teams feel like a concession thrown in last second to appease small market teams. 

That's a strange comment to make.  Who gets the draft picks forfeited by the teams going over the slot?   With the Competitive Balance Lottery, it now lets you trade certain draft picks:

Competitive Balance Lottery

A. For the first time, Clubs with the lowest revenues and in the smallest markets will have an opportunity to obtain additional draft picks through a lottery.

B. The ten Clubs with the lowest revenues, and the ten Clubs in the smallest markets, will be entered into a lottery for the six draft selections immediately following the completion of the first round of the draft. A Clubís odds of winning the lottery will be based on its prior seasonís winning percentage.

C. The eligible Clubs that did not receive one of the six selections after the first round, and all other payee Clubs under the Revenue Sharing Plan, will be entered into a second lottery for the six picks immediately following the completion of the second round of the draft. A Clubís odds of winning the lottery will be based on its prior seasonís winning percentage.

D. Picks awarded in the Competitive Balance Lottery may be assigned by a Club

MLB/MLBPA

Jonny German - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 11:34 AM EST (#247189) #
If the Jays just want a one year stop-gap until Adieny is ready to take over SS (with Escobar moving to 2B) then Hudson would make a lot of sense. His contract is a bit high ($5.5 next year with $2 mil buyout for 2013 $8 mil option) but that would probably make him cost less in prospects.

I like the option year as a safety net in case Hechavarria doesn't learn to hit - which in my mind is a very real possibility. The money is not enough to scare me, and with Magic Alex youneverknow, maybe the Padres end up paying some of Teahen's contract.

For what its worth, since 2004 (his 2nd full season) FanGraphs has him over $8 mil in value all but one season (where he is listed at $7.2).


It's worth less than nothing, IMNSHO. I wish you'd stop referring to such a deeply flawed stat.
greenfrog - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 11:38 AM EST (#247190) #
Interesting tweet from Keith Law:

@dlh1610 @Wilnerness590 Beede's failure to sign was about a disagreement over his health, not money.
1 hour ago
Moe - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 11:42 AM EST (#247191) #

4. The extra draft picks for small teams feel like a concession thrown in last second to appease small market teams. 

That's a strange comment to make. 

What's strange about that. Many comments say that the new CBA is more favorable to the big teams ("written by a Steinbrenner"). This lottery helps alleviate the concern somewhat that the smaller teams get fewer draft picks under the new system than the old. 


AWeb - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 11:50 AM EST (#247192) #

I think I end up seeing the spending restrictions as a net positive thing, long term. Sure, right now, the small market/money teams have ramped up spending on the draft and international signings. But long-term, why wouldn't big money teams flood into the same inefficiencies and remove the advantages that could be had? This is a pre-emptive strike against properly valuing draft picks and international players - they are clearly worth more than they got historically, but there is a proper level for each team. As with free agents, though, a team like the Yankees can simply bid higher, because they get more value out of a good player than Pittsburg or Toronto does. It was only a matter of time before they started to do this, and removed most of the surplus value available to other teams.

Also, the free agent compensation rules  - I don't mind this either. Acquiring a player so someone else could sign him and get you get a pick is a pretty convoluted way to go about things, and isn't particularly fair to players. I'd open up trading of draft picks right now though (traded picks come with the slot value attached). If you want a place where well run teams crush poorly run teams, look at draft pick trades over the years. It would be especially fun in baseball, with 50 rounds of picks to trade. I'd love a "Toronto acquires draft picks in rounds 3, 6, and 14-50" from Chicago in exchange for player X" type trade.

John Northey - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 12:11 PM EST (#247193) #
Heh. Could imagine AA trading and asking for the 11th round pick as 'filler' (doesn't count against cap unless you go over $100k). 9 out of 10 times it would amount to nothing but one never knows.

Only 6 11th rounders for Jays made the majors so far: Willie Blair, Ed Vosberg (didn't sign) are the two highlights. Vinnie Chulk is the only 12th rounder to reach. Alex Gonzalez #1 is the top 13th rounder (not bad). Brandon Lyon, Jay Gibbons for the 14th. Reed Johnson was a 17th rounder. Jeff Kent a 20th rounder (now _that_ was a good one).

Gems do exist later on and I could see AA trying to build up on those while sneaking in a 1st/2nd rounder here and there in a trade.

I suspect the trade-able picks for the 6 lottery winners will be chased down hard by AA.
BlueJayWay - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 12:22 PM EST (#247194) #
I think I end up seeing the spending restrictions as a net positive thing, long term. Sure, right now, the small market/money teams have ramped up spending on the draft and international signings. But long-term, why wouldn't big money teams flood into the same inefficiencies and remove the advantages that could be had? This is a pre-emptive strike against properly valuing draft picks and international players - they are clearly worth more than they got historically, but there is a proper level for each team. As with free agents, though, a team like the Yankees can simply bid higher, because they get more value out of a good player than Pittsburg or Toronto does. It was only a matter of time before they started to do this, and removed most of the surplus value available to other teams.

