2022 MLB Draft

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,884
The back of your computer
https://ydredsox.com/how-san-diegos-chase-meidroth-developed-from-unheralded-recruit-to-mlb-draft-prospect/

“Nobody recruited this guy,” Ungricht said. “I don’t know if it was just an afterthought or whatever, but I was like we got to jump on this guy.”

In his first two years at San Diego, Meidroth didn’t see the field much. He found himself on the back end of a “logjam,” where there were plenty of older guys ahead of him on the depth chart due to the extra year of eligibility granted by COVID. Across 2020 and 2021, he only got 32 at-bats.

Despite not seeing much time on the field, he took advantage of the limited opportunities he had. On May 7, 2021, Meidroth worked a full count and fouled off three pitches before hitting his first collegiate home run in the ninth inning against BYU.

In 2022, Meidroth broke out in a big way, ready to pounce on his chance to become one of the main guys he had been learning behind during his first two seasons. He hit 19 doubles and 10 home runs on his way to slashing .329/.440/.544 across 56 starts.

While the slugging numbers that he brought from USD weren’t as prevalent on the Cape, Meidroth posted a .434 on-base percentage, second on the team behind only Luke Shliger. Across 22 games, Meidroth hit .286 with a home run and seven RBIs and had more walks (15) than strikeouts (14).
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
This makes me wonder about trade value. My gut tells me top prospect lists are more likely to be dominated by high school draftees or IFAs who are younger and have more projectibility/perceived upside whereas college players tend to be higher floor/lower ceiling in addition to being significantly older.

A high schooler with two years in the minors is still someone that you or another GM can dream on a bit. A college draftee two years in who isn't excelling in AA and pushing for a call-up may have people already screaming bust. "Recent" college successes like Pedey, Ellsbury, and JBJ followed that path while guys like Deven Marrero and Kolbrin Vitek became uninteresting REALLY quickly. I suspect there is less room for those guys to be valuable trade chips in the same way as high schoolers drafted around the same time.

It's a bit of age bias but guys no longer get to be called "toolsy" quite as easily once they hit 21. I think that perception matters.

edit: Also, re: lower minors pitching depth, we'll get a big boost whenever Noah Song is cleared.
On soxprospects.com, 8 of the 10 top prospects were HS draftees or IFAs. I'm sure some of this is team strategy but yeah. Look at the list of hitters who made the Majors at 19 and it's full of HOFs and all stars. As you noted, age plays a huge part in their development. Teams will have control of more prime developmental years with HS/IFA players and the younger a player reaches a given league, the better. Especially if they are excelling against older competition.

College players don't get that opportunity as they are playing against HS kids and filler. And if they happen to struggle in their first placement, they are doomed as a prospect as they now become old (prospect wise) for the league they are in. If college players dominate A/A+, they were supposed to. If they don't, they are written off.

Niko Kavadas is a good example of this. He's destroying A and A+ and he gets some love, but at the same time... he is supposed to destroy A/A+ pitching. He was 2 years older than the average player in A and is 0.4 years older than the average player in A+. And that's just the average age of the league, not prospects. We won't really know anything about him (or college players) until he is promoted to AA where he is more age appropriate.

Looking at his splits
vs younger pitchers: .310/.480/.674 in 250 PA. 57bb/61k. 24.4% K rate, manageable.
vs older pitchers: .258/.432/.597 in 81 PA, 15bb/27k. 33.3% K rate, not so much.

I don't think it's an age bias more as it's accurate. Players who became uninteresting really quickly remained uninteresting. The ones who were excelling in AA by year two continued to excel. Even lesser players like Travis Shaw followed that path. I can't think of many who didn't. I can think of some who failed, recovered but ultimately failed. That guy being Bryce Brentz. Dalbec excelled in his first year but there were some questions about his terrible bb/k ratio for a college player in the penn league and failed to reach AA by season 2, stalling in A ball.

A poster named PhillySoxfan (I think) used to do these very long in depth reports. These were back in like the mid 2000s so they might not be accurate anymore. He found there to be a huge difference in the success rates of HS players drafted at 17 and 18 as opposed to 19. Blake Swihart was 19. The 19 year old HS draftees faired very badly compared to the 17 and 18 year olds. It makes sense. An extra year of physical development at that age is a big advantage.

Re: Noah Song, he shouldn't be long for the lower minors. given he's already 25 years old.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
52,316
Sox take lefty reliever Noah Dean from Old Dominion in the 5th (pick 159). Hits 100, lots of strikeouts, lots of walks.

