# Explain the entry-draft (sports) to me **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [October 8, 2008, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013 "2008-10-08T15:53:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Hawkeyeop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/958977/32.png) [@Hawkeyeop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hawkeyeop)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013/21 "2008-10-08T18:40:58Z")
Love the multi-quote > [@Rysto](#): > > If this is the true reason, why does the NHL persist in using the draft when the CBA contains a strict cap on rookie salaries?(IIRC, around $850K + bonus clauses that bring the contract to a maximum of around $3 million per year). I’m not that familiar with hockey. Do draftees get paid using a slot system? > [@VarlosZ](#): > > **Hawkeyeop** , also note that in the major American pro sports, there are collective baragaining agreements which dictate that the players as a whole receive a fixed percentage of revenue. Presumably, then, a free market for rookies, even if it led to higher salaries for new players, would not actually cost the owners money: it would cost the veterans money, as some of the resources that now go towards their compensation would have to be diverted to younger players. It is important to note that amateurs have no say in the CBA. Current players have ample reason to screw up over to get benefits for themselves. Whether or not this would be taking money from veterans or owners is up to the two sides to negotiate. Right now they are collectively taking gains they are not entitled to. > [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > You must be joking. You didn’t actually believe Sprewell when he said that he needed the money to feed his children, did you? What was he feeding them, Beluga caviar and Kobe beef 24/7? > > If you can’t find a way to live on $5 million you have a real problem. The rest is just for show. The numbers are irrelevent. They are entitled to whatever the open market would bare. No more and no less. In what other industry are salaries of youngsters artifically lowered? ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013/22 "2008-10-08T18:47:28Z")
> [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > I’m not that familiar with hockey. Do draftees get paid using a slot system? Nope. Each contract is negotiated individually, but there are strict limits on the maximum base salary and what kind of bonuses can be offered(the previous CBA had similar limits on base salary but none on bonuses, so bonus clauses were abused to get around the cap). The limits apply equally to the #1 overall pick and the last pick. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013/23 "2008-10-08T18:47:52Z")
> [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > The top drafted guy this year got somewhere in the neighborhood of six and a half million (After a renegotiation due to baseball breaking its collective bargained agreement regarding the draft. And you wonder why I don’t fully trust the owners?) As a free agent he might have gotten quadruple that. Perhaps more. I think you’re overestimating the degree to which the draft is costing top prospects money. Tampa Bay is the team that had the top draft pick you mention, and they don’t have $24M to blow on a draft pick. In fact, it’s arguable that no teams do, since these guys are such unknown quantities. Likewise, in the NFL, the draft picks at the top of the first round are \*\*grossly \*\*overpaid relative to the the expected value of their contributions, as well as the opportunity cost involved with expending the cap space necessary to sign a top pick. How much more money can the top guys in baseball and (especially) football expect to make? Now, the mid-round players are a good bargain for teams (in football, baseball I’m not sure about), and in the NBA rookie salaries are more severely restricted. But, again, you still have to explain why eliminating the draft would cost owners money instead of costing various other \*players \*money. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013/24 "2008-10-08T18:51:43Z")
> [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > The numbers are irrelevent. They are entitled to whatever the open market would bare. No more and no less. In what other industry are salaries of youngsters artifically lowered? Most of them. Try getting a government job, or a pretty much any job straight out of college, and make sure to ask for executive salary levels. Don’t mind the laughter when you do, it’s nothing personal. In any event, if the difference between “going broke” is that of $5 million and that of $20 million, I respectfully submit that the person in question is so out of touch with the average person who wouldn’t make that in 100 years that they deserve nothing but derision if they have the temerity to make such a ridiculous assertion. If I got $5 million right now I’d be set for life, but these guys might “go broke”? No sympathy here. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013/25 "2008-10-08T18:57:25Z")
> [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > It is important to note that amateurs have no say in the CBA. Current players have ample reason to screw up over to get benefits for themselves. Whether or not this would be taking money from veterans or owners is up to the two sides to negotiate. **Right now they are collectively taking gains they are not entitled to**. As to the bolded portion: says you. Pretty much any job is going to see compensation rise with seniority, and this effect is likely magnified any time a union-negotiated contract is involved. Why would pro sports be any different? As to the underlined part: I really mean no offense, but it seems like something of a dodge to say it would be up to negotiations to determine where the money comes from. The owners are only going to give up a certain amount of revenue to the players, and changing how that money is distributed is unlikely to significantly increase the percentage. Why would it? ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013/26 "2008-10-08T18:58:05Z")