Yeah I agree and said this on DJF yesterday.  There was nothing stopping the Yankees etc. from going hey, let's go crazy on the draft and IFA and blow the Pittsburghs out of the water there, if they so chose.  Now everyone is on the same level there.
Thomas - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 12:25 PM EST (#247195) #
Heh. Could imagine AA trading and asking for the 11th round pick as 'filler

AFAIK, I thought only these new low-revenue, low-market picks were tradeable, not the rest of the picks in the amateur draft.

Beyonder - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 12:53 PM EST (#247196) #

I think I end up seeing the spending restrictions as a net positive thing, long term. Sure, right now, the small market/money teams have ramped up spending on the draft and international signings. But long-term, why wouldn't big money teams flood into the same inefficiencies and remove the advantages that could be had? This is a pre-emptive strike against properly valuing draft picks and international players - they are clearly worth more than they got historically, but there is a proper level for each team. As with free agents, though, a team like the Yankees can simply bid higher, because they get more value out of a good player than Pittsburg or Toronto does. It was only a matter of time before they started to do this, and removed most of the surplus value available to other teams.

"Yeah I agree and said this on DJF yesterday.  There was nothing stopping the Yankees etc. from going hey, let's go crazy on the draft and IFA and blow the Pittsburghs out of the water there, if they so chose.  Now everyone is on the same level there."

I don't think it is necessarily true that it was only a matter of time before big market teams start to exploit the same innefficiencies as Toronto and Pittsburg.  If you are a big market club like the Yankees or Red Sox, your dominant strategy is to let other teams develop stars, and then pay to bring them over as free agents.  This leaves a smaller proportion of your roster that needs to be filled by minor league talent.  Conversely, teams like the Jays, as net losers in free agency (they lose more players than they gain) depend more on home grown roster solutions.

With fewer spaces to fill, home-grown talent is marginally less important to big market clubs than it is for smaller markets.  This is not to say that either the Yankees or Red Sox neglect their player development -- it is just that their incentive to spend on player development is lower than the small market clubs'. 

Given that the Red Sox and Yanks are going to overspend on free agency, the Jays' dominant strategy is to overspend on the draft.  So a cap on draft spending handcuffs teams (like the Jays) who rely on overspending on the draft as their dominant strategy, while allowing big market clubs full access to theirs.

rpriske - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 12:54 PM EST (#247197) #

The amount you can spend on the draft, international signings and roster payroll should all be combined, complete with luxury tax rules (if not an actual cap).

 

That way the TEAM can decide where to utilize its resources. If they want to spend more on the draft and less on the current roster, they can do so. If they want to spend the money itnernationally, they can... they just can't throw all the money everywhere like some rich teams coudl if they wanted.

As it is, it feels like teams willb epunished for using their money wisely.

John Northey - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 12:56 PM EST (#247198) #
Thomas: that's true - I was just commenting on the speculation by AWeb about opening it up fully. AA would probably be the type to chase down all kinds of oddball picks causing all kinds of confusion for other GM's. "You want my 43rd round pick as well? What the heck do you want that for?"

Casey Schueler was drafted in the 43rd round of the 1993 draft by her father Ron Schueler, GM of the White Sox. Thus later picks can get silly. Of course, one of those silly picks, a mangers godson, ended up being Mike Piazza.
Spifficus - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 12:57 PM EST (#247199) #
That sounds great in theory, but why would the MLBPA agree to something that takes money out of their current members' pockets and put it in those of players that may or may not become members down the road?
Mike Green - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 02:12 PM EST (#247204) #
With Orlando Hudson, the question is basically about the current state of his defensive abilities in light of his age.  Both DRS and UZR suggest that he lost range last year, but one-year defensive statistics are usually subject to a very wide error bar.  He did have two groin injuries during the year which may have hampered mobility.  I don't know how well he was moving at the end of the year.  Of course, Hudson is a favourite player of mine and if he is healthy and moving well, I would be happy to see him back in Toronto.

The new CBA draft provisions essentially create a two-tier draft.  The players with bonuses above $100,000 and those with bonuses below.  For the first tier, clubs will have to figure out whether they want to go with a quality or for quantity.  I can very well see a club passing on its 9th or 10th round pick.  With regard to the second tier, there is no bulk limit.  You probably can make a case for spending heavily on one's first three or four picks, and then either picking filler after that or not picking at all until the second tier. 



