 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Can Baseball survive
rkinslow19
Bullshit.
Salary slotting has everything to do with competitive balance. When the worst teams don't have access to the best players, you have a problem. Agents deliberately inflate their player's contact demands so that only the wealthiest (and in many cases, most successful) teams dare draft the player in question.
April 05, 2007 at 04:10AM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
Contraction is the dumbest idea anyone in baseball had since the White Sox decided to wear shorts.
Baseball could certainly stand to be improved in terms of its economic model, but salary slotting has nothing to do with competitive balance and everything to do with owners wanting to spend less money. And I've never understood why rich teams have to subsidize poor management. Seriously slow, you're a Commie.
Bullshit.
Salary slotting has everything to do with competitive balance. When the worst teams don't have access to the best players, you have a problem. Agents deliberately inflate their player's contact demands so that only the wealthiest (and in many cases, most successful) teams dare draft the player in question.
FuriousGiorge
April 05, 2007 at 02:38PM View BBCode
Competitive balance has very little to do with where top draft picks end up signing. This isn't basketball where entire dynasties can be built on one or two superstars picked near the top of the draft - in baseball, the most successful teams are the ones that scout and develop players well, and then use their money wisely. Drafting is, as I've already said, an incredibly inexact science, and teams are usually better off spreading their resources out among a lot of mid-level prospects than focusing on one or two at the top. All you're doing with salary slotting (besides artificially deflating salaries across the board) is propping up teams that have no idea how to manage a farm system. Rather than constantly giving undeserved help to teams like the Pirates and Royals, who have an uncanny knack for squandering resources, maybe major league baseball can focus on trying to make sure that incompetence is weeded out first.
lvnwrth
Since CG used the Royals as an example, let's take a look at what MIGHT have been, had the Royals had more than a $55 million budget for the last decade.
Going into 2000, the Royals OF was Jermaine Dye, Carlos Beltran, and Johnny Damon. Had those players been kept together, it could be argued that they would have been the best OF in the AL, maybe in MLB. All left KC via trade when it becamse apparent that there was no way the Royals could retain them once they were eligible for free agency. Beltran and Damon went to mega-market teams for uber-bucks.
In the late 1990's the Royals gave a one time 'can't miss' prospect a chance to revive his already faltering career. After four years of doing just that, Jeff Suppan moved on. Since that time, he's 57-37 and far better than anyone the Royals have had since.
In 2003 they gave Jose Lima a chance to revive his disappeared career. He went 8-3 in the second half, with an ERA below the league average; then signed as a free agent with the Dodgers after the season.
The second half of 2001, and 2002, they gave Paul Byrd a chance to prove he wasn't finished at age 30...as his performance in Philadelphia seemed to indicate. In a year and a half, he went 23-17 for the Royals, then signed with the Braves.
I can't help but believe that had the Royals been able to compete financially to allow them to hang on to 30 wins a year from two pitchers, and 75 HR, 275 RBI, 125 SB from their collective outfield, the results might have been a little different in KC.
That's not to say that mismanagement has played a role. Forced to trade Damon, Beltran, and and Dye, Royals managed to get virtually NOTHING in return. John Buck, a below average major league catcher, and Mark Teahen, who looks like he might yet be a good ML hitter, are all the return they have for those three guys. They have nothing to show for the pitchers who left.
April 05, 2007 at 03:12PM View BBCode
Competitive balance has far more to do with where players go when they reach free agency, than which team drafts them, and what kind of contract they receive. Granted, the bonuses being paid to totally unproven college and HS players are reaching the ridiculous, but they're a small cost when factored into the total cost of running a franchise.Since CG used the Royals as an example, let's take a look at what MIGHT have been, had the Royals had more than a $55 million budget for the last decade.
Going into 2000, the Royals OF was Jermaine Dye, Carlos Beltran, and Johnny Damon. Had those players been kept together, it could be argued that they would have been the best OF in the AL, maybe in MLB. All left KC via trade when it becamse apparent that there was no way the Royals could retain them once they were eligible for free agency. Beltran and Damon went to mega-market teams for uber-bucks.