MLB: 124
BA: 140
FG: 119
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,190
Westwood MA
On soxprospects.com, 8 of the 10 top prospects were HS draftees or IFAs. I'm sure some of this is team strategy but yeah. Look at the list of hitters who made the Majors at 19 and it's full of HOFs and all stars. As you noted, age plays a huge part in their development. Teams will have control of more prime developmental years with HS/IFA players and the younger a player reaches a given league, the better. Especially if they are excelling against older competition.

College players don't get that opportunity as they are playing against HS kids and filler. And if they happen to struggle in their first placement, they are doomed as a prospect as they now become old (prospect wise) for the league they are in. If college players dominate A/A+, they were supposed to. If they don't, they are written off.

Niko Kavadas is a good example of this. He's destroying A and A+ and he gets some love, but at the same time... he is supposed to destroy A/A+ pitching. He was 2 years older than the average player in A and is 0.4 years older than the average player in A+. And that's just the average age of the league, not prospects. We won't really know anything about him (or college players) until he is promoted to AA where he is more age appropriate.

Looking at his splits
vs younger pitchers: .310/.480/.674 in 250 PA. 57bb/61k. 24.4% K rate, manageable.
vs older pitchers: .258/.432/.597 in 81 PA, 15bb/27k. 33.3% K rate, not so much.

I don't think it's an age bias more as it's accurate. Players who became uninteresting really quickly remained uninteresting. The ones who were excelling in AA by year two continued to excel. Even lesser players like Travis Shaw followed that path. I can't think of many who didn't. I can think of some who failed, recovered but ultimately failed. That guy being Bryce Brentz. Dalbec excelled in his first year but there were some questions about his terrible bb/k ratio for a college player in the penn league and failed to reach AA by season 2, stalling in A ball.

A poster named PhillySoxfan (I think) used to do these very long in depth reports. These were back in like the mid 2000s so they might not be accurate anymore. He found there to be a huge difference in the success rates of HS players drafted at 17 and 18 as opposed to 19. Blake Swihart was 19. The 19 year old HS draftees faired very badly compared to the 17 and 18 year olds. It makes sense. An extra year of physical development at that age is a big advantage.

Re: Noah Song, he shouldn't be long for the lower minors. given he's already 25 years old.
Thanks for taking the time to post this.

I'm not very knowledgeable on the ins and outs of the MLB draft; one question I had (which you answered) is why draft a high school kid vs a college kid?

My thought was a high school kid's competition has to be factored in vs a college player who plays in an elite program, the latter sees elite talent vs a high school kid.

The only rub with drafting a high school kid is if he's not happy with the offer, he can go to college and I assume reenter the draft; is there a time limit as to how long someone you draft is under your control?

I incorrectly assumed you'd want to draft a college kid as he's less likely to flame out than a high school kid, but my logic was flawed.

As you pointed out, it all comes down to age and control and a longer development path.

Thanks for the enlightening post, it makes perfect sense.
 
Last edited:

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
My thought was a high school kid's competition has to be factored in vs a college player who plays in an elite program, the latter sees elite talent vs a high school kid.

The only rub with drafting a high school kid is if he's not happy with the offer, he can go to college and I assume reenter the draft; is there a time limit as to how long someone you draft is under your control?

As you pointed out, it all comes down to age and control and a longer development path.
Right, the juniors/21 year old players have played against better competition than the 18 year old HS senior. But that's the past. That 21 year old player spent 3 years at a level comparable to A/A+ and will start his career out at A/A+,.

Marcelo Mayer started out his career at a level worse than NCAA (FCL) at 18. His age 19 season (I'm guessing he finishes in A+) will be at a level comparable to or better than NCAA. His age 20 season will be spend between A and AA, a level significantly better. His age 21 season, will be spent between AA/AAA (much higher level of competition) with a chance of making Boston that year. If things go incredibly right, there's always the chance he makes the majors before then. This is a pretty common path for top prospects. They spend parts of the season at 2 levels.

Even on a less aggressive "1 level per season" path, he'd be in AAA to start his age 22 and possibly looking to break into the majors. Doing the college path, his age 22 season he's most likely starts in AA and possibly earns a promotion to AAA with a chance of making the majors.

Blaze Jordan has a (somewhat good) chance of reaching AA at age 20, even better chance by 21. The college player is stuck at the same level for 3 years regardless.