> [@](#): > > The numbers are irrelevent. They are entitled to whatever the open market would bare. No more and no less. In what other industry are salaries of youngsters artifically lowered? Well, there’s your problem right there. Of course, professional sports are uniquely different from other industries, and have been adjudged to be so legally speaking. If they weren’t, they’d be subject to antitrust laws and the major leagues wouldn’t exist at all. So obviously, the professional sports market is going to be fundamentally different from the open market. “In what other industry are salaries of youngsters artifically lowered?” is a meaningless question. It has no more meaning than “in what other industry are employees of one company routinely exchanged for employees of another?” Or “in what other industry do directly competitive entities require the existence of one another to exist at all?” The rules are different. The owners and players in each league, through a considerable number of years worth of trial and error, have established financial models that keep the business solvent and profitable for everyone involved. If it’s less profitable for the youngsters, then what of it? I make less money than the less experienced writers at my company. In most of the world, that’s how it works. It’s only by virtue of the unique structure of baseball that amateur players would command huge salaries in the first place, so I see no particular injustice that this unique characteristic is obviated by a second unique characteristic. ---
**Author:** ![Hawkeyeop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/958977/32.png) [@Hawkeyeop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hawkeyeop)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013/27 "2008-10-08T19:38:21Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > Nope. Each contract is negotiated individually, but there are strict limits on the maximum base salary and what kind of bonuses can be offered(the previous CBA had similar limits on base salary but none on bonuses, so bonus clauses were abused to get around the cap). The limits apply equally to the #1 overall pick and the last pick. I take that to mean amateurs would make more money if the sport didn’t have specific rules preventing them from doing just that. That seems like artifically lowering salaries of people who didn’t agree to a CBA to me. Maybe it in necessary to protect the owners from themselves, but it seems pretty anti-competitive to me. > [@VarlosZ](#): > > I think you’re overestimating the degree to which the draft is costing top prospects money. Tampa Bay is the team that had the top draft pick you mention, and they don’t have $24M to blow on a draft pick. In fact, it’s arguable that no teams do, since these guys are such unknown quantities. Likewise, in the NFL, the draft picks at the top of the first round are \*\*grossly \*\*overpaid relative to the the expected value of their contributions, as well as the opportunity cost involved with expending the cap space necessary to sign a top pick. How much more money can the top guys in baseball and (especially) football expect to make? The numbers aren’t made out of thin air. They are based on what top amateurs who became free agents got, and estimates from executives of what Alvarez would get if he achieved free agency. The fact that the Rays wouldn’t pay Price $24 million isn’t important if someone else would. I disagree that small market teams couldn’t pay $24 million to a top prospect though. The Royals gave $55 million to Gil Meche, a guy who has a very remote chance of being on the next good Royals team. Do you not think they would be better off giving Price, a potential star, that money? Sure there is risk, but there is a much higher reward then giving some third starter 10 figures a year. If football draftees were overpaid, teams would stop trading up in the draft. In league where players have short careers, getting the first few years of a player is critical. > [@](#): > > Now, the mid-round players are a good bargain for teams (in football, baseball I’m not sure about), and in the NBA rookie salaries are more severely restricted. But, again, you still have to explain why eliminating the draft would cost owners money instead of costing various other \*players \*money. I don’t really think it matters if they are taking it from the owners or players. > [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Most of them. Try getting a government job, or a pretty much any job straight out of college, and make sure to ask for executive salary levels. Don’t mind the laughter when you do, it’s nothing personal. If I had the skills to do the job, I would get the job and the salary with it. I don’t, because experience connections, and knowledge are very important to due said job. There is nothing artificial about it. However, those aren’t important in sports as talent is. If you need a reminder look at Rays, who are winning on sheer talent. The most valuable person available might be a 21 year college senior, and I think he should be paid accordingly > [@](#): > > In any event, if the difference between “going broke” is that of $5 million and that of $20 million, I respectfully submit that the person