In the late 1990's the Royals gave a one time 'can't miss' prospect a chance to revive his already faltering career. After four years of doing just that, Jeff Suppan moved on. Since that time, he's 57-37 and far better than anyone the Royals have had since.
In 2003 they gave Jose Lima a chance to revive his disappeared career. He went 8-3 in the second half, with an ERA below the league average; then signed as a free agent with the Dodgers after the season.
The second half of 2001, and 2002, they gave Paul Byrd a chance to prove he wasn't finished at age 30...as his performance in Philadelphia seemed to indicate. In a year and a half, he went 23-17 for the Royals, then signed with the Braves.
I can't help but believe that had the Royals been able to compete financially to allow them to hang on to 30 wins a year from two pitchers, and 75 HR, 275 RBI, 125 SB from their collective outfield, the results might have been a little different in KC.
That's not to say that mismanagement has played a role. Forced to trade Damon, Beltran, and and Dye, Royals managed to get virtually NOTHING in return. John Buck, a below average major league catcher, and Mark Teahen, who looks like he might yet be a good ML hitter, are all the return they have for those three guys. They have nothing to show for the pitchers who left.
barterer2002
April 05, 2007 at 04:08PM View BBCode
I tend to agree with you lvnwrth although perhaps a better team to describe is the Twins who constantly have to deal off their top maturing talent (although they can usually afford to keep one or two studs) but are much better in their trading skills (see Santana, Nathan, Radke, Milton, etc) than are the Royals. They are at a point, because of their skill with trading, that they can field a competitive team but not one that can go out and beat the Yankees (who are the whipping boy for excessive spending).
FuriousGiorge
The worst thing the Royals could have done would be to tie up their payroll in Dye, Damon and Beltran. Dye has been mostly mediocre and injured since he left Kansas City, last year being the one big exception. In hindsight, the Royals traded him when his value was probably highest - if management had an ounce of sense, they would have gotten more back for him than Neifi Perez. The problem lies not in having to deal him for financial reasons, it lies in having no sense of what constitutes a valuable baseball player.
Johnny Damon has been mostly good but unspectacular since he left the Royals. Keeping him would have been nice, but he made 13 million dollars last year and I doubt you can find many people who believe he was worth it. The Yankees can afford to piss away superstar money on players like Damon (something they've always been able to do), but pretty much everyone else has to exercise some fiscal restraint.
Carlos Beltran is the one player they had to unload for financial reasons that was probably unfortunate. They did get a decent package of players in return - if any of them pan out, history will look kindly on the deal. But they might not. Then again, Beltran has had one so-so year in New York and one great year. If he doesn't continue having great years, the Mets will ultimately regret signing him.
Jose Lima, Jeff Suppan, Paul Byrd? Seriously? Start with Byrd. They paid him 850,000 dollars in 2002, a nice low-risk signing for a reclamation project, and he gave them a good ERA and some wins. Then he signed with the Braves for 10 million over 2 years, and the Braves may as well have flushed that money down the toilet. The Royals made the right decision.
Jose Lima, after leaving the Royals the first time, gave the Dodgers 170 innings of mediocrity. I'm not sure what he was paid, but I'm quite certain it wasn't worth it.
Jeff Suppan has racked up nice win totals for good Cardinals teams, wins he never would have gotten in Kansas City. The Cardinals are paying him 4 million per year to be mostly a league average pitcher - a worthwhile sum for a competitive team, but a sinkhole for a team like the Royals who have no need for the marginal value Suppan would add.
If the Royals had kept every single one of these players they would still not be competitive, and they'd be saddled with a huge salary burden. They have used their "small-market" status as a crutch for more than a decade, making terrible decisions (like Dye for Perez) and then making the excuse that they can't compete with bigger-market teams. They're not alone (hello Pirates, Devil Rays, Tigers before they wised up, Brewers before they started focusing on developing their own talent). And people say that the answer is to subsidize these teams?