I think they hold their rights until August 1st, but if they fail to sign the player, they get a compensation pick. The 40th pick didn't sign for the Sox last year, they got the 41st pick this year.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,190
Westwood MA
Right, the juniors/21 year old players have played against better competition than the 18 year old HS senior. But that's the past. That 21 year old player spent 3 years at a level comparable to A/A+ and will start his career out at A/A+,.

Marcelo Mayer started out his career at a level worse than NCAA (FCL) at 18. His age 19 season (I'm guessing he finishes in A+) will be at a level comparable to or better than NCAA. His age 20 season will be spend between A and AA, a level significantly better. His age 21 season, will be spent between AA/AAA (much higher level of competition) with a chance of making Boston that year. If things go incredibly right, there's always the chance he makes the majors before then. This is a pretty common path for top prospects. They spend parts of the season at 2 levels.

Even on a less aggressive "1 level per season" path, he'd be in AAA to start his age 22 and possibly looking to break into the majors. Doing the college path, his age 22 season he's most likely starts in AA and possibly earns a promotion to AAA with a chance of making the majors.

Blaze Jordan has a (somewhat good) chance of reaching AA at age 20, even better chance by 21. The college player is stuck at the same level for 3 years regardless.

I think they hold their rights until August 1st, but if they fail to sign the player, they get a compensation pick. The 40th pick didn't sign for the Sox last year, they got the 41st pick this year.
That's a great point regarding the level of competition, specifically a college kid for 3 years plays against A/A+ competition, so is actually behind a high school kid once he gets drafted as again, like you pointed out, he starts out as a 21 year old against the same level of competition he's played against while in college.

I hope Blaze Jordan get to MLB via the Red Sox, he was such a highly touted young talent, would like to see him actually make it.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,952
On soxprospects.com, 8 of the 10 top prospects were HS draftees or IFAs. I'm sure some of this is team strategy but yeah. Look at the list of hitters who made the Majors at 19 and it's full of HOFs and all stars. As you noted, age plays a huge part in their development. Teams will have control of more prime developmental years with HS/IFA players and the younger a player reaches a given league, the better. Especially if they are excelling against older competition.

College players don't get that opportunity as they are playing against HS kids and filler. And if they happen to struggle in their first placement, they are doomed as a prospect as they now become old (prospect wise) for the league they are in. If college players dominate A/A+, they were supposed to. If they don't, they are written off.

Niko Kavadas is a good example of this. He's destroying A and A+ and he gets some love, but at the same time... he is supposed to destroy A/A+ pitching. He was 2 years older than the average player in A and is 0.4 years older than the average player in A+. And that's just the average age of the league, not prospects. We won't really know anything about him (or college players) until he is promoted to AA where he is more age appropriate.

Looking at his splits
vs younger pitchers: .310/.480/.674 in 250 PA. 57bb/61k. 24.4% K rate, manageable.
vs older pitchers: .258/.432/.597 in 81 PA, 15bb/27k. 33.3% K rate, not so much.

I don't think it's an age bias more as it's accurate. Players who became uninteresting really quickly remained uninteresting. The ones who were excelling in AA by year two continued to excel. Even lesser players like Travis Shaw followed that path. I can't think of many who didn't. I can think of some who failed, recovered but ultimately failed. That guy being Bryce Brentz. Dalbec excelled in his first year but there were some questions about his terrible bb/k ratio for a college player in the penn league and failed to reach AA by season 2, stalling in A ball.

A poster named PhillySoxfan (I think) used to do these very long in depth reports. These were back in like the mid 2000s so they might not be accurate anymore. He found there to be a huge difference in the success rates of HS players drafted at 17 and 18 as opposed to 19. Blake Swihart was 19. The 19 year old HS draftees faired very badly compared to the 17 and 18 year olds. It makes sense. An extra year of physical development at that age is a big advantage.

Re: Noah Song, he shouldn't be long for the lower minors. given he's already 25 years old.
I remember that Philly Sox Fan used to do in-depth analyses of drafting but I don't remember that he did one for age (doesn't mean that you aren't correct as it's more likely I'm just forgetting like most things in life these days).

At any rate, here's an article from 2011 that confirms that drafting very young players generally brings more value than very old players: https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/15306/doctoring-the-numbers-starting-them-young-part-two/. (Note it looks like Part One isn't available anymore.)
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
52,316
High upside prep guys combined with a bunch of easy sign college relievers, some with BIG fastballs. I like the strategy although we haven't had much luck with the supposed fast-moving relief types thus far (Hansen, Cox, Feltman). It maybe limits the opportunity to happen upon surprise hits if guys are already limited to the pen right out of the gate, but these rounds are huge crapshoots anyways so if you can manage to squeeze usable arms out of this segment of the draft without spending much, you're happy with that.
 