in question is so out of touch with the average person who wouldn’t make that in 100 years that they deserve nothing but derision if they have the temerity to make such a ridiculous assertion. If I got $5 million right now I’d be set for life, but these guys might “go broke”? No sympathy here. The excess money isn’t going to the poor here. It is a question of which millionaire gets the money. Are you saying if someone offered you $20 million you would say no thanks, I only need $5 million? > [@VarlosZ](#): > > As to the bolded portion: says you. Pretty much any job is going to see compensation rise with seniority, and this effect is likely magnified any time a union-negotiated contract is involved. Why would pro sports be any different? Because senority is a not an important part of a successful baseball team. As to the underlined part: I really mean no offense, but it seems like something of a dodge to say it would be up to negotiations to determine where the money comes from. The owners are only going to give up a certain amount of revenue to the players, and changing how that money is distributed is unlikely to significantly increase the percentage. Why would it? [/QUOTE] The established players would be free to argue that the percentage of money given out should be increased, or the pool of things considered revenue be greater to compensate for rookies getting a bigger portion. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > Well, there’s your problem right there. Of course, professional sports are uniquely different from other industries, and have been adjudged to be so legally speaking. If they weren’t, they’d be subject to antitrust laws and the major leagues wouldn’t exist at all. So obviously, the professional sports market is going to be fundamentally different from the open market. “In what other industry are salaries of youngsters artifically lowered?” is a meaningless question. It has no more meaning than “in what other industry are employees of one company routinely exchanged for employees of another?” Or “in what other industry do directly competitive entities require the existence of one another to exist at all?” The rules are different. > > Certainly, but you still need to let your employees negotiate a fair wage. > > The owners and players in each league, through a considerable number of years worth of trial and error, have established financial models that keep the business solvent and profitable for everyone involved. If it’s less profitable for the youngsters, then what of it? I make less money than the less experienced writers at my company. In most of the world, that’s how it works. Amazing how the players and owners have come to an agreement that helps them, and hinders a third party not in the negotiations. Why should amateurs be subject to an agreement that they had no say in creating? > [@](#): > > It’s only by virtue of the unique structure of baseball that amateur players would command huge salaries in the first place, so I see no particular injustice that this unique characteristic is obviated by a second unique characteristic. Paying large salaries doesn’t get you around employment laws. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013/28 "2008-10-08T19:47:03Z")
> [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > If football draftees were overpaid, teams would stop trading up in the draft. Teams _have_ stopped trading up in the draft. The top picks are unmovable some years. ---
**Author:** ![Hawkeyeop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/958977/32.png) [@Hawkeyeop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hawkeyeop)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013/29 "2008-10-08T19:48:40Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > Teams _have_ stopped trading up in the draft. The top picks are unmovable some years. Okay, then I have no complaints with hockey. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013/30 "2008-10-08T20:02:05Z")
The NFL was the first to institute a draft of college players, and it was purely to allow for better competitive balance. Teams in big markets could afford to pay more for college players. They thus could have the pick of the best players coming out of college. In addition, players out of college didn’t want to sign with the bad teams. No one likes losing all the time, and bad teams tended to go under. Bert Bell, owner of the Philadelphia Eagles and later NFL Commisioner, insisted that the league would never thrive if teams failed if all the best players went to the successful teams. Bell’s Eagles were 1-11 that year, and found it next to impossible to attract top players who didn’t way to play for a franchise that quite possibly would be out of business (a bad team had bad attendance back then, causing a downward spiral). This was back in 1936, so even the top draft choices were not going to get multi-million dollar salaries (they’d be luckly to get in the four digits). The NFL first draft choice that year, Jay Berwanger, opted not to play football, as did 48 others of the 81 draft choices (Paul “Bear” Bryant decided he’d do better as a coach. He was right. 🙂 ). Drafts were instituted in other sports for the same reason – to give all the teams a chance to compete. Baseball was the last, partly because the Yankees opposed it (and why shouldn’t they? They could use the Yankee mistique to get players – sometimes at lower salaries than other teams were willing to pay. Then they’d stash them in their farm system or trade them to Kansas City for players they needed.). In baseball, at least, the draft has led to an increase in salaries and bonuses for top choices, since by being a top choice, you have negotiating leverage. The same goes on for football: if you’re a number one choice, you’re going to get a bigger contract since the team can’t let you walk. Back in the 50s, baseball thought a $4000 signing bonus was so big that they needed rules to make it unattractive. That would be about $34,000 in today’s money. Pedro Alvaraz, a top draft choice of the Pirates, recently got $6 million, and bonuses in the millions are routine. The higher your draft position, the greater your bonus. Ultimately, it’s doubtful there’s any difference in what teams pay with a draft than what they would have paid without one. The number of players who would be worth large salaries/bonuses is still about the same. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013/31 "2008-10-08T20:14:21Z")
