Printable View
Yeah usually you are talking like 300K, it's rare for a mill.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Tigers 6th round pick, Dan Fields, could get in the neighborhood of 2 million if he signs, but he's one of those guys that fell because of his strong commitment to Michigan.
2 hours left
what does it say about Boras that he represents the top three picks and none have signed?
It says that he's a greedy mofo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
i asked the question earlier...but how is the bonus money usually paid out? over time?
Or that he does his job - getting the most for his client.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Boras clients always go to the deadline and usually sign.
MLBTR is reporting that Tate has signed.
Fields has signed, hell yes.
Fields>>>>>>>>>>your teams 6th round pick.
Was Damien Magnifico a 6th rounder? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by wahoosamC
I still stand by this:
there should be a cap on ammy draft players.
50 million and six years is retarded for a draft pick.....absolutely absurd...i don't care if he is the next Maddux....the kid hasn't even pitched in the big leagues yet....hell that is half as much as Pujols is making!
Fields, Oliver, and Turner have all signed.
Great night.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffy25
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/press_releas...t=.jsp&c_id=sd
Tate signs with Padres
The question is, will Turner's $6.25M bonus affect Stasburg and/or Ackley's bonus at all, assuming that the deals aren't done yet?Remember that Turner was picked ninth, so $6.25M is "considerably over slot".
i really do like what the cards got miller for.
Nobody's getting that, for one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
For two:
http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showpos...0&postcount=13
http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showpos...8&postcount=15
A cap does nothing except:
a) artificially remove the entirety of a player's leverage and his right to receive his market price
b) make the owners richer
I think someone said that alreadyQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
I'm excited. They need to move Fields to 3rd, he's gonna be a beast.Quote:
Originally Posted by wahoosamC
or..............keeps it fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
it wouldn't be done to make the owners more rich, and i don't see how that is a valid point to the argument.
the reason for doing so is so you don't have Aaron Crowe's or Matt Harrington's who miss our on their baseball careers because of money. If you keep a reasonable cap limit for each draft slot...the team and player can try to negotiate under that cap limit.
let's say pick one can not sign more then an 8 million dollar signing bonus.
and then on down the list. it would keep it in check, it doesn't mean the players can get that much.
you can also have a 3 percent annual increase to the limit for inflation purposes.
....there is no reason baseball should potentially be deprived of a great talent because the player or the agent got too greedy that they were willing to walk away from millions to play a game they love.
it is allowing greed to run these young ball players rather then allowing them to just be excited to play.
is it really fair what Turner got? how would you like to be the guys drafted before him who got less?
it isn't about sticking it "the man" or owner....if you didn't have greedy owners, then you wouldn't have a free enterprise of major league baseball....you don't ignore a cap because as you said, "b) make the owners richer"
you do it for all the reasons that it would help these young athletes.
i was just saying it was official...sometimes MLBTR isn't always officialQuote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Gammons reporting that the Commish is holding off signings so they don't impact others AND that there are conflicting reports about the Rox signing Matzek
Not for players. It's incredibly UNFAIR for the players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Because that's how it works. Restricting the salaries of players = more money for owners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
And that screws the players by getting rid of their leverage and by preventing them from getting their full market value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Likewise, there is no reason a talented player should potentially be deprived of receiving his full market value at the only point in time for a long time and potentially ever that he has any negotiating leverage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
So, let's see here. Greed is good when it comes to big business, even if it's harmful for the average citizen. But a star athlete being greedy? No! Bad! We should tell him what the most he can earn is! For someone who's so anti-socialist, you're sure taking a very anti-free market stance here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Getting rid of the only leverage they'll possibly ever have and limiting their earning power does NOT help them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Did you read the quotes I posted in that 2nd link? If not, I strongly suggest that you do.
All a rookie bonus cap does is ensure that stupid organizations can still pick decent talent and be competitive, and save owners some cash. I really don't see what is so bad for baseball for players to get more money. If teams don't want to pay the bonus demands, they certainly have the ability to pass and get another pick the next season.
The stupid organizations could easily afford draftees. They just choose to waste money on mediocre/over-the-hill veterans, as I illustrated in an earlier post with the Pirates/Matt Morris example.
absolutely. I love his swing. My HS team played a double header against U of D this year. He sat out:( but him and his dad were working on his swing with a wooden bat at the cages on their field and he was killing the ball. I was in RF right by the catches and was just watching him the whole time.Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
it keeps it fair FOR the players. how would you like to be the guy getting drafted 5th one year, and getting 4 million, when the guy drafted 8th getting 7 million? just because your agent didn't get it for you....THAT isn't fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
That isn't why you do it....this isn't about making owners more rich, this is about keeping the game fair and balanced for all athletes that go through the ammy draft. Who cares how much the owners make? ammy draft players are basically being given a bonus just for being drafted and going into a minor league system...it has absolutely nothing about the owners....at least not my reasoning for controlling this.Quote:
Because that's how it works. Restricting the salaries of players = more money for owners.
