| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 01-24-2013 |
Shortly after the league and players association agreed to the most recent collective bargaining agreement I wrote about the changes to the draft still leaving a broken system, full of flaws.
Another of those flaws is popping up this week. Thursday, USA Today's Bob Nightengale tweets that the Seattle Mariners and New York Mets are the favorites for centerfielder Michael Bourn.
Bourn is a fine player, but he'd cost both teams their first-round pick. The Mets pick No. 11 and the Mariners No. 12. Only the top 10 picks are protected from the compensation system.
The Mets, ESPNNewYork.com's Adam Rubin writes, may officially challenge the league to make an exception to that rule because the only reason the Mets pick is outside the top 10 is because the Pittsburgh Pirates failed to sign Mark Appel, last June's No. 8 pick, and were awarded the No. 9 overall pick in this year's draft as compensation.
The CBA stipulates the top 10 picks, not the 10 worst records. That needs to change.
But the idea that free agents out there are dangling because of draft-pick compensation is ridiculous. The compensation rules need to be changed -- again -- or better yet abolished altogether.
At worst, teams that sign players should not be penalized -- the MLBPA wants their players to get paid and while the league doesn't want escalated salaries, it still behooves the owners to stop penalizing what amounts to themselves for signing players.
Here we have two teams not expected to contend until 2014 looking to take a step forward -- just like the league wants, competitive balance -- and there is hesitation because of the great value in draft picks.
I'm all for teams that lose free agents and make that qualifying offer being awarded compensation. The fact that teams that didn't make the postseason, and weren't even close, are basically told to think twice about making their team better is exactly the opposite of good for baseball.
It used to be the top 15 picks were protected, that didn't work. Now it's just the top 10 and that doesn't work, either.
Isn't the point to stop the big-market spenders and recent winners from taking from the smaller-market clubs, teams that have struggled of late, without the smaller markets being compensated? (Yes.) So stop punishing the smaller markets and struggling clubs when they try to go out and get better.
For the record, I don't like the idea of the Mariners giving up the No. 12 pick to sign Bourn. But if they do it, the contract length becomes key. You don't give up that pick for one or two years of Bourn, so if he's looking for a one-year deal so he can jump back out there in a year when Boston, the Dodgers and the Rangers might spring for bigger money, forget it.
Four years? That might be closer to worth it. The dollars are also important, of course, and the clubs that have interest need to consider Bourn's age and the idea that he's done getting better, which means his downside is already upon us, most likely.
The need for great range at Safeco is diminished with the significantly-altered dimensions starting in 2013,and Bourn owns but a career .339 on-base percentage with a career high of .354 four seasons ago.
There are positives to adding such a player, I'm not convinced they outweigh the risks and existing negatives. If there was no draft-pick compensation, I'd be on the Bourn wagon, provided it's not a Boras-esque contract.
One potential fix for this offseason, since the rules aren't going to be changed anytime soon enough to impact Bourn or the 2013 free agent class, is the sign-and-trade. It makes sense, and is legal.
The Braves could sign Bourn and trade him to a team that wants to house the contract and the player, as long as the player agrees in writing, and in this case, that isn't a problem.
The issue here is getting the Braves to agree. They wouldn't get any compensation if they did that, so the "signing" for a team like the M's becomes about money and the trade cost, which isn't going to be zero. Something has to entice the Braves into it.