AWeb - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 02:22 PM EST (#247205) #

With fewer spaces to fill, home-grown talent is marginally less important to big market clubs than it is for smaller markets.  This is not to say that either the Yankees or Red Sox neglect their player development -- it is just that their incentive to spend on player development is lower than the small market clubs'. 

I do see this point as well, I just recognize that much of the success of recent Yankee and Red Sox teams have been through the homegrown stars, rather than the free agents.  It might be less vital to team success, but ownership would absolutely love it if the Yankees could be just as good for 85% of the cost. Saving one $20 million/year contract would make the extra investment a no-brainer for them.

greenfrog - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 02:34 PM EST (#247206) #
It will be interesting to see what the Jays' overall draft cap is in 2012. They could have as many as seven extra picks in the first two rounds (Beede comp, KJ=2 picks, Camp, Francisco, Molina, Rauch). That could mean as many as 17 picks in the first 10 rounds, many of them in the first round, supp round, and/or second round.

Presumably their draft cap will be close to the maximum amount (around $11.5M, according to BA) - maybe a bit less. If the Jays employ the same strategy as last year (selecting high-upside players and/or tough signs), they could strategically allocate their spending, ending up with around ten very good players from that group. That would be a successful draft.
BCMike - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 02:44 PM EST (#247207) #
I find it funny that all over the web everyone is all up in arms about the new rules and everyone is talking in certainties. There are going to be so many unforeseen and unintended consequences to the new rules. There will be plenty of options and inefficiencies for guys like AA to take advantage of.
John Northey - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 03:19 PM EST (#247208) #
I'm guessing AA will draft the best talent again but only sign those who accept the deals quickly until the cap is hit then too bad, no deal for you, go to college and sit out a year.

What will be very interesting is seeing how agents deal with it. If you have 3 guys who are drafted by the same team you could be conflicted as you want to maximize your bonus by getting all 3 to sign for the full cap, but the team might say 'we'll give $5 mil to 2 or $4 mil to one' thus making a major ethics conflict vs the amount the agent could make (encouraging one guy to sign for less than he could).
Jonny German - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 03:28 PM EST (#247209) #
I can very well see a club passing on its 9th or 10th round pick.

More likely, and more insidious, is that teams will select players in the 9th and 10th with no intention of signing them unless things don't go as planned with the higher picks. Thus blocking other teams from picking those players, and potentially leaving those players with no good options.
Beyonder - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 03:31 PM EST (#247211) #

I don't see why there would be any more of an ethical conflict in that situation than there is in the NBA where an agent represents a number of players.  You cut the best deal you can for the player you are approached for first (usually the player with the highest bargaining power).   It is a soft cap, so it is not like a dollar paid to one player necesarily comes at the expense of another.  

From a player's point of view though, it might make me reconsider hiring an agent that represented too many prospects.

greenfrog - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 03:49 PM EST (#247212) #
Jonny, good point. And perhaps not just in the 9th and 10th rounds. There could be players in earlier rounds who are willing to sign for reasonable amounts, but get lowballed because the team that drafted them allocated most of its spending elsewhere (especially where, as in the case of the 2012 Jays, the team has a surplus of early round picks that it will likely reach slot on).
John Northey - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 04:05 PM EST (#247214) #
Yeah, I'd be drafting the best talent regardless of signability then sign whoever I can until I hit the budget limit. So of the top 10 rounds maybe 5 or 6 won't be signed instead of 1 or 2. Not nice for the kids, but in the end, iirc, about 5 guys per team per draft make the majors and of those only 1 or 2 will have any real value.

For example...
Jays 2000: 4 reached majors, none have a 2 WAR
2001: 7 reached, 2 are over 2 for WAR (McGowan highest)
2002: 8 reached, just 1 with a positive WAR (4.6 for Bush)
2003: 7 reached, 3 over 0.2 for WAR 2 over 10 (very good draft)
2004: 7 reached, 3 over 2 for WAR
2005: 3 reached (1 was a dns), Romero at 11 WAR only one over 0.2

So over 6 drafts we see from 3 to 8 reach but no more than 3 ever being worth much of anything.

Thought I'd do a quick endpoint check and 1999 had 4 (3 over 5 WAR plus a 0.2), 5 for 1998 (2 over 2, one over 5), then the great one - 1997 with 8 reaching, 6 over 2 for WAR and 3 (!) over 20 for WAR from rounds 1/5/43 (Wells, Young, Hudson).

Yes, WAR isn't perfect but if you can't crack 2 WAR lifetime odds are you were very replaceable by AAAA type guys.
TamRa - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 04:18 PM EST (#247216) #
"The International Signing period is over."

When does it end? The jays signed a latin player just this month.