> [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > Okay, then I have no complaints with hockey. I meant in football, not hockey. High first rounds picks in hockey are only unmovable because they’re so valuable nobody wants to trade them. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013/32 "2008-10-08T20:28:14Z")
> [@Hawkeyep](#): > > The numbers aren’t made out of thin air. They are based on what top amateurs who became free agents got, and estimates from executives of what Alvarez would get if he achieved free agency. The fact that the Rays wouldn’t pay Price $24 million isn’t important if someone else would. Of course it’s important _if you care about competitive balance_. > [@](#): > > I disagree that small market teams couldn’t pay $24 million to a top prospect though. The Royals gave $55 million to Gil Meche, a guy who has a very remote chance of being on the next good Royals team. Do you not think they would be better off giving Price, a potential star, that money? Sure there is risk, but there is a much higher reward then giving some third starter 10 figures a year. Then why did Rick Porcello, widely regarded as the best high school pitching prospect in a decade, fall to the Tigers at the 27th pick in the 2007 draft? The answer is because is because 26 other teams didn’t want to guarantee him $7M (which is what he eventually got), but you think it’s plausible that these same teams would be willing to pay four times as much for him if there was a pure auction? If your theory is correct and the draft is greatly depressing the cost of the top prospects, then it \*must \*follow that the teams at the top of the draft would be falling all over themselves to snatch up a player like Porcello. But that’s just not the case. > [@](#): > > If football draftees were overpaid, teams would stop trading up in the draft. In league where players have short careers, getting the first few years of a player is critical. Football teams’ behavior, strictly from the perspective of on-field performance, is [irrational](http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Z56vbAuP56wJ:www.econ.berkeley.edu/~webfac/malmendier/e218_sp06/Thaler.pdf+massey+thaler&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a)in this regard. In the past few years, however, teams have been coming around to the idea that trading up in the top half of the 1st round is a bad idea. > [@](#): > > I don’t really think it matters if they are taking it from the owners or players. If [your theory](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10290232&postcount=5) is that the draft exists to save the league money, then it absolutely matters. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013/33 "2008-10-08T20:37:58Z")
> [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > There is a giant difference between what “can’t miss” players get paid when they are drafted and what they would make in free agency. The top drafted guy this year got somewhere in the neighborhood of six and a half million (After a renegotiation due to baseball breaking its collective bargained agreement regarding the draft. And you wonder why I don’t fully trust the owners?) As a free agent he might have gotten quadruple that. Perhaps more. If you are a major league team would you rather sign the best prospect in baseball for $40 million or give it to Kyle Lohse? Just look at how much the Red Sox were willing to pay to get the rights to sign Dice-K cheaply. That is how much these prospects are being underpaid. > > They are still going to paid reasonably well, but that isn’t the point. They aren’t receiving a fair market value. For a lot these guys this the only contract they will ever sign. The difference between 5 million and 20 million could be the difference between being set for life, and being broke right after leaving the game. Auctions only produce those big salaries when there is a handful of guys looking to cash in. If all several thousand players that are in the baseball draft were to enter the open market at the same time, the prices would bottom out faster than the stock market. Because then, teams could sign several dozen above average players and let them develop in the farm system instead of wasting millions on one guy and hoping he takes off relatively soon. There’s no way a free-for-all would net players more money except for the top couple of picks. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013/34 "2008-10-08T20:38:40Z")