Merkle's Boner

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2011
3,890
The focus on big armed reliever types makes you wonder if that becomes a focus as the game moves away from 200 inning stud starters.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,294
around the way
I remember that Philly Sox Fan used to do in-depth analyses of drafting but I don't remember that he did one for age (doesn't mean that you aren't correct as it's more likely I'm just forgetting like most things in life these days).

At any rate, here's an article from 2011 that confirms that drafting very young players generally brings more value than very old players: https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/15306/doctoring-the-numbers-starting-them-young-part-two/. (Note it looks like Part One isn't available anymore.)
Yeah pretty sure that Philly is the one who did the curve of where guys are drafted and career WAR comparison. It was shocking reading how much being a first round pick, particularly at the top of the first, correlates to career contributions. The cliff is real and spectacular, and the data is the data. One of a handful of my strongest memories of reading something in the main forum and saying "whoa" out loud.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,884
The back of your computer
High upside prep guys combined with a bunch of easy sign college relievers, some with BIG fastballs. I like the strategy although we haven't had much luck with the supposed fast-moving relief types thus far (Hansen, Cox, Feltman). It maybe limits the opportunity to happen upon surprise hits if guys are already limited to the pen right out of the gate, but these rounds are huge crapshoots anyways so if you can manage to squeeze usable arms out of this segment of the draft without spending much, you're happy with that.
To be fair, Hansen made the majors and pitched ok at times before he lost his composure and his mechanics. Cox was the poster child for Wild Thing (must have been something in the water that year, with Bard and Cox taken in the first three rounds), he was awful in college until he found his mechanics just before the CWS, where he was dominant. He was the ultimate boom/bust pick. Feltman lost his pure stuff and ended up plateauing in AAA (assuming he doesn't make the big leagues).
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,884
The back of your computer
6 of the last 8 picks have been college pitchers
There are a number of underslot picks there, which are needed to pay for the overslot guys (clearly, that is the strategy). Meidroth, Hoppe and Bolden (all seniors) will likely sign for $50k or less, saving $750k for use on Anthony (reported $2.5mm from $820k slot) and Brannon ($500k maybe from $158k slot). I also assume they have underslot deals with Mikey Romero ($2.2mm maybe, $2.975mm slot) and Dalton Rogers ($400k maybe from $617k slot).

Here's my rough math:

5% overage $400k
Romero savings $775k
Rogers savings $217k
Meidroth, Hoppe, Bolden savings $750k

Total amount to apply to Anthony and Brannon = $2.14mm
Anthony deal uses $1.68mm
Brannon @$500k uses $342k
Amount remaining $12k

Assumes Cutter Coffey, Dean, Brand and Isaac Coffey get slot money.
 
Last edited:

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I remember that Philly Sox Fan used to do in-depth analyses of drafting but I don't remember that he did one for age (doesn't mean that you aren't correct as it's more likely I'm just forgetting like most things in life these days).

At any rate, here's an article from 2011 that confirms that drafting very young players generally brings more value than very old players: https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/15306/doctoring-the-numbers-starting-them-young-part-two/. (Note it looks like Part One isn't available anymore.)
I read this article way back when so maybe I'm confusing the two.

Yeah pretty sure that Philly is the one who did the curve of where guys are drafted and career WAR comparison. It was shocking reading how much being a first round pick, particularly at the top of the first, correlates to career contributions. The cliff is real and spectacular, and the data is the data. One of a handful of my strongest memories of reading something in the main forum and saying "whoa" out loud.
Yeah, I remember those. I just thought he did both. I remember there being some beef on this site about Blake Swihart's age around when he was drafted. That was 2011. It's also the same time as that article but Swihart isn't mentioned in the article. Either way, there was discussion on this board about the difference age makes. The bottom of the article WBCD posted says this

Dozens of articles were written on Starling and Lindor leading up to the draft, but to the best of my knowledge, not one of them made mention of this simple fact: while Starling was born on August 3, 1992 (he actually turned 19 before the signing deadline), Lindor was born on November 14—November 14, 1993. Lindor is more than 15 months younger than Starling and will be younger at the end of next season than Starling was on the day he was drafted. There are many reasons to think that Starling, despite his advanced age, will meet the formidable expectations placed on him. And speaking as a Royals fan, I hope he does. But if these numbers are even close to being correct, the younger player should have been drafted first. It wouldn’t be the first time.
Talk about nailing it. All 3 of us are basketball guys and 15 months there is colossal. Makes sense it would be in baseball as well.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,448
I’m not sure that explains why no one would try to manufacture drama. The nba has made a big event from its draft and doesn’t exactly produces runaway success from its second round.