------------------

"That would be the worst possible outcome. In the case of KJ not the new top 10 but the old top 15 rule applies. Him signing with the Mets gives the Jays the lowest possible comp pick (of the teams with need at 2B)"

I'm thinking the counter argument here is also just speculation. I want to see a professional opinion on two points:

1. if a team can sign Johnson without losing their first round pick, yet the Jays get a pick directly previous to it, does that apply to all 30 teams, the teams outside the top 10, or the teams outside the top 15?

Someone ask Law or Callis or some such.

2. if some type A free agents have been modified such that the current team does not have to offer arbitration in order to get compensated, then does this imply that Type B free agents also do not need an offer to bring back a comp pick?

I asked a couple of folks (Callis and Goldstien) this on twitter last night and did not get a satisfying answer (Callis did not reply and Goldstien misunderstood the question)
finch - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 04:58 PM EST (#247217) #
This was sort of answered on MLBTR where they've listed all the comp free agents and stated whether a decision was still required of not. Some Bs were and some weren't.

From MLBTR:

"Teams with decisions still due:

Red Sox: Jonathan Papelbon (A, already signed with Phillies), David Ortiz (A), Jason Varitek (B), Dan Wheeler (B)
Blue Jays: Shawn Camp (B), Frank Francisco (B), Kelly Johnson (A, will not cost signing team a draft pick), Jose Molina (B), Jon Rauch (B)
Athletics:
Tigers: Wilson Betemit (B), Magglio Ordonez (B)
Yankees: Freddy Garcia (B)
Moe - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 05:22 PM EST (#247218) #
At the end of a Jason Stark article at ESPN I found this:
"By the end of this labor deal in 2016, teams in the 15 largest markets will no longer be allowed to receive revenue-sharing welfare, no matter how lousy their TV contract or attendance may be."
Since the Jays are in one of the 15 largest markets, they will no longer receive Bud's welfare check. I have not seen this elsewhere, so it might be wrong but it could be a big deal if (a) attendance stays low or (b) the Can$ falls again. Although in the case of the loonie there might be an informal way. Presumably, this will also exclude the Jays from the small market draft lottery down the road.



sam - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 06:07 PM EST (#247219) #
What does he mean by "largest market?" I think he means the top 15 teams in revenue generation, in which case we would likely be OK. But ya there are some teams on the cusp there who qualify to be top 15, but yet have very little operating income. The Diamonbacks for one would be royally screwed by this
Moe - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 06:19 PM EST (#247220) #
Unfortunately, not

One source tells ESPN.com the 15 teams that will be ineligible for revenue sharing by 2016 are the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Angels, Cubs, White Sox, Phillies, Red Sox, Rangers, Braves, Nationals, Blue Jays, Astros, Giants and A's.

Of course, he could be wrong.  No one else reported this but it is from  espn and not twitter.


Moe - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 06:23 PM EST (#247221) #
It is section IV(b) of this document http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/2011_CBA.pdf

It doesn't say what largest market means but normally market size is the number of people living there. Which in case of the Jays is a lot.  If it were revenue based, the provision "by 2016" would make little sense.


NDG - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 06:47 PM EST (#247222) #
Which of course makes perfect sense.  Any team can hide revenues which makes any revenue based scheme impossible to implement in any meaningful way.  Also the Jays probably play in the 5th or 6th largest market in NA, with 3 of the larger ones having two teams.
BlueJayWay - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 07:41 PM EST (#247223) #
I find it funny that all over the web everyone is all up in arms about the new rules and everyone is talking in certainties. There are going to be so many unforeseen and unintended consequences to the new rules. There will be plenty of options and inefficiencies for guys like AA to take advantage of.

Yeah.  Like how a lot of people are saying this CBA is terrible for small/medium market teams, and great for the big markets.  Yet most Yankee and Red Sox fans it seems hate this CBA, thinking it's terrible for them how they can't snag the amateur talent like they could.

One of the things that always bothered me (and a lot of people, apparently) is how the Red Sox and Yankees maintain strong farm systems, despite finishing with great records year after year and thus picking late.  They did this by throwing money overslot, and getting players that dropped due to signability concerns.  They were also big players on the international market.  And certainly in the case of Boston, they were masters at gaming the Elias system to pick up extra picks left right and centre.  Now, they won't be able to do this.  The new CBA will give the smaller markets (or at least, the teams with worse records) much better shot at the best amateur talent, both in the draft and internationally.
scottt - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 07:48 PM EST (#247224) #
Pretty weird rules overall.

How much is the average salary of the 125 highest-paid players from 2011?

Do we have any comments from Boras?

I think the real question is "are teams more likely to pick the best player available?"