There have to be consequences for poor management. Otherwise, teams can just keep sinking money into mediocre players and keep getting bailed out from under their own ineptitude. And besides that, not everyone can or even should be competitive every year. Somehow that's crept into the discussion, as people look at the NFL and decide that "every team has a chance every year", somehow ignoring teams like the Cardinals, Redskins, Lions, Browns, Texans and Bills who have been thrashing around in mediocrity for years. The Royals don't need socialism to make them more competitive, what they need is management that has clue fucking one about how to run a baseball team.
April 05, 2007 at 05:59PM View BBCode
Leavenworth's post is filled with some good points and a whole lot of things that don't make any sense.The worst thing the Royals could have done would be to tie up their payroll in Dye, Damon and Beltran. Dye has been mostly mediocre and injured since he left Kansas City, last year being the one big exception. In hindsight, the Royals traded him when his value was probably highest - if management had an ounce of sense, they would have gotten more back for him than Neifi Perez. The problem lies not in having to deal him for financial reasons, it lies in having no sense of what constitutes a valuable baseball player.
Johnny Damon has been mostly good but unspectacular since he left the Royals. Keeping him would have been nice, but he made 13 million dollars last year and I doubt you can find many people who believe he was worth it. The Yankees can afford to piss away superstar money on players like Damon (something they've always been able to do), but pretty much everyone else has to exercise some fiscal restraint.
Carlos Beltran is the one player they had to unload for financial reasons that was probably unfortunate. They did get a decent package of players in return - if any of them pan out, history will look kindly on the deal. But they might not. Then again, Beltran has had one so-so year in New York and one great year. If he doesn't continue having great years, the Mets will ultimately regret signing him.
Jose Lima, Jeff Suppan, Paul Byrd? Seriously? Start with Byrd. They paid him 850,000 dollars in 2002, a nice low-risk signing for a reclamation project, and he gave them a good ERA and some wins. Then he signed with the Braves for 10 million over 2 years, and the Braves may as well have flushed that money down the toilet. The Royals made the right decision.
Jose Lima, after leaving the Royals the first time, gave the Dodgers 170 innings of mediocrity. I'm not sure what he was paid, but I'm quite certain it wasn't worth it.
Jeff Suppan has racked up nice win totals for good Cardinals teams, wins he never would have gotten in Kansas City. The Cardinals are paying him 4 million per year to be mostly a league average pitcher - a worthwhile sum for a competitive team, but a sinkhole for a team like the Royals who have no need for the marginal value Suppan would add.
If the Royals had kept every single one of these players they would still not be competitive, and they'd be saddled with a huge salary burden. They have used their "small-market" status as a crutch for more than a decade, making terrible decisions (like Dye for Perez) and then making the excuse that they can't compete with bigger-market teams. They're not alone (hello Pirates, Devil Rays, Tigers before they wised up, Brewers before they started focusing on developing their own talent). And people say that the answer is to subsidize these teams?
There have to be consequences for poor management. Otherwise, teams can just keep sinking money into mediocre players and keep getting bailed out from under their own ineptitude. And besides that, not everyone can or even should be competitive every year. Somehow that's crept into the discussion, as people look at the NFL and decide that "every team has a chance every year", somehow ignoring teams like the Cardinals, Redskins, Lions, Browns, Texans and Bills who have been thrashing around in mediocrity for years. The Royals don't need socialism to make them more competitive, what they need is management that has clue fucking one about how to run a baseball team.
barterer2002
Baseball needs some revenue sharing. It won't make the Royals good unless they get better management but it will help level the field between the Yankees and the Twins. Here's what should be done. 1). The gate/concessions/parking receipts should be split (after expenses) 60/40 for the home team. Currently the split is 90/10. Similarly, TV and Radio revenue should be split 50/50 per game (rather roughly under my schedule to come below). The theory for me is that when the Yankees sell their TV rights for 500 million they're selling the rights of each of their opponants as well who should be compensated for that. Thus we have a pool, the Yankees keep half their TV money (in this example 250 million) and put the other half in the pool. The Royals and Twins would do the same with their 80 million (keep 40, put 40 into the pool) The pool is then divided amongst all 30 MLB teams (or you can prorate it based on who is playing where but I'm going for an easy fix). Does it make everyone equal. No. The pool is going to put out somethink like 100 million a team. That would give the Yankees 350 million in local TV revenues while the Royals/Twins have 140 million. Its not equal but it is more equitable as each team is now being properly compensated for its product.