This discussion moved into technicalities pretty quickly, and without answering the basics, so I’ll try to answer those. Of the four major sports in the US, two have established developmental (minor) leagues, and two don’t. Baseball and hockey have minor league systems that are meant to develop younger players, and so they draft a lot of players right out of high school. In baseball, anyone in the US, Canada, or a US territory is eligible for the draft. Non-North American players are all able to negotiate individually. In Hockey, anyone 18 to 21 is eligible, regardless of nationality. In all four sports, draft order is determined by the order of finish the previous year. League champions get the last pick in each round, runners-up get the second-to-last, etc. Basketball and football do not have minor leagues for the most part, so they have rules that require players to put in at least a little time after high school before they are eligible. Basketball players worldwide are eligible, and to be honest I can’t find if that rule applies in football, though that is all but a moot point. Canadians are eligible in the NFL draft. That’s basically it - the worst teams get first crack at the best players, and the players either take what they are offered or try to negotiate a trade, or they sit out. It is anything but a free market. Baseball is exempt from anti-trade or monopoly legislation by Congressional decree. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013/35 "2008-10-08T21:32:11Z")
> [@footballisplayedwithyourfeet](#): > > And maybe more interestingly, doesn’t this violate some of the individual freedoms of these athletes? If an athlete lives and growes up in (for instance) San Diego CA and is picked by a team from north east, is he obligated to move across the country? Is there any way to have a professional carreer, while also being able to stay close to your family, hometown, etc. Not really. In American sports, the league lords it over the teams, rather than vice versa. An NFL player is effectively (not actually, but effectively) an NFL employee, rather than an employee of his team. ---
**Author:** ![storyteller0910](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@storyteller0910](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/storyteller0910)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013/36 "2008-10-08T21:57:24Z")
> [@Hawkeyeop](#): > > I disagree that small market teams couldn’t pay $24 million to a top prospect though. The Royals gave $55 million to Gil Meche, a guy who has a very remote chance of being on the next good Royals team. Do you not think they would be better off giving Price, a potential star, that money? Sure there is risk, but there is a much higher reward then giving some third starter 10 figures a year. I don’t even know where to start with this. You can’t win on David Price alone. Look at this year’s Rays. They’re successful now because they were able to draft BJ Upton, draft Evan Longoria, draft Delmon Young and trade him for Matt Garza, and, oh yeah, draft washouts like Josh Hamilton (a washout for them, anyway), Dewon Brazelton, and (sort of) Rocco Baldelli. Without a draft, every one of those players would have come at a price nearly twice what the Rays actually paid. The Rays surely couldn’t have afforded Longoria, Young/Garza, and Upton at that price. Even if they _could_, they wouldn’t have been able to afford much of the major league talent that now surrounds those guys. And, perhaps most importantly, they wouldn’t have had the flexibility to take chances. Baseball prospect valuation is the most inexact science in sports. The draft, and the resultant depression of the salaries of younger players, gives teams the chance to throw a bunch of things against the wall and see what sticks. Without a draft, the Rays could maybe have cleared $24 million to give to Josh Hamilton in 1999, and maybe another $25 million to give to Rocco Baldelli in 2000. Maybe, if they scrimp and save and put a 120-loss team on the field in 2001, they could have managed to give another $20 million to Dewon Brazelton in 2002. But no way, by 2003, can they afford BJ Upton. They’re fucked for years to come, because they owe three noncontributors somewhere in the neighborhood of $15 million a year and their financial resources are limited. > [@](#): > > If football draftees were overpaid, teams would stop trading up in the draft. In league where players have short careers, getting the first few years of a player is critical. Teams have. > [@](#): > > If you need a reminder look at Rays, who are winning on sheer talent. The most valuable person available might be a 21 year college senior, and I think he should be paid accordingly Talent that they drafted, that they never in a million years could have paid for in the absence of a draft. But of course, the financial aspect is only one side of the competitive balance issue, and you’re ignoring the other side. I’ll concede that it’s less obvious in baseball than in, say, basketball, where the elimination of the draft would probably kill the NBA completely inside a decade. But the bottom line is, given a choice, even if they money is the same, most players will prefer to play for a winning team. Look at Matt Ryan, drafted this past year by the Atlanta Falcons. If there were no draft, do you really think Matt Ryan signs a contract with the Falcons, given that there is a salary cap and there’s only so much of it he can reasonably be offered? You think he’s going to go to a team where his left tackle is a rookie, so he can reasonably expect to get obliterated every game, where he has mediocre receiving targets and an unproven running back? Fuck no! He’ll sign with the Vikings, who might be a QB away from the Super Bowl, or the Bears. In baseball, crap, even if the Royals wanted to throw $25 million at David Price, _why the hell would David Price ever choose to sign with the Royals?_ They’re horrible now, they’ll be horrible in five years, particularly if Price’s own contract limits their ability to ever add any _other_ decent players apart from Price. His chances of major league success, particularly wins, which adds up to real money down the line, are small. So he can go there, or he can go to, say, the Dodgers, for roughly equivalent money, spend a few pressure-free years developing at his own pace, then join the rotation of a playoff-ready club where if he pitches to an ERA under 3.50 he has a chance at 20 wins. Which do you think he’ll pick? Which would _you?_ > [@](#): > > Paying large salaries doesn’t get you around employment laws. No, the antitrust exemption does that. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013/37 "2008-10-15T17:44:56Z")