The sticky point here is perhaps the potential loss of future draft plcks for going over slot, but even that is moot for teams that were losing draft picks for signing free agents.Those teams will find themselves with too many picks.

Ideally, the slot should not come into play much in the first round.

Also, without the loss of draft picks, the Jays have no excuses for not signing top free agents.



BlueJayWay - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 07:49 PM EST (#247225) #
Of course, having said all that, it's hard to know in which category the Jays sit.  Rogers runs them like a small market, but the potential is here to be absolutely huge. 
Jdog - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 08:23 PM EST (#247226) #
I haven't searched too dilligently but I have yet to find the answer to one huge question I have.

If a team doesn't sign a draft pick in one of the first 3 rounds does the money alloted to that pick transfer to the next year to cover the comp pick for the player not signing, or does the teams still get the full cap allotment?

actionjackson - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 08:24 PM EST (#247227) #
"Do we have any comments from Boras?"

Perhaps, but I would think relaying any of them would cause one to get a language infraction, and I'm not about to do that, seeing as I post so infrequently here.

btfsplk325 - Wednesday, November 23 2011 @ 09:28 PM EST (#247229) #
Moe says "It doesn't say what largest market means but normally market size is the number of people living there. Which in case of the Jays is a lot. If it were revenue based, the provision "by 2016" would make little sense."

When talking about market size, I would say that demographics matter too, not just raw population numbers. Toronto alone may have over 3 million residents but roughly half are recent immigrants from countries with no tradition in baseball. I venture to say that most of these people, and maybe even their children, will never be interested in baseball, ever.
Moe - Thursday, November 24 2011 @ 02:53 AM EST (#247235) #
When talking about market size, I would say that demographics matter too, not just raw population numbers. Toronto alone may have over 3 million residents but roughly half are recent immigrants from countries with no tradition in baseball. I venture to say that most of these people, and maybe even their children, will never be interested in baseball, ever.

I don't think baseball is that sophisticated. And it would open the door to all sorts of other qualifiers. Like that Toronto is a hockey town and some of the other markets football towns. In fact, being an immigrant myself, I have plenty of immigrant fans. Most of us pick at least one new "American" sport. For most in Toronto it seems to be hockey but it could be baseball (like for me) if the Jays/baseball do a good job (in my case, thank you Roy Halladay and 2003 postseason -- recently ranked #1 for the Wildcard era by the Hardball Times).

What I find more interesting that based on the list by ESPN, MLB has a very narrow definition of the market. Miami sits in a huge MSA but the city itself is small. Based on the metro area, they should be on the list but they aren't. But then again, Boston is on the list but they are in a very small city as well. Baseball must use it's own definition of market size, so who knows.


jgadfly - Thursday, November 24 2011 @ 03:02 AM EST (#247236) #

Gregor Chisholm reports that the Jays offered salary arb to four players. " Second baseman Kelly Johnson, catcher Jose Molina, right-hander Frank Francisco and right-hander Jon Rauch received offers, but right-hander Shawn Camp did not. "

 Strange that they worked Camp so hard to get him to 'B' status and then cut him loose .             

  http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111124&content_id=26038816&vkey=news_tor&c_id=tor

Richard S.S. - Thursday, November 24 2011 @ 05:20 AM EST (#247237) #
The Competitive Balance Lottery gives (winning percentage included):
10 Teams with smallest Markets (not in order)   10 Teams with lowest Revenue (not in order)
Kansas City  .438                                                          Kansas City  .438
Cincinnati    .488                                                          Cincinnati    .488
Pittsburgh    .444                                                          Pittsburgh   .444
Tampa Bay    .562                                                         Tampa Bay   .562
San Diego     .438                                                          San Diego    .438
Cleveland     .444                                                          Cleveland     .444
Minnesota    .389                                                          Minnesota   .389
Colorado       .451                                                          Miami          .444
Milwaukee    .593                                                          Oakland       .457
St. Louis       .556                                                          Toronto       .500
each one a chance at 6 draft picks, occurring at start of 1st Supplementary Round (possibly a 1 in 13 chance).
Those teams that lose out here (possibly 7 teams) get a second chance at 6 draft picks, occurring at start of
2nd Supplementary Round (joining some other teams - odds are much smaller).  Toronto has a chance.  These
picks might be traded.
Moe - Thursday, November 24 2011 @ 05:31 AM EST (#247238) #
10 Teams with smallest Markets (not in order)   10 Teams with lowest Revenue (not in order)

This makes it very clear that MLB distinguishes between size and revenue. Toronto is one of the biggest markets, even if revenue is small. So they may get a shot at a draft pick from the revenue side but not the market size side and they will stop receiving revenue sharing money down the road because that only goes to small revenue teams in small markets.