April 05, 2007 at 06:08PM View BBCode
Of course you must also realize that baseball, by its very nature is more socialistic than capitalistic. Put it this way, if a company like GE flourishes in capitalism to the point of driving its competition away so that it is the only company of its kind it is a good thing for GE. If the Yankees flourish to the point of driving its compeition away then they don't have a product to see because they still need an opponant. The fortunes of the wealthy teams are directly tied to those of the poorer teams.Baseball needs some revenue sharing. It won't make the Royals good unless they get better management but it will help level the field between the Yankees and the Twins. Here's what should be done. 1). The gate/concessions/parking receipts should be split (after expenses) 60/40 for the home team. Currently the split is 90/10. Similarly, TV and Radio revenue should be split 50/50 per game (rather roughly under my schedule to come below). The theory for me is that when the Yankees sell their TV rights for 500 million they're selling the rights of each of their opponants as well who should be compensated for that. Thus we have a pool, the Yankees keep half their TV money (in this example 250 million) and put the other half in the pool. The Royals and Twins would do the same with their 80 million (keep 40, put 40 into the pool) The pool is then divided amongst all 30 MLB teams (or you can prorate it based on who is playing where but I'm going for an easy fix). Does it make everyone equal. No. The pool is going to put out somethink like 100 million a team. That would give the Yankees 350 million in local TV revenues while the Royals/Twins have 140 million. Its not equal but it is more equitable as each team is now being properly compensated for its product.
FuriousGiorge
April 05, 2007 at 06:35PM View BBCode
Revenue sharing does infinitely more to close the gap between the haves and have-nots than salary caps or slotting or anything else that artificially deflates player salaries. It should not be surprising that most of the proposals the owners come up with involve artifical salary limits rather than revenue sharing, since it's a lot easier to convince 30 owners to put into place something that will control their costs (and thus increase their profits) rather than something which will actually benefit the low-revenue teams at the expense of the high-revenue ones. Revenue sharing isn't socialism, it's just good business sense (since both teams are responsible for drawing consumers either to the park or to watch the game on TV). Salary caps aren't really socialism either - they're just a way for the robber barons to keep their workers from being paid as much as they could make on the open market. I just like calling Slow a Commie.
FuriousGiorge
April 05, 2007 at 07:08PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
You could always be my bitch though.
lvnwrth
That's why I said that I was not arguing that mismanagement didn't play a part in the Royals problems. Clearly they managed to get very little in return for their top tier talent, while teams like the Twins have done quite well, faced with pretty much the same set of circumstances.
April 05, 2007 at 09:54PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
I tend to agree with you lvnwrth although perhaps a better team to describe is the Twins who constantly have to deal off their top maturing talent (although they can usually afford to keep one or two studs) but are much better in their trading skills (see Santana, Nathan, Radke, Milton, etc) than are the Royals.
That's why I said that I was not arguing that mismanagement didn't play a part in the Royals problems. Clearly they managed to get very little in return for their top tier talent, while teams like the Twins have done quite well, faced with pretty much the same set of circumstances.
rkinslow19
I'm not sure what you mean....it's 200x200 pixels.
April 06, 2007 at 02:13AM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
what is with the incredibly big kinslow avatar?
I'm not sure what you mean....it's 200x200 pixels.
bobcat73
Baseball is the same as it ever was....except the small parks and huge players and that DAMN All-Star game.