Feels like there has to be a more complex reason why trades aren’t allowed.
Of course they should try, but it's the reason people will never really care unless college baseball somehow becomes a much bigger thing.

The Celtics drafted JD Davison in the 2nd round. We all were able to watch him on ESPN and NBA TV at summer league several weeks later, and we'll likely see him play in a regular season game at some point next season. Outside of a few twitter highlights most of us will likely never see any of the guys the Red Sox drafted yesterday for the next 2-3 years at minimum. Yeah 2nd rounders in the NBA are likely busts, but they come right after a 1st round that usually ends up with a number of all stars and guys that become household names year one.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,294
around the way
I read this article way back when so maybe I'm confusing the two.



Yeah, I remember those. I just thought he did both. I remember there being some beef on this site about Blake Swihart's age around when he was drafted. That was 2011. It's also the same time as that article but Swihart isn't mentioned in the article. Either way, there was discussion on this board about the difference age makes. The bottom of the article WBCD posted says this



Talk about nailing it. All 3 of us are basketball guys and 15 months there is colossal. Makes sense it would be in baseball as well.
Yeah he might have done the age one too. I was probably less surprised by the outcome graph there than the draft slot one.
 

johnlos

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2014
250
Yeah pretty sure that Philly is the one who did the curve of where guys are drafted and career WAR comparison. It was shocking reading how much being a first round pick, particularly at the top of the first, correlates to career contributions. The cliff is real and spectacular, and the data is the data. One of a handful of my strongest memories of reading something in the main forum and saying "whoa" out loud.
I've seen a number of pieces like this. Here's one from 2014 whose plot I remember but yeah they all kinda look like this. https://tht.fangraphs.com/the-net-value-of-draft-picks/
 

TimScribble

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,483
I wonder how they know when they pick a guy under slot in the 1st round that one of their guys will be available to pay in the 3rd round. Like did the Rangers know Brock Porter would be there in the 4th round when they took Kumar at 3 overall?

Anyway glad it worked out with Roman!
It isn’t sure fire but the agents are working out so many deals and leaking amounts and preferred locations that teams have some ideas.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,133
Isle of Plum
Of course they should try, but it's the reason people will never really care unless college baseball somehow becomes a much bigger thing.

The Celtics drafted JD Davison in the 2nd round. We all were able to watch him on ESPN and NBA TV at summer league several weeks later, and we'll likely see him play in a regular season game at some point next season. Outside of a few twitter highlights most of us will likely never see any of the guys the Red Sox drafted yesterday for the next 2-3 years at minimum. Yeah 2nd rounders in the NBA are likely busts, but they come right after a 1st round that usually ends up with a number of all stars and guys that become household names year one.
Yeah fair enough, I can buy that ultimately the MLB draft isn’t ever going to be in the same compelling theater as NFL and nba…and Davison is a good example. That said, I’m still trying to understand the restrictions around pick trades. Maybe it’s a way to limit the big revenue teams splashing the pot in another way.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,448
Yeah fair enough, I can buy that ultimately the MLB draft isn’t ever going to be in the same compelling theater as NFL and nba…and Davison is a good example. That said, I’m still trying to understand the restrictions around pick trades. Maybe it’s a way to limit the big revenue teams splashing the pot in another way.
I think being able to trade picks would help with interest more, but yeah I can see it being abused pretty badly if they didn't have a bunch of rules in place.

In the NBA teams can effectively buy 2nd round picks for pretty cheap because you only have so many roster spots. Having a team like the Dodgers or Yankees just buy up several dozen extra draft picks from the smaller market teams or cheap ownership groups would be really bad for the game.
 

Niastri

Member
SoSH Member
I think being able to trade picks would help with interest more, but yeah I can see it being abused pretty badly if they didn't have a bunch of rules in place.