Richard S.S. - Thursday, November 24 2011 @ 05:52 AM EST (#247239) #
"The International Signing period is over."
...A. Beginning in the 2013-2014 signing period (July 2, 2013 - June 15, 2014)... seems to indicate a longer signing
period existed before this.  This http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/11/minor-moves-edgar-gonzalez-.html and
this http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/2011/11/blue-jays-reds-sign-venezuelan-pitchers/ indicates no,
it's still going on.  So I don't know where your information came from.
Gerry - Thursday, November 24 2011 @ 08:58 AM EST (#247241) #

My understanding is that the International signing period starts in the summer, July 1st I believe.  Most of the more attractive prospects sign shortly after that date.  There is no end to the signing period but the players who sign late, as in now, are either late bloomers, lower graded prospects, or players whose status has been delayed due to identification issues.

It's just like free agency, the big dogs go first, and the marginal guys go at the end.

ayjackson - Thursday, November 24 2011 @ 10:46 AM EST (#247248) #

My understanding is that the International signing period starts in the summer, July 1st I believe.

Well if there's a start, there must be an end.  I'd thought it was a window, but could be mistaken.  If your right Gerry, then anybody who turns 16 after December 31, must wait until July 1 to sign.

bpoz - Thursday, November 24 2011 @ 11:43 AM EST (#247251) #
greenfrog & others, thank you for your insights into this complicated topic.
17 picks in 10 rounds you calculate for the 2012 draft, I did not know that. Thanks. If you know (some what), our # picks for 2013, please let me know & thank you.

You also seem to have an idea of the $ Cap. If you know the 2012 & 2013 amount, please let me know.

Based on information, I am lacking, I was wondering about the effects of strategy if we ended up with significantly less or more pick in 2013 and how the cap $ total would make any differences. Please speculate if you wish. Unsigned picks in 2012 could be 1 factor maybe.
Gerry - Thursday, November 24 2011 @ 11:49 AM EST (#247253) #

I didn't find a full explanation but I found this on BA:

With the draft now complete, teams turn their attention to the other major source of amateur talent: the international market.

Scouting directors, assistant general managers and other chief decision makers will be making their way to Latin America in the coming weeks. July 2 is the first date when 16-year-olds from outside of the United States, Canada and Puerto can sign, and teams' top talent evaluators are getting their final looks at some of the top international free agents on the market.

 

bpoz - Thursday, November 24 2011 @ 06:27 PM EST (#247262) #
I am not sure but I remember something like... there is a special league for elite prospects, but that may only be in the DR.
I think this years top rated guy was an OF with a surplus of everything. He may also have had a portfolio with some video.

If that is true then it is possible that he played there for 2-3 years, starting as a 14 year old. Just guessing here. This league would need coaches, trainers & other stuff costing Money. This may be a business type of entity and they would get money from the kids signing bonuses.

For H Alvarez & N Molina from Venezuela, they are the same age as our Balbino who is from the DR. They tried out on some field and were signed for a small $ amount, I read this in one of the Toronto papers that got linked by a Bauxite. As I recall.
So maybe this is the distinction that is not spelled out but significant.
J Labourt also signed after the deadline.
I find that Sam is great at posting information on the Intl prospects.
sam - Thursday, November 24 2011 @ 09:52 PM EST (#247267) #
The rules have changed recently I think, kids are now having to register in the DR with MLB before getting signed so they can weed out age and performance enhancing drugs. Nonetheless, I think some of the basics to the IFA market are still the same. Kids that are 16 during the IFA year are allowed to sign with any team on July 2. So next year, kids that are born in 1996 I believe will be allowed to sign. If a kid turns 16 in between July 2 and December 31 of the year, they can sign once they turn 16. I believe this happened to Raul Mondesi's son last year with the Royals. Anyone who is 16 or older is basically a free agent in the DR or Venezuela and can sign whenever they so chose. I believe this is what happened with Jairo Labourt who signed in January as a 16 year old. There are two prospect leagues in the DR. I think one is called the Dominican Prospect League which Dawel Lugo came out of but I'm not sure what the other one is called. The leagues are run by trainers or "buscons" and scouts and anyone really trying to make a fast buck. These trainers essentially scour the island for 12-13 years old, take them under their wing and train them to play baseball or at least train them so that they look like they'll have tools to play baseball at the next level. For their services they take a cut of the bonus paid. In recent years, agents like Scott Boras have advised kids in the DR, and then signed them similar to draft prospects. However, this has been a relatively recent phenomenon and one that I think these trainers resent. By all accounts, these trainers are highly protective of their players and their prospects. The business is notoriously shady with trainers taking significant cuts of bonuses, with MLB executives being known to skim bonuses off kids as well (see Jim Bowden).