April 06, 2007 at 02:28AM View BBCode
Baseball has never been "a level playing field". Some teams have money and some don't...Seems like the Yankees used to keep some teams afloat buying their talent every few years. The only dif currently is the owners don't get to see that money the players get it in their salary via FA.Baseball is the same as it ever was....except the small parks and huge players and that DAMN All-Star game.
barterer2002
Well you are correct in the sense that a well managed team such as the Yankees in the fifties will always beat a team like the Athletics of the same era and will also take great advantage of them in the trade market.
In another sense you're wrong though. Once upon a time a bad team with a great player. Call this hypothetical player Walter Johnson, Ken Williams, George Sisler or Bob Feller. The team that had him could keep him until they were ready to let him go. Of course they had the ability to trade him off (Chuck Klein, Grover Cleveland Alexander) but for the most part didn't lose him in the mold of the modern players (Jason Giambi, Randy Johnson, Barry Bonds) simply because of an open bidding process. Now I'm not declaring that system to be better. I think its important for players to have some freedom but to say that the system today is the same as its always been is very shortsighted.
I'd write more but I have to go for now.
April 06, 2007 at 01:37PM View BBCode
Originally posted by bobcat73
Baseball is the same as it ever was....
Well you are correct in the sense that a well managed team such as the Yankees in the fifties will always beat a team like the Athletics of the same era and will also take great advantage of them in the trade market.
In another sense you're wrong though. Once upon a time a bad team with a great player. Call this hypothetical player Walter Johnson, Ken Williams, George Sisler or Bob Feller. The team that had him could keep him until they were ready to let him go. Of course they had the ability to trade him off (Chuck Klein, Grover Cleveland Alexander) but for the most part didn't lose him in the mold of the modern players (Jason Giambi, Randy Johnson, Barry Bonds) simply because of an open bidding process. Now I'm not declaring that system to be better. I think its important for players to have some freedom but to say that the system today is the same as its always been is very shortsighted.
I'd write more but I have to go for now.
Damien435
You want to "save" baseball (seems to be doing fine to me, what's there to save?) put in a salary cap that forces teams like the Yankees to actually spend their money in a smart manner as opposed to paying people like Johnny Damon 13 million a year just to take him away from the Red Sox. There's a reason why there is more competitive balance in the NFL and NBA than in MLB, it's because of the salary cap, hence why there are no "Yankees' in the NFL or NBA.
April 06, 2007 at 05:17PM View BBCode
So you guys want to contract, eh? Bring the league down from 30 teams to 28, probably cause a drop in the average salary of a player because there will be more players competing for fewer slots, take a sport that is after all "America's Past Time" away from the fans? Fine, but don't try to get rid of teams that have multiple World Series championships and are so loved by their fans. Right now there is only ONE team that will be on everyone's list for contraction, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, after that it's a crap shoot, you have the Royals, Brewers, Pirates, Rockies, that's about it. You tried contraction once, you tried to take our Twins away from us, we fought back and we won, WE saved baseball from making an incredibly dumb mistake. Four division championships in five years (2002, 2003, 2004, 2006) including last year where the Central had three teams with 90 wins, two more than any other division in baseball and three more than the NL Central and West. The pro-contraction camp would have looked pretty dumb closing down the Twins this past year (as the earliest the Twins could have been eliminated or relocated was after the 2006 season) after we completed such an amazing comeback to win the toughest division in baseball the last day of the season, finished one game back of the Yankees and Mets for best record in baseball, and had the AL Batting Champ, MVP and Cy Young award winner all in the same year.You want to "save" baseball (seems to be doing fine to me, what's there to save?) put in a salary cap that forces teams like the Yankees to actually spend their money in a smart manner as opposed to paying people like Johnny Damon 13 million a year just to take him away from the Red Sox. There's a reason why there is more competitive balance in the NFL and NBA than in MLB, it's because of the salary cap, hence why there are no "Yankees' in the NFL or NBA.
lvnwrth
Actually "WE" didn't try to do anything of the sort. MLB talked about it, but the last I knew, none of us were owners or league presidents or employed by the commissioner's office. So no, WE, didn't try to take "your Twins"; a franchise, BTW, that YOU stole from Washington 45 years ago.
