Author Topic: Entry Draft Signing Bonuses (Read 2786 times)

Canada8999 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 07, 2010, 04:31:50 PM »

Disclaimer:
Applying the above exercise to my Brewers (once my trade with Cincy is processed):

1-6 --> 5 and 6 - 3.5M
1-28 --> 18 thru 31 - 1.5M
2-2 --> 32 thru 46 - 1.0M
2-6 --> 32 thru 46 - 1.0M
(no other picks require a bonus)

Total: $7.0M

Again, these numbers are 'expected' or 'by-slot'. There's no reason why I couldn't take the 13th ranked player at 1-6, and it would reduce my cost by $1.5M.

Lucas Lima #52 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 10, 2010, 03:48:31 PM »

I'm not from the Rules Comitee, but let me give one idea I didn't read about it...

I kind of agree with both of you... Signability should be a "factor" into the draft, but also it makes a bit tougher for smaller teams to get early picks... So there should be some kind of money limit to spending, but at the same time it should give a "fair" shot for small market teams at prospects...

Based on that, my idea would be to create something like a "Entry Draft Money"... It would be kind of "expanding the cap" that were mentioned, but instead of letting that money open for anything, that extra cap could only be used at the Entry Draft... I don't know exacly, but it could be somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of the team total cap... If the GM wants, he could spent cap money also on picks, but this would give some extra money necessary for small franchises at the same time it would let bigger teams with more money, keeping signability a factor...

lp815 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 10, 2010, 05:38:32 PM »

I can see both sides also, but how Ben has presented two examples, the only bonuses that would be at a decent clip are the top 10. However, I really don't want to see the team with the 1st pick overall have to trade it because he does not have enough money, or for that matter, four or five teams with top 5 picks. If that were to happen, it might be an issue.

Ultimately, I'll go with Ben's "D" answer, do nothing. I'm not married to it, so if someone can show me how another method is more effective, I'm open to hear it.

Colby · « **Reply #13 on:** February 10, 2010, 06:00:09 PM »

Quote from: Jake on February 10, 2010, 05:38:32 PM

I can see both sides also, but how Ben has presented two examples, the only bonuses that would be at a decent clip are the top 10. However, I really don't want to see the team with the 1st pick overall have to trade it because he does not have enough money, or for that matter, four or five teams with top 5 picks. If that were to happen, it might be an issue.

Ultimately, I'll go with Ben's "D" answer, do nothing. I'm not married to it, so if someone can show me how another method is more effective, I'm open to hear it.

I believe we made the ruling that the bonuses were tied to the actual players in the real draft. Therefore, if we had this draft last year, the Nationals could have passed on Strasburg and his bonus and went after a cheaper player. It goes against the slotting system a bit, but it doesn't hurt the small market clubs.

Canada8999 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 10, 2010, 07:00:14 PM »

Quote from: Colby on February 10, 2010, 06:00:09 PM

I believe we made the ruling that the bonuses were tied to the actual players in the real draft. Therefore, if we had this draft last year, the Nationals could have passed on Strasburg and his bonus and went after a cheaper player. It goes against the slotting system a bit, but it doesn't hurt the small market clubs.

That is correct. While the #1 pick may lose some value in taking a player slotted a few picks later, they would save a significant amount. If they're in love with the #1 pick and are strapped for cap room, another option is to sign the prospect to a standard contract and spread the bonus out.

It's not like there were never rumors that the Nats may pass on Strasburg just because they wouldn't be able to sign him...

Colby · « **Reply #15 on:** February 10, 2010, 07:38:58 PM »

Quote from: Brewers GM on February 10, 2010, 07:00:14 PM

That is correct. While the #1 pick may lose some value in taking a player slotted a few picks later, they would save a significant amount. If they're in love with the #1 pick and are strapped for cap room, another option is to sign the prospect to a standard contract and spread the bonus out.

It's not like there were never rumors that the Nats may pass on Strasburg just because they wouldn't be able to sign him...

Yeah, I think our system is about as realistic as it can be while keeping things system. The only thing I would do is expand rosters a bit over the next two years.