The leagues are a recent phenomenon as well and have been by and large commended by scouts and MLB. As was often the case with trainers and some of the elite prospects, trainers would often shelter their prospect, rarely having them play in organized games or do anything but hit BP and play long toss. Nomar Mazara from last years class was one of these kids who scouts often complained that his handlers would very rarely allow him to workout under game situations. Basically the Rangers gave him record money based off body-type, a 60-yard dash, and prodigious batting-practice power. There are some videos out there that show his plus power, but also a very high leg-kick. But last year was a strong crop of kids and I think there was four or five kids getting $2 million plus in bonuses. Venezuela is a bit different than the DR. The Jays signed three kids who trained with one of the professional teams there. It's less of a gun-slinging-type environment than the DR. Mexico is different as well, as the kid kids work with professional teams and a player has to be bought off a team. So the kid the Jays got from Mexico this year got a substantially smaller bonus as a result.

Anyways, what does that mean for IFA kids next year? Well they'll obviously get less money. Teams only have X dollars to spend. Also, as was often the case in the past, many kids get signed well after July 2. Most kids just don't develop until they're a bit older and the DPL is a good place for those kids to keep working out. However, I suspect some teams will blow all of their money on one or two players instead of spreading it out on several as most teams do. I think you'll see a lot of kids who might get signed under the old rules not sign and not get a chance. Also with less money out there I don't see the same civility that seems to have come over the Caribbean countries in recent years. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
bpoz - Friday, November 25 2011 @ 09:57 AM EST (#247269) #
Hey Sam, that was a great write up, very informative. Thanks.

I hope, really hope that those children are being properly cared for. Strictness is fine by me. It is an opportunity for everyone involved to make some money & give the kids a chance at something good. OFF my soapbox now.

J Labourt DOB March 7,1994, so he was 16, 2 months shy of 17 when signed in Jan 2011. Also signed about that time G Cenas DOB Oct 16,1993 & L Martin DOB Feb 12,1994 so they were probably 17 years old.
From the past, I believe Tony Fernandez was maybe 14 years old when signed by the jays.

John Northey - Friday, November 25 2011 @ 12:47 PM EST (#247270) #
At one time you could sign kids at pretty much any age. Jimy Kelly (misspelled at B-R as Jimmy - I remember his being the same as Jimy Williams) was playing in the GCL at age 14 and iirc played in spring training at 14 as well. Amazing to see a guy whose career was over before he turned 20.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=kelly-001jim

Tony Fernandez was 17 at the start of his first minor league season.
Mylegacy - Friday, November 25 2011 @ 02:12 PM EST (#247272) #
This a "copy" of something I put on Jayprospects.com in response to their interesting thread about the the new CBA.

To me it is clear that to "game" the new system the only tools that I can see as being game changers at this time are: "scouting" and "thinking outside of the box.".

For HS kids In the States, Canada and Porto Rico, with the Jays emphasis on scouting we'll be able to find more late bloomers like Synderaard - and sign them for more than they thought they'd get but still an OK number under the cap. As to undrafted HS players - really great scouting can find a few of these guys every year - we can blow them away with what ever we want to get them to sign. Think of guys who's families tell teams that their kids are DEFINITELY going to college - a guy like that - undrafted - after the draft might be willing to rethink his priorities for a pocket full of loonies - or the 'Merican equivalent.

For college kids - I see two ways to get an edge. Firstly, clearly more kids will be going to college rather than getting drafted - fair enough. However, great scouting of these guys can again give us at least a little step up. As for "gaming" this part of the system - how about setting up an Independent team and having that team sign guys who are freshmen (can't get drafted by MLB) have those guys withdraw from college and then sign an agreement with a Jays minor league team as an undrafted free agent for whatever we agree with them on. This could work IF we had an excellent scouting system of guys who could get into the players, and the players families, heads and convince them this is a way to get ahead.

Latin America is where I see the new rules DESTROYING the present system there. I also see an EXCELLENT opportunity - what the Jays need to do is HIRE the guys who are now acting as their own "scouting and development" bureaus. Hire these guys to set up Jay's Only training facilities to duplicate what they are now doing only pay them an overhead payment plus an ongoing fee for every player they get us who makes the show based on that player's length of service, money earned, etc.  To try and bypass these guys and set up your own system would lead to a really ugly situation down there...but it is something to consider.

If there is a way to win in this new battleground I've no doubt that AA will find that way - IF the only way to win is just great scouting - well, we've got a leg up there to start the game. Gentlemen, start your engines!
TamRa - Friday, November 25 2011 @ 03:50 PM EST (#247273) #
that makes me wonder something.