April 06, 2007 at 07:29PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Damien435
You tried contraction once, you tried to take our Twins away from us, we fought back and we won, WE saved baseball from making an incredibly dumb mistake.
Actually "WE" didn't try to do anything of the sort. MLB talked about it, but the last I knew, none of us were owners or league presidents or employed by the commissioner's office. So no, WE, didn't try to take "your Twins"; a franchise, BTW, that YOU stole from Washington 45 years ago.
shutout1277
April 06, 2007 at 07:58PM View BBCode
you mean, you don't own a pro team lvnwrth? I thought we all did.:lol:
Benne
April 06, 2007 at 10:09PM View BBCode
Damien, no one here is talking about contraction, except for Commie Kinslow. Simmer down over there.
lvnwrth
April 06, 2007 at 10:13PM View BBCode
Well, I'd be willing to discuss it. It's obviousl that there's an utter dearth of legitimate major league pitchers.
rkinslow19
Overexpansion+Steroids=73
April 07, 2007 at 05:36PM View BBCode
Originally posted by lvnwrth
Well, I'd be willing to discuss it. It's obviousl that there's an utter dearth of legitimate major league pitchers.
Overexpansion+Steroids=73
lvnwrth
In 2005, Alex Gordon was generally considered the best hitting prospect in the draft. He was a 2-time All-American, Golden Spikes Award winner, and Baseball America College Player of the Year selection. The Royals, one of the lowest spending teams in baseball, drafted him and signed him.
In 2002 and 2005, Luke Hochevar was drafted by the Dodgers and did not sign. In 2006, KNOWING that the Dodgers had failed to sign him the year before, the Royals drafted him anyway. Then they proceeded to sign him.
If you had salary slotting for the draft it might save the small market teams a million or two per year if they were drafting in the top five spots it the draft. That is nothing compared to what happens their first year of arbitration eligiblity, when their salary jumps from $400,000 to $2.5 million; to say nothing of what happens when they become eligible for free agency.
In the long run the impact of salary slotting the draft would be negligible, if it were even noticeable at all.
April 07, 2007 at 06:38PM View BBCode
I have to disagree with you, if you're talking about salary slotting for rookie draft choices.In 2005, Alex Gordon was generally considered the best hitting prospect in the draft. He was a 2-time All-American, Golden Spikes Award winner, and Baseball America College Player of the Year selection. The Royals, one of the lowest spending teams in baseball, drafted him and signed him.
In 2002 and 2005, Luke Hochevar was drafted by the Dodgers and did not sign. In 2006, KNOWING that the Dodgers had failed to sign him the year before, the Royals drafted him anyway. Then they proceeded to sign him.
If you had salary slotting for the draft it might save the small market teams a million or two per year if they were drafting in the top five spots it the draft. That is nothing compared to what happens their first year of arbitration eligiblity, when their salary jumps from $400,000 to $2.5 million; to say nothing of what happens when they become eligible for free agency.
In the long run the impact of salary slotting the draft would be negligible, if it were even noticeable at all.
rkinslow19
Jered Weaver and Stephen Drew were generally regarded as top, if not the best, prospects in the draft. However, signability concerns caused them to fall to 12th and 15th slot, respectively.
They should have both gone top-5, along with Niemann and Verlander
April 07, 2007 at 11:19PM View BBCode
2004 Amateur DraftJered Weaver and Stephen Drew were generally regarded as top, if not the best, prospects in the draft. However, signability concerns caused them to fall to 12th and 15th slot, respectively.
They should have both gone top-5, along with Niemann and Verlander
barterer2002
Of course the solution to the second part of your issue is to provide for an NBA/NHL type draft where teams draft players once and hold their rights until they decide to sign. Thus, when the Dodgers draft Hoevecher out of high school they retain his rights through his college years as well.