**storyteller** , while I’ve generally agreed with your analysis, I’m pretty sure that the other sports leagues do not share baseball’s antitrust exemption. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Hawkeyeop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/958977/32.png) [@Hawkeyeop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hawkeyeop)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013/38 "2008-10-15T18:56:56Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > Drafts were instituted in other sports for the same reason – to give all the teams a chance to compete. Baseball was the last, partly because the Yankees opposed it (and why shouldn’t they? They could use the Yankee mistique to get players – sometimes at lower salaries than other teams were willing to pay. Then they’d stash them in their farm system or trade them to Kansas City for players they needed.). Quoting Wiki > [@](#): > > Initially, the draft succeeded in reducing the value of signing bonuses. In 1964, a year before the first draft, University of Wisconsin outfielder Rick Reichardt was given a record bonus of $205,000 by the Los Angeles Angels. Without competition from other clubs, the Athletics were able to sign Rick Monday for a bonus of only $104,000. It would take until 1979 for a drafted player to receive a bonus higher than Reichardt’s.[18] And you want me to believe this was done for purely competitive balance reasons? That owners wouldn’t notice the fact that top salaries would go down? > [@](#): > > In baseball, at least, the draft has led to an increase in salaries and bonuses for top choices, since by being a top choice, you have negotiating leverage. The same goes on for football: if you’re a number one choice, you’re going to get a bigger contract since the team can’t let you walk. > > Back in the 50s, baseball thought a $4000 signing bonus was so big that they needed rules to make it unattractive. That would be about $34,000 in today’s money. Pedro Alvaraz, a top draft choice of the Pirates, recently got $6 million, and bonuses in the millions are routine. The higher your draft position, the greater your bonus. Ultimately, it’s doubtful there’s any difference in what teams pay with a draft than what they would have paid without one. The number of players who would be worth large salaries/bonuses is still about the same. Wait are you arguing that in 1950 baseball wanted to bring down signing bonuses, but the draft was purely for competitive balance reasons? That doesn’t make any sense. You lose more leverage than gained in the fact that you can only to negotiate with 1 team instead of thirty. You can either accept the one offer you get, or sit out a year and do it again. If you are a young player, a lost year can be very damaging. You are absolutely at the mercy of the team. Sure bonuses have gone up over years, but that has nothing to do with the draft. how much more does the average player make then his 1950 equivilant? How much more are tickets? Why do top draft picks who become free agents get so much more money than they would otherwise? > [@Rysto](#): > > I meant in football, not hockey. High first rounds picks in hockey are only unmovable because they’re so valuable nobody wants to trade them. Football teams have the option of not drafting a player. If the players cost more than they were worth they would. No team has ever purposely skipped a pick. > [@VarlosZ](#): > > Of course it’s important _if you care about competitive balance_. I care about competitive balance. Competitive balance doesn’t justify illegal behavior T > [@VarlosZ](#): > > hen why did Rick Porcello, widely regarded as the best high school pitching prospect in a decade, fall to the Tigers at the 27th pick in the 2007 draft? The answer is because is because 26 other teams didn’t want to guarantee him $7M (which is what he eventually got), but you think it’s plausible that these same teams would be willing to pay four times as much for him if there was a pure auction? Porcello on the open market would have gotten much more then Detroit gave him. The reasons he didn’t are simple. One, the other teams had the option of instead of paying Porcello 40% of market value, they could pay someone else 25%, and went with option B. Secondly, and more importantly, teams do not want to defy the commishnor office. If teams starts offering market value, everyone else will have to in order to compete. Thus, it in the best interest of everyone to make sure costs are kept down. A couple of teams such as the Tigers and Red Sox have been willing to defy the commishnor and pay significantly more then slot. Most everyone else has not, and won’t draft these players. The Astros are an extreme example of a team that would rather keep the league happy, than draft the best player. > [@](#): > > Football teams’ behavior, strictly from the perspective of on-field performance, is [irrational](http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Z56vbAuP56wJ:www.econ.berkeley.edu/~webfac/malmendier/e218_sp06/Thaler.pdf+massey+thaler&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a)in this regard. In the past few years, however, teams have