We all know about guys like Casey Lawrence - undrafted free agents signed after the draft.

So - what happens if a Josh Bell type comes along, who is flatly committed to college and the new system doesn't give anyone the flexibility to sign him - does he go undrafted?

If so could not any team throw big money at him as an "undrafted free agent" and it not count towards the cap?


Probably you could only score like that a few times before the other teams caught on and started using their very low draft picks to take these guys and keep them off that market - but when you do that you take away your own ability to sign the guy too.

I'll be interested to see if any of those guys escape the draft unnamed.
John Northey - Friday, November 25 2011 @ 04:14 PM EST (#247274) #
I was wondering that too, if guys avoid the draft could they get a bidding war going. I suspect MLB has a clause that puts these guys under the 'international free agent' group - if not, they will I suspect the minute someone sneaks through. Wonder how long before we see Boras find a way to sneak a kid past the draft just to test the theory (ie: kid is thought to need another year to finish high school, does equivalency on the quiet then announces it publicly a day after the draft pointing out he was qualified to be drafted but no one did).

Other neat tricks are signing a guy, then giving his parents, siblings, etc. jobs at Rogers for $200k a year or something. Again, will probably be noticed but harder to prevent, especially if you keep the pay within kinda/sorta reason (ie: paying $200k for a job normally worth $50k or something). I bet a lot of kids would love to help their entire family and this could work. Especially for free agents from non-US/Canada (Rogers pulls a few strings to help a few immigrate to Canada for example).
ayjackson - Friday, November 25 2011 @ 05:14 PM EST (#247276) #

Ő don`t think under any circumstance would a Josh Bell type go undrafted.

TamRa - Friday, November 25 2011 @ 10:03 PM EST (#247290) #
someone mentioned on Twitter the idea of drafting a guy you want, then drafting his untalented brother with the 44th pick or something and "paying" the brother $999,999 with the understanding that's actually going to the guy you want.

bpoz - Saturday, November 26 2011 @ 07:06 AM EST (#247295) #
Very creative thinking. Well done.

I wonder if we will go back to having a 2nd DSL team.
Paul D - Saturday, November 26 2011 @ 10:31 AM EST (#247297) #
There's a cap of $100,000 for players drafted after the 10th.
Gerry - Saturday, November 26 2011 @ 11:25 AM EST (#247299) #
And by a cap Paul means that is the amount you can pay a draftee without it impacting your bonus limit. If a player drafted after the 10th round did get $999,999, $899,999 would be added to what the team spent in the first ten rounds for cap purposes.
Ron - Saturday, November 26 2011 @ 02:04 PM EST (#247305) #
There's really no loophole I can think of in the CBA for drafted players unless you want to do something "illegal" like paying a player "under the table".  I'm curious to see what tricks Boras has up his sleeve though.


TamRa - Saturday, November 26 2011 @ 03:42 PM EST (#247310) #
I had one too many nines - I meant $99,999
Gerry - Saturday, November 26 2011 @ 07:16 PM EST (#247320) #
I am not sure if this has been mentioned but the new CBA slightly devalues your DH. In 2011 there were 9 road games that were non-DH. Under the new schedule there will be 15 non-DH games. You lose 6 games from your DH. If you have a DH who can play a position your loss could be reduced to the value of the player he is replacing but if you have a David Ortiz type you will be losing approx. 24 at-bats or 4% of his value.

On a $15m annual contract that is $600,000.
bpoz - Sunday, November 27 2011 @ 01:18 PM EST (#247328) #
Just to clarify for myself. Pick #15 is paid $150,000, so $50,000 counts against the Round 1-10 cap which is about $12 million (guessing), pick #16 gets $75,000, but the $25,000 under the $100,000 cap is simply lost. Correct so far?

JP Richardi seemed to use his last 10 picks on younger players. Maybe they were hard signs, but had some good upside.
AA chose young players with the last 10 picks of 2010 but not 2011. His 2011 success in signing was pretty good.
So how much did these guys want, and how close was it to $100,000. There were self imposed budgets if that was a factor or signing your #43 pick for $1,000,000 would have upset Bud.

2008's #43 was Tyler Ybarra our 2nd last pick. He could be good.
Thomas - Sunday, November 27 2011 @ 01:52 PM EST (#247329) #
While there may be legitimate loopholes to be exploited in the new CBA, I expect Selig would come down very harshly on any team caught trying to skirt the regulations in a suspect way. Doing something like drafting the brother and paying him an additional amount of his brother's bonus would be something that I think would qualify as such, as that's basically an "under the table" payment.

There may be questions of whether Selig could prove the payment, but I do think that a team exposed acting in this way would be punished.
New CBA & NL MVP | 145 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.