I'm not at all certain that this is the greatest solution or even that great a problem but am really just trying to address your argument here.
April 07, 2007 at 11:26PM View BBCode
Of course Ryan your slotting proposal only solves part of the issue. The thing about the baseball draft that allows players to hold out for such contracts is that they don't have to sign. They can go to college (or back to college for another year) and get drafted again the next season. As much as the salary demands appear to cause the issue you're complaining about the salary demands wouldn't be as great if the players didn't have the leverage of not signing. Slotting doesn't solve the issue if Jered Weaver tells the teams at the top "If you draft me I'm not signing and am going back to school for another year"Of course the solution to the second part of your issue is to provide for an NBA/NHL type draft where teams draft players once and hold their rights until they decide to sign. Thus, when the Dodgers draft Hoevecher out of high school they retain his rights through his college years as well.
I'm not at all certain that this is the greatest solution or even that great a problem but am really just trying to address your argument here.
lvnwrth
That was 2004. You still haven't addressed 2005 or 2006? The Royals drafted the best guys available with their picks and they signed them. Both were tough signs, one was represented by Scott Boras, but the Royals...one of the lowest spending teams in baseball...signed them both.
Drew and Weaver are both a$$holes, represented by an a$$hole, and everyone knew it going into the draft. For all their holding out and posturing, the got basically nothing but a year's vacation for their trouble. They wound up getting basically the same money they were being offered originally.
April 08, 2007 at 12:17AM View BBCode
Originally posted by rkinslow19
2004 Amateur Draft
Jered Weaver and Stephen Drew were generally regarded as top, if not the best, prospects in the draft. However, signability concerns caused them to fall to 12th and 15th slot, respectively.
They should have both gone top-5, along with Niemann and Verlander
That was 2004. You still haven't addressed 2005 or 2006? The Royals drafted the best guys available with their picks and they signed them. Both were tough signs, one was represented by Scott Boras, but the Royals...one of the lowest spending teams in baseball...signed them both.
Drew and Weaver are both a$$holes, represented by an a$$hole, and everyone knew it going into the draft. For all their holding out and posturing, the got basically nothing but a year's vacation for their trouble. They wound up getting basically the same money they were being offered originally.
rkinslow19
Yes, and the Royals haven't made the playoffs since they won the Series in '85, and just gave 55 million to Gil Meche, whom has a 4.64 career ERA.
I don't need to go through every year, and address every pick. Just in the instances I've given, I've proved that the system is broken. I have given you two extreme cases, and could give you many more, if I had the inclination to waste my time.
You, on the other hand, have chosen to single out a team which has a track record of making consistently bad personnel moves. Have fun with that.
April 09, 2007 at 04:42AM View BBCode
Originally posted by lvnwrth
Originally posted by rkinslow19
2004 Amateur Draft
Jered Weaver and Stephen Drew were generally regarded as top, if not the best, prospects in the draft. However, signability concerns caused them to fall to 12th and 15th slot, respectively.
They should have both gone top-5, along with Niemann and Verlander
That was 2004. You still haven't addressed 2005 or 2006? The Royals drafted the best guys available with their picks and they signed them. Both were tough signs, one was represented by Scott Boras, but the Royals...one of the lowest spending teams in baseball...signed them both.
Drew and Weaver are both a$$holes, represented by an a$$hole, and everyone knew it going into the draft. For all their holding out and posturing, the got basically nothing but a year's vacation for their trouble. They wound up getting basically the same money they were being offered originally.
Yes, and the Royals haven't made the playoffs since they won the Series in '85, and just gave 55 million to Gil Meche, whom has a 4.64 career ERA.
I don't need to go through every year, and address every pick. Just in the instances I've given, I've proved that the system is broken. I have given you two extreme cases, and could give you many more, if I had the inclination to waste my time.
You, on the other hand, have chosen to single out a team which has a track record of making consistently bad personnel moves. Have fun with that.