been coming around to the idea that trading up in the top half of the 1st round is a bad idea. Free agency is irrational too. Doesn’t mean that players should be forced to accept less money to protect the owners from themselves > [@](#): > > If [your theory](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10290232&postcount=5) is that the draft exists to save the league money, then it absolutely matters. Yes, I believe it saves the league money. I believe the leagues pay as little in salaries as they can get away with it. I don’t really think veterans will accept less money just because rookies make more. However, I maintain it does not matter. The problem is that top amatuers are being systematically underpaid by the system. That is what need to be rectified. The advantaged party isn’t important, the disadvantaged one is. > [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > Auctions only produce those big salaries when there is a handful of guys looking to cash in. If all several thousand players that are in the baseball draft were to enter the open market at the same time, the prices would bottom out faster than the stock market. Because then, teams could sign several dozen above average players and let them develop in the farm system instead of wasting millions on one guy and hoping he takes off relatively soon. Again look at Free Agency. Sre teams just signing a bunch of mediocre players, or are they giving lots of money to stars? The successful teams tend to do the latter. The draft is similar. There are players who are much more likely to become stars than others. Those players will get much more money. You can’t create a winning team based on mediocre players, no matter how many you have. There aren’t that many prospects who are likely to be above avg major leguers. They all will receive significant raises. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > I don’t even know where to start with this. You can’t win on David Price alone. Look at this year’s Rays. They’re successful now because they were able to draft BJ Upton, draft Evan Longoria, draft Delmon Young and trade him for Matt Garza, and, oh yeah, draft washouts like Josh Hamilton (a washout for them, anyway), Dewon Brazelton, and (sort of) Rocco Baldelli. Without a draft, every one of those players would have come at a price nearly twice what the Rays actually paid. The Rays surely couldn’t have afforded Longoria, Young/Garza, and Upton at that price. Even if they _could_, they wouldn’t have been able to afford much of the major league talent that now surrounds those guys. To an extent that it true. I do think that a team that put all its money into amateurs and ignored the major league level, could amass that level of talent, but it certainly would be more difficult > [@](#): > > Talent that they drafted, that they never in a million years could have paid for in the absence of a draft. Almost certainly true. However, you can’t justify illegal hiring practices on the grounds that it is better for competitive balance. Wouldn’t it be better for small markets if they could keep all their players forever? How bout if baseball decided no owner would pay any player more than 5 million a year? That would be a boon for competitive balance and a boon for small markets. It is also blatantly illegal. This comes off to me as illegal as well, which makes any it is better for baseball argument moot. > [@](#): > > But of course, the financial aspect is only one side of the competitive balance issue, and you’re ignoring the other side. I’ll concede that it’s less obvious in baseball than in, say, basketball, where the elimination of the draft would probably kill the NBA completely inside a decade. But the bottom line is, given a choice, even if they money is the same, most players will prefer to play for a winning team. Look at Matt Ryan, drafted this past year by the Atlanta Falcons. If there were no draft, do you really think Matt Ryan signs a contract with the Falcons, given that there is a salary cap and there’s only so much of it he can reasonably be offered? You think he’s going to go to a team where his left tackle is a rookie, so he can reasonably expect to get obliterated every game, where he has mediocre receiving targets and an unproven running back? Do all free agents sign with good teams? Why did Pudge sign with the Tigers or Zito with the with Giants? Brees went to Saints because it was the best opportunity at winning? Sure some do, but most go where they will get the most money. I don’t see prospects worrying too much about how good a team is, a status that could certainly change by the time they reach the majors. I would think they would be more concerned with money, location, and opportunity. > [@](#): > > No, the antitrust exemption does that. That doesn’t give Carte Blanc on all employment laws. See Free Agency, Collusion [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2008, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013/39 "2008-10-15T19:33:58Z")
I think the owners like the NFL draft because in some way it insulates the league from team failures. Theoretically the quality of teams will be smeared across the board and every body will be competitive. The Lions are demonstrating that poor management will negate the best intentions. But a dynasty is hard to maintain. You continually draft in the bottom 30 . That saves you money though. if the draft worked as planned ,there would be a lot of teams near .500. Then the fans would continue to go because your team would not be eliminated until near the end of the season. The league would prosper. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-entry-draft-sports-to-me/467013.md?page=1)