I’m not that familiar with hockey. Do draftees get paid using a slot system?
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I don’t really think it matters if they are taking it from the owners or players.
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
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?
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.
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?
Paying large salaries doesn’t get you around employment laws.
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.
Of course it’s important if you care about competitive balance.
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.
Football teams’ behavior, strictly from the perspective of on-field performance, is irrationalin 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.
If your theory is that the draft exists to save the league money, then it absolutely matters.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Teams have.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
I care about competitive balance. Competitive balance doesn’t justify illegal behavior
T
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.
Free agency is irrational too. Doesn’t mean that players should be forced to accept less money to protect the owners from themselves
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
That doesn’t give Carte Blanc on all employment laws. See Free Agency, Collusion
[/QUOTE]
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.
).