the-still-broken-system-and-michael-bourn
Comments
The following 25 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: Paul Martin on 01-24-2013 12:43:12 I totally agree with you Jason! The other issue is the team losing the allotted $$$ that goes with the pick. For example, last year Seattle signed Zunino under slot and used the extra money to get lower round guys signed. As for Bourn...I know we could use a lead off guy, but I will pass. Let's see what we can get out of Gutierrez this year, then reevaluate at seasons end. Signing Bourn would mean we would have to trade low on Gutierrez, as he would no longer fit. |
| 2. By: dafix_isin on 01-24-2013 13:03:47 So this centers mostly around the fact that the M's don't want to surrender a high first rounder. Totally get that. What if, just for arguments sake, it was for a second rounder? Maybe they could trade for Bourn provided they offer the Braves a PTBNL, namely the player the M's would pick on the Braves behalf in round two of the upcoming draft. It doesn't necessarily have to a 2nd rounder; just using it as hypothetical compensation. The Braves would then trade for said player after he becomes eligible to be traded (after a year from his draft date; or is it his signing date? whichever). Obviously, the M's would be negotiating on the Braves behalf, so the financial parameters, etc. would have to be clearly outlined, etc. If the M's fail to sign said draft pick, according to the Braves prerogatives, then they will have to have a fallback plan of compensation. Who knows what that would be. Also, the Braves would be entrusting the M's to take responsibility for the prospect's first year of development. When the time came to move the prospect to the M's, the Braves would then trade a player of equal or lesser financial obligation, on a per year basis. And the M's would'nt have a say on who the player is. Is this win-win. What do I know about the inner workings of MLB front offices? This semi-restricted free agency thing kinda sucks! |
| 3. By: cusefan115 on 01-24-2013 13:04:16 I would think we could get the brave on board easy enough. They are going to lose Bourn no matter what. And it sounds like there is a significant chance they would only get a sandwich round pick if he goes to the Mets. So if we were to offer a halfway decent prospect-maybe Patrick Kivlehan- they would have to consider it. |
| 4. By: cusefan115 on 01-24-2013 13:06:35 PTBNL's have to be named within a year of the trade I think. And draft-picks can't be traded until they have been within the organization for a full year. So I don't think that the picking for another team scenario works. It's a solid thought process though. |
| 5. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-24-2013 13:10:13 Cusefan115 is correct. That wouldn't work. When it comes down to it, sign-and-trades don't work. They have to masked to fall into the legal category, or the player can't be traded until after the season starts -- there's an exact date, can't remember off the top of my head. So in the end it's a non-option. |
| 6. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-24-2013 13:12:08 The chances the Mets win a grievance are not good, IMO. The CBA is simple -- top 10 picks. It needs to be changed, but that is what it says. If they allow the Mets to keep their pick, it starts a precedent the league should not want any part of. |
| 7. By: dafix_isin on 01-24-2013 13:18:43 Sigh... devil's in the details. |
| 8. By: Paul Martin on 01-24-2013 13:20:31 I had read somewhere that a team that already lost its 1st roud pick (like Cleveland when they signed Swisher), could sign a free agent on behalf of another team, then trade the player to the team they signed on behalf of for a prospect. In this example, since Cleveland already lost their 1st round pick, they would only lose their 2nd round pick. In exchange for losing the pick they would get a prospect they value higher than the 2nd round pick they lost. Can this be done to work around the 1st round loss of pick? |
| 9. By: cusefan115 on 01-24-2013 13:22:48 Interesting perspective Jason. Losing a draft pick does make the terms of the contract all the more important. I think I would be on board with 3 yrs 38 with a team option bringing the deal to 4yrs/52 mil. But I doubt that gets a deal done. |
| 10. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-24-2013 13:57:16 Paul, The same trickery is in place, though. Technically, you cannot sign a player with the intent to trade him. It's only legal if it's masked. But the issue still remains. To compensate Cleveland for the second round pick, do the M's send Brad Miller or Stefen Romero to Cleveland for the rights to Bourn and his 4-5 year, $50-65 million contract? What's enough to compensate the Indians and does it make sense? If it was just money, I'm in. If it was just the draft pick and the player came with no questions and the value he brought to the table was very high, the draft pick becomes expendable, too. But Bourn is not that player. His value is in defense and stolen bases. Fact. His career OBP is under .340 -- he's been over .350 once. He's 30 years old and does not hit for power. CF defense means less in the new Safeco. How does Bourn handle the league change and the new set of pitchers? This is far from a perfect player we are talking about. Hamilton, even for 3 years, would have been worth the pick. The payoff is even bigger than the risk. That just isn't the case with Bourn, and that is assuming the money isn't prohibitive all by itself. |