Free market value? these guys aren't on the free market....they were drafted to join a big league team in order to help that team win games one day. these aren't free agent ball players and they aren't on the free market.Quote:
And that screws the players by getting rid of their leverage and by preventing them from getting their full market value.
deprived? what i am proposing certainly would not be depriving a high school or recent college graduate from making a good deal of money.Quote:
Likewise, there is no reason a talented player should potentially be deprived of receiving his full market value at the only point in time for a long time and potentially ever that he has any negotiating leverage.
If he does well, then after his arbitration years, he has the ability to negotiate for a better contract one day, and make a good deal of money. the way it is now.....the only thing this free market money does is allow greed to decide where these kids go and how quickly they could develop....baseball is a business, but it's a game first.
never said anything like this, don't see where you are coming up with it. don't twist my words to make me sound like a jackass.Quote:
So, let's see here. Greed is good when it comes to big business, even if it's harmful for the average citizen. But a star athlete being greedy? No! Bad! We should tell him what the most he can earn is! For someone who's so anti-socialist, you're sure taking a very anti-free market stance here.
greed is good when it comes to business growth. and i have said in the past as such.....in this instance, greed can potentially harm careers....note Matt Harrington. Aaron Crowe. it is ruining careers before they even had a chance. you are under team control when drafted. you should be allowed to sign with that team for that slot amount. if you can't come to terms with that team, then there should be some time length before you could become a free market free agent. or go to college another year, or simply go to college.
no where did i ever make a very anti-free market stance.
and putting them on a baseball field and getting rid of potential greed DOES help them. this doesn't remove their leverage...they need to come out and do their time in the minors. IF they perform, and make it the big leagues and do their job, then they can pursue the income they feel they deserve.Quote:
Getting rid of the only leverage they'll possibly ever have and limiting their earning power does NOT help them.
they will have leverage one day, IF they perform.
Yes, yes i did.Quote:
Did you read the quotes I posted in that 2nd link? If not, I strongly suggest that you do.
I still believe players should be paid based on performance rather then prior to their performance. Either a commission rate, or a pay per position rate....they should be able to make what they do....but i don't agree with the pay in advance deal that they currently do.
we wouldn't have Wells or Silvia's gross contracts.
but i do agree with this....you were right when you said this.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
HGM... they have no value... they have not thrown 1 ML pitch! By putting the cap in you make it so that teams like Pit, Wash, Col, FLA, TB, MINNY, KNOW what to budget for in the draft. So what FLA if they are picking first should shell out the 20-25 mil Strasburg is gonna get and then tell us they can't afford ML talent... come on be serious. If the guy is as good as advertized its not like he is going to be paid once he PROVES he is worth the $$$ u dont think this irks guys like abreu who signed for 5 mill that a guy who neve rplayed a day in his life is asking for 50 mill?
and the system really is fine, but i hate seeing a player not get drafted because of money, or end up having to play independent ball because of greed.Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
agree with this as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
green signs with OAK
These rookie cap arguments take place every year. :|
Top 2 draft picks don't sign?
That's an...
EPIC FAIL
Ackley signed.
Players aren't necessarily drafted in talent order. There's absolutely no reason that someone "deserves" more just because they got drafted higher. It is not fair for the players to remove their leverage and ability to get their fair market value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
That's the EFFECT. All it will do is result in more money for the owners' pockets and less rights and money for the players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
That's the point. This is the only period they're likely to have in their career with ANY leverage in negotiations. A cap would DENY them of that. Players deserve to get the most that they can get, whether they're amateur players or players with 6 years of service time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
It would deprive them of leverage and potentially making as much as they COULD make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
I suggest reading the partial quotes from the article I linked to earlier. Which, you apparently did, but I guess still don't get. Those are huge IFS. This is likely the only time the player has ANY leverage. A cap denies that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Referring to the healthcare debate. Greed is apparently good for giant insurance companies whose interests are directly opposed to the interests of the people they serve, but bad for people who have only one real shot at having any negotiating leverage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
An amateur draft, itself, is anti-free market. Further restrictions on that is even MORE anti-free market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Again, that article. There are many things out of the players control that can prevent them from ever reaching that gigantic IF. For most players, this IS their only shot at leverage in negotiations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
So, uh, how exactly would that work? Wells/Silva got paid "for their performance." It's just that teams failed to correctly evaluate their FUTURE performance and thus they are now being overpaid. No idea what this has to do with amateur salary caps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Absolutely not true. Future value is value.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
That's his choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Don't be so quick to judge. The paperwork could very easily have gotten in just before midnight and just not be reported yet. It happens every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
mariners and rockies get their men.
Wrong again!Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
hurry up... i want to go to bed
Nats got Strasburg 15.67 mil