In the NBA teams can effectively buy 2nd round picks for pretty cheap because you only have so many roster spots. Having a team like the Dodgers or Yankees just buy up several dozen extra draft picks from the smaller market teams or cheap ownership groups would be really bad for the game.
There are limited roster spots in baseball, too... If you trade cash for an extra bunch of draft picks, you have to have places for the drafted players to play. The days of three affiliated A ball and A+ ball teams are over.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,448
There are limited roster spots in baseball, too... If you trade cash for an extra bunch of draft picks, you have to have places for the drafted players to play. The days of three affiliated A ball and A+ ball teams are over.
Teams still have 6 or 7 minor league teams, including at least 2 teams just for rookies. Having a whole rookie team that starts with top 5 round guys would be a pretty massive advantage.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
983
Interesting quote from Brannon's Dad about the Red Sox: “If we could have picked, that is who we wanted to draft him,” said Paul Brannon, Brooks’ father and coach, who spent four years in the Minor Leagues. “Now, we’ll try to see what the next step is.”

Brannon had some pretty impressive high school stats: .609 batting average with a 1.974 OPS and a state-record 91 RBIs in 135 plate appearances.
His 20 home runs on the season also matched a state record, held by his father.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,133
Isle of Plum
There are limited roster spots in baseball, too... If you trade cash for an extra bunch of draft picks, you have to have places for the drafted players to play. The days of three affiliated A ball and A+ ball teams are over.

My thought was less about making more picks, though that would help on some level, and more about the advantage those picks could get you by splashing the extra pick’s money around in the signing pool.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,816
Yeah fair enough, I can buy that ultimately the MLB draft isn’t ever going to be in the same compelling theater as NFL and nba…and Davison is a good example. That said, I’m still trying to understand the restrictions around pick trades. Maybe it’s a way to limit the big revenue teams splashing the pot in another way.
It hurts the small market teams more than the big market ones. I’ve always thought, since the advent of the signing pools, that free agent compensation would be better built around extra pool money than draft picks. If anything the restrictions of the signing pool make the extra picks nearly disadvantageous by forcing hard choices on the Pittsburghs and Kansas Cities of the world. (Imagine, for example, that losing a player rated a first round talent in free agency allowed you to add the equivalent of an extra first round pick in slot money to be divvied up between draft and international signings, you could do away with penalizing teams for signing FAs at that point.)

Trading picks, without altering the pool money, would allow small market teams in the top five to trade down for extra picks, while retaining the money to gamble on even more higher upside HS players. They already do this, last year Baltimore and KC selected below slot guys in the top 10, which allowed them to take gambles later. But they’d probably have been better off if they’d been allowed to deal those picks to teams like the Giants, or Cubs, or Dodgers, or Yankees for a combination of prospects or picks while retaining that bonus pool based on their original position.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,133
Isle of Plum
It hurts the small market teams more than the big market ones. I’ve always thought, since the advent of the signing pools, that free agent compensation would be better built around extra pool money than draft picks. If anything the restrictions of the signing pool make the extra picks nearly disadvantageous by forcing hard choices on the Pittsburghs and Kansas Cities of the world. (Imagine, for example, that losing a player rated a first round talent in free agency allowed you to add the equivalent of an extra first round pick in slot money to be divvied up between draft and international signings, you could do away with penalizing teams for signing FAs at that point.)

Trading picks, without altering the pool money, would allow small market teams in the top five to trade down for extra picks, while retaining the money to gamble on even more higher upside HS players. They already do this, last year Baltimore and KC selected below slot guys in the top 10, which allowed them to take gambles later. But they’d probably have been better off if they’d been allowed to deal those picks to teams like the Giants, or Cubs, or Dodgers, or Yankees for a combination of prospects or picks while retaining that bonus pool based on their original position.
Interesting, wasn’t looking from that perspective, thanks. Maybe it’s time for the first major sport to abandon the snake draft!

Baseball has done this on some level, in the sense that better players get grabbed from later rounds solely for financial reasons, but if each team had fixed $ and went auction draft (worse teams have more $ in lieu of higher picks) it would definitely generate interest. Would also be slow AF, so maybe just for the first couple rounds
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
91,875
Oregon
college pitchers and high school shortstops

ROUND 11 (No. 339): Marques Johnson, RHP, Long Beach State (CA)
ROUND 12 (No. 369): Hayden Mullins, LHP, Auburn (AL)
ROUND 13 (No. 399): Gavin Kilen, SS, Milton HS (WI)
ROUND 14 (No. 429): Travis Sanders, SS, Copperas Cove HS (TX)
ROUND 15 (No. 459): Nathan Landry, LHP, University of Missouri (MO)