| 11. By: Dmitriy1992 on 01-24-2013 14:30:12 The Draft: Yeah I agree with just about everything you stated about the draft. When MLB finally had a chance to fix it they completely failed at it. Should of made it similar to the NFL, Where if you have to declare for the draft. If you declare you are in. Dollar figures are slotted already and players know how much they will get wherever they are drafted. Say top 10 rounds everyone that declares have to stick by their words. Afterwards keep the draft how it is. 100k max deal, etc. On the subject of Bourn: I just don't want him. We are a rebuilding team and really have no use for Bourn. Sure he is a nice player and all but his skill set (avg. defense, sb, etc) are more valuable to a contender. M's shouldn't even think about signing him unless the price keeps coming down. The draft is one of the few things Z has done well and I wouldn't want him to lose on a high first round pick (plus the allotted cash that comes with it) for Bourn. On another note: Anyone else confused at how Z is building the roster for 2013? I get that there is still time to balance it out, but seriously? I really hope that Z gives Smoak one more chance to start everyday. I really feel he will have a huge year if he does so. Just look at Smoak's numbers last two months. Also if you adjust his numbers from last year with this years new dimensions he had an average year. Also where is the SP coming from? Were the M's even talking to Marcum? I would of beat that 1 year deal for him anyway... |
| 12. By: leos_world on 01-24-2013 15:18:40 Dmitriy, http://seattle.mariners.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130123&content_id=41125368&vkey=news_sea&c_id=sea Smoak still gets his shot. Looks like Montero Catching, Smoak at First, Morales DH, and an OF of Morse/Guti/Saunders |
| 13. By: Juan Valdez on 01-24-2013 16:09:29 At a certain point, it's unfair to the player to have his market constrained by rules on draft pick compensation. The obvious solution is to put a deadline in place, after which draft pick compensation disappears. I'd be shocked if the player's association wasn't looking at that. |
| 14. By: cusefan115 on 01-24-2013 16:16:31 @13 Might as just abolish the compensation system in that case. Free agency would just essentially be delayed until the deadline. Why would Cleveland give up their first rounder to sign Swisher if they could wait another month and keep their pick. |
| 15. By: Paul Martin on 01-24-2013 16:40:27 Jason, thanks for educating us this issue. I wish the players would have realized how much these rules hurt player movement. The combo of losing draft picks and slot $$$ for those picks is a real problem. I am shocked an agent like Boras didn't see this coming! Players never should have agreed to these rules, and because it is hurting bad teams like Seattle and the Mets, the owners should be motivated to make some changes too. |
| 16. By: Jackson on 01-24-2013 17:19:37 What if Bourn were to sign after the 2013 draft? |
| 17. By: Galway on 01-24-2013 17:25:43 He'd be pretty pissed signing post draftI. It sucks too because the draft is meant as a way to help give bad teams a chance to improve and increase competition in the league. Instead a bad team suck as Mets or M's get more harshly punished than a good team so it is opposite of the spirit of the draft. |
| 18. By: Timberwolf on 01-24-2013 18:48:58 Lets go Mets. Forfeiting a high draft pick to get a player whose value as a defensive centerfielder is redundant for us is a dork move. A 30 year old guy whose feature talent is speed? No thank you. Let's go METS! Please. |
| 19. By: Wishhiker on 01-24-2013 19:03:03 At least they're no longer giving the pick to the stronger team that could afford to let them walk anymore. I don't like the rules either. There are quite a few draft and international rules that just don't seem like the best rational solution. Protected pick unless you played the postseason is where the line should be if they're keeping draft compensation and protection. If you didn't make the postseason, you should absolutely be trying to improve. What rationale they had in dropping it to only 10 protected picks I'm interested in hearing. I doubt I'd agree with it though. |
| 20. By: harmony55 on 01-24-2013 23:10:14 For a sign-and-trade, the Braves would probably need something significantly better than a pick in the 26-39 range of the June 2013 draft. After trading away Randall Delgado and Spruill, would the Braves be interested in 22-year-old righthander Brandon Maurer? Would Maurer, a former 23rd-round draft pick and 2012 Southern League Most Outstanding Pitcher, be too much for the Mariners to give up for Michael Bourn? |
| 21. By: maqman on 01-25-2013 11:27:46 The CBA is not going to be renegotiated until it expires. It looks like the owners got more than the players by introducing dollar specific draft allowances and the qualifying offer. The one person most effected would seem to be Boras, this cuts his leverage down significantly and consequently that of his clients. |
| 22. By: Edman on 01-25-2013 11:37:49 I shall not shed a tear for Boras. He's done quite well for himself. |
| 23. By: FWBrodie on 01-25-2013 13:44:26 Rosenthal mentioned that the Texas Rangers might make a lot of sense for Bourn now. They haven't exactly made up for the offense they've lost yet, haven't really made a big splash, and they'd only be giving up the 24th pick, which they almost make up for with the Hamilton compensation they will receive. Bourn to Texas on a discount? Great system MLB. |
| 24. By: Timberwolf on 01-25-2013 15:52:56 You would think that a team with a protected first pick that needs a centerfielder would be looking at a discounted Bourn. The system sucks, but the previous system empowered Boras too much and had other problems. It would seem to make some kind of sense to eliminate compensation from teams that have not been to the playoffs in the previous three years and award additional sandwich picks to the teams losing players. |
| 25. By: slamcactus on 02-01-2013 15:17:59 Remove teams having to forfeit their picks, and slot the compensation picks in the first round after pick #20 (or after the team with the 20th-worst record has picked). Order the compensation picks in descending order of total guaranteed value of the departing FA's contract. That provides a significant value boost to the compensation picks, helps competitive balance by pushing the most successful teams down a bit in the draft, and removes compensation's effect on the market for free agents. There are probably all sorts of problems with this. I just thought of it and haven't really thought it through. But there's all sorts of problems with the system we have. |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
| Copyright 2013 Prospect Insider, Inc. | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |