Blue Jays offer arbitration to Kelly Johnson, Frank Francisco, Jose Molina, and Jon Rauch. Did not offer to Shawn Camp.
Just a minute before the midnight deadline to offer arbitration to their own article XX (B) free agents, the Toronto Blue Jays announced that they have made offers to Kelly Johnson (type-A), Frank Francisco (type-B), Jose Molina (B), and Jon Rauch (B). Shawn Camp (type-B) was not offered arbitration.
An offer of arbitration means that the Jays are prepared to offer the players at least a one-year non-guaranteed contract. The player may choose to decline the offer, and it will make him a free agent and able to sign with any other team. The Jays will receive a supplementary draft pick for all of them if they do sign elsewhere.
Under the new CBA's "transition" rules for this offseason, Kelly Johnson was classified as a "modified type-A" free agent. The Jays will receive a first round pick directly above the signing team's pick unless Johnson signs with a team with a protected first round pick (HOU, MIN, SEA, BAL, KCR, CHC, SDP, PIT, MIA, COL, OAK, NYM, CWS, CIN, CLE), and in that case the Jays will get to pick before the signing team's second round selection.
This means that if all the free agents decline arbitration, the Jays could have up to 7 first round picks in the 2012 Rule 4 Draft (Jays' 1st round, compensation for Tyler Beede, 1st round for Johnson, supplementary round for Johnson, 3 supplementals for the 3 type-B free agents). The Rays had 9 and the Jays had 4 in the 2011 draft.
6 months ago
Minor Leaguer
128 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I think it's strange that Rauch was offered but Camp wasn't
I guess Camp made it clear he was going to accept
No Dad, What About You?!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!
Even if he was going to accept, wouldn’t he be okay on a one year deal?
by JaysSaskatchewan on Nov 24, 2011 12:07 AM EST up reply actions
meh
Don’t really want Camp for more than a couple million.
No Dad, What About You?!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!
He was $2.25M this year. Wouldn’t be too bad to have even with a bit of a raise. I was hoping for the pick though.
by JaysSaskatchewan on Nov 24, 2011 12:12 AM EST up reply actions
they probably talked to him already
and he probably made it clear he would accept arb if offered
No Dad, What About You?!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!
Maybe they were trying for a side deal
and that was why we couldn’t decide until the deadline.
by JaysSaskatchewan on Nov 24, 2011 12:15 AM EST up reply actions
meh
Don’t really want Camp for more than a million.
No Dad, What About You?!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!
Click your username at the top of the page
then click Edit Profile
Check yoself before you rec yoself.
his career BABIP is .328
No Dad, What About You?!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!
Which makes sense
Career GB% is 55% and groundball pitchers usually have higher BABIPs since the BABIP on grounders is around ~.235 vs. ~.160 on flyballs
According to B-R, for the AL in 2011, BABIP was .239 for groundballs and .137 for flyballs. For the 2011 NL, it was .236 and .138, respectively. For flyballs, there’s obviously some classification issues between flyballs and liners, but the ground ball numbers should be fine.
Regardless, the point is, a groundball pitcher would be expected to have a higher BABIP, all else equal, because there are hits on balls in play on grounders than fly balls, though they do less damage on average.
If you check out his year by year breakdown of babip's though
His career babip is heavily skewed by one year when he had a .418 babip in 40 innings. His last two years his babip’s have been .281 and .284
Jose Bautista has a higher midi-chlorian count than you do.
Camp has pitched 488 career innings – those 40 innings only represent 8% of his career, so they don’t “heavily skew” the numbers. If I quickly back those numbers out, I get a .320 BABIP for the rest of his career, which is still isngificatnly higher than average (this isn’t entirely methodologically correct, theoretically a higher BABIP means less outs on balls in play, which depresses the IP, but it suffices as a good approximation).
While 2009-10 he had much better BABIPs, they were also his two best career years. You can’t cherrypick the numbers, emphasizing the best two years and discounting the worst. The more important observation is he’s had a lower BABIP sine he joined the Jays, probably because they’ve general had an average to above average defense (particularly in the infield, which is important to him as a groundballer), whereas the Royals and Rays has execrable defences when he was there.
he'd be decent
it’s a lot of money for a guy who was very bad this year and isn’t a sure (likely?) bet to bounce back next year (it’s not like he aws hurt and that’s why he was bad).
Even if Rauch accepts, the Jays can always cut him during the spring and just pay him 1/6 of his arb award, which would amount like no more than 850k or so. The threat of that might make Rauch decline so he can try to sign a guaranteed contract, even if it’s for less money.
I would if my last 4 WHIPs looked like 1.297, 1.280, 1.230, 1.523.
Follow me @Minor_Leaguer
by Minor Leaguer on Nov 24, 2011 12:07 AM EST up reply actions
Camp
His stuff seemed a lot worse this year. He was really only a Type B on the basis of 2010. The peripherals took a big dive, though the GB% was his saviour. He gave up a ton of hits. Jays must have figured the market just wasn;t out there.
The movement on his pitches were pretty consistent with his 2010 season
Though the velocity took a hit. One strange thing is he didn’t throw any four-seamers this year, compared to 11.5% in 2010
No Dad, What About You?!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!
Could it be a clasification issue? I know that’s sometimes the reason, but I don’t use that kind of data a lot
maybe
I’m not an expert on how pitch f/x works.
No Dad, What About You?!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!
Decline on Camp? Why?
How much would have made in arb? I can’t see the Jays being unpleased to have Camp back even if he accepted.
10.7 H/9, 3.0 BB/9, 4.3 K/9. I can understand it, I’m just mildly surprised they didn;t take the risk and swallow a couple hundred thou to gamble on it
but you can't get draft picks from him
there’s no incentive to have him around, other than being a decent reliever.
No Dad, What About You?!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!
made $2.25M in 2011, he'd have made around $2M in arbi, probably
it’ll be near impossible to get draft picks off of middle relievers starting next year anyways, so why pay him that much?
No Dad, What About You?!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!
roster space could be an issue too. We need room for Darvish and Cespedes :)
by JaysSaskatchewan on Nov 24, 2011 12:14 AM EST up reply actions
and Votto and Pujols. Don’t think they’d agree to platoon though…
by JaysSaskatchewan on Nov 24, 2011 10:43 PM EST up reply actions
just move pujols to 3rd and lawrie to 2nd. why didn’t we think of it before??
by ddbumpus on Nov 24, 2011 11:29 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
You don't pay him that much
Whatever he gets through arb isn’t guaranteed. If he doesn’t earn a spot in spring training, cut him and pay 1/6 of the contract, probably $500K tops. If he does great. The possibility of not making the team would give him incentive to look for a guaranteed contract elsewhere
I don't get that
so if he accepts arb, you can still cut him in spring training without paying the full price?
No Dad, What About You?!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!
Not if he accepts
If he gets an award through arb. If they settle, I believe it will be a guaranteed contract. But when there’s an arb award, the team only has to give 30 days severance if it’s more than 15 days before the beginning of the season, and 45 days (14) if between that and the beginning. After the season starts, it’s guaranteed
so if they settle, it's a guaranteed, but if they go to hearing and he wins, it's not guaranteed?
No Dad, What About You?!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!
They can settle on any type of contract before the January deadline (single year, multi year, etc.)
But once they go to the hearing, the arbitrators can only give one type of contract: one-year, non-guaranteed, no options, no special clauses.
Follow me @Minor_Leaguer
by Minor Leaguer on Nov 24, 2011 12:24 AM EST up reply actions
Do they still either have to
choose either the team or the player’s offer? ie: nothing in the middle.
by JaysSaskatchewan on Nov 24, 2011 12:26 AM EST up reply actions
After the January 18 deadline, yes.
Follow me @Minor_Leaguer
by Minor Leaguer on Nov 24, 2011 12:27 AM EST up reply actions
Bautista was not a free agent last season
Follow me @Minor_Leaguer
by Minor Leaguer on Nov 24, 2011 12:29 AM EST up reply actions
So it’s different for free agents and players who are team controlled? Okay, I didn;t know that. Thanks for the info
Hmmmm wait sorry I got it wrong
The January deadline is just for exchange of numbers. AA’s personal policy is to not offer a single-year contract after that deadline. That is not the MLB rule. I guess technically you can sign whatever contract you want before walking into the hearing.
AA was able to agree to an extension with Bautista, avoiding arbitration, because it was a multi-year deal.
Follow me @Minor_Leaguer
by Minor Leaguer on Nov 24, 2011 12:34 AM EST up reply actions
I thought so
And AA broke that policy three times last year, though you could argue technicalities on all. Baustista was multiyear, Frasor he got an option (it was such a small difference anyway iirc) and Francisco he inherited the #s from Texas
Would the new CBA apply
For next years draft?
by B-R_O-C on Nov 24, 2011 12:11 AM EST via mobile reply actions
In terms of the taxes, yes.
Follow me @Minor_Leaguer
by Minor Leaguer on Nov 24, 2011 12:13 AM EST up reply actions
question
what about maximum allowable spending on bonuses?
Yes, but you get a bigger limit the more picks you have.
by JaysSaskatchewan on Nov 24, 2011 12:17 AM EST up reply actions
Draft 2012
Callis claims that the slotting would increase by 50% for next year, based on last years 7 picks that had a slotted value of approx. 5.35 would increase to almost 8 million dollars for the Jays next year. Jays spent for 2011 without Beede approx 6.5 million dollars.
Recognizing that the Jays would have different slots which will have different slot values for the 2012 year Draft, the Jays could still do what they did last year, and sign a first round pick or Two and a few of the sandwich pics and roll the remainder into next year.
Alternatively if they felt that they wanted to go all in the could go full value for their first three picks and stack away the sandwich picks for next year and sign their 7 th round to 10 picks at a lower amount and go after value in the 20th rounds and give out over small increments over 100,000 to fill out their salary pool allotment.
AA will probably consider these opportunities, to continue the wave of quality players for the next two years to definitely create the rolling wave of quality prospects for another two years.
As well, he has saved the full value of Vernon Wells trade a minimum of $ 7 million dollars and the Aaron Hill -8 million dollars for 2012
2013
I’m going to miss having 10% of the top 100 picks (or whatever % we have)
by JaysSaskatchewan on Nov 24, 2011 12:17 AM EST reply actions
Rauch is the only surprise for me
You can expect that Camp would accept arbitration if offered and he can be replaced for cheap.
I’d be surprised if Rauch didn’t accept. Molina too.
Hope they keep K Johnson, despite his value to them if he signs elsewhere.
Molina is unlikely to accept. He can do better as a free agent.
by JaysSaskatchewan on Nov 24, 2011 12:18 AM EST up reply actions
yeah, nevermind
I just saw he’s prob going to sign with Tampa
Rauch probably agreed to not accept arbitration
No Dad, What About You?!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!
And Camp probably sounded like he would if he couldn't find another suiter
Don’t forget that Camp is 4 years older than Rauch.
Follow me @Minor_Leaguer
by Minor Leaguer on Nov 24, 2011 12:20 AM EST up reply actions
Well the Jays already offered arbitration to more players than any other team.
Follow me @Minor_Leaguer
by Minor Leaguer on Nov 24, 2011 12:45 AM EST up reply actions
For greed all nature is too little
- Roman philosopher Seneca
Also, I just realized that if you hit the quote icon before putting text, it puts the beginning and ending quotes. This is why I couldn’t get the ending before – I’d paste what I was quoting first
If you paste the quote
and then highlight it and press the quote button, it formats it too.
Check yoself before you rec yoself.
Penalties on exceeding slot on draft picks...
Is it on a per pick basis or team aggregate basis?
In other words, could the dollars saved coming in under slot on one signing (like Musgrove this year) be used to offset being over on another pick, for penalty calculation purposes?
Does anyone know?
Oops
misread the question. Yes, it is aggreagate. You can spend less on one pick and more on another if you like.
by JaysSaskatchewan on Nov 24, 2011 12:23 AM EST up reply actions
Total of 36 possible supplemental picks in 2012
If no one re-signs. That would be mean 67 total picks. Jays would have 6 (assuming 2nd rounder for Johnson, not first). That’s more than anyone else I believe, Red Sox next with 4 or 5 possibly.
We have at least
a 50% chance of getting a 1st round pick for Johnson?
by JaysSaskatchewan on Nov 24, 2011 12:30 AM EST up reply actions
In theory almost
We have one of those picks, so 14/29. In practice, not even that by my estimation. I wrote a fanpost about the suitors yesterday
The higher revenue teams
finish higher in the standings and are more likely to sign a free agent. There are 1-15 teams that could sign Johnson though too.
by JaysSaskatchewan on Nov 24, 2011 12:37 AM EST up reply actions
Yes
But I evaluated likelihood to sign based on (a) need for 2B (b) possible openings at other positions he could fill in; c) ability to bid on him based on budget situation.
I think the Tigers look like a good bet. 27th overall pick would be nice
There could be a few more
1st round picks too from the modified Type A’s
by JaysSaskatchewan on Nov 24, 2011 12:33 AM EST up reply actions
I included those
1 Type A already accepted
4 Type B already accepted
6 Type A
14-16 Type B
6 Modified Type A
5 Modified Type B
36-38 in total
There should be a few
players that accept arbitration and lower that number. Anyways, we will have sufficient picks and we will finally be able to restock our belaboured farm system.
by JaysSaskatchewan on Nov 24, 2011 12:40 AM EST up reply actions
hmmm, with the new CBA isn't there an overall spending limit?
will they exceed that?
the more picks you have
the higher your spending limit is (i believe)
No Dad, What About You?!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!
Shwan seemed like a nice guy and liked being here...
But Father Time catches up with everyone.
I’m sure he’ll hook one with someone, although not at $2MM plus.
I liked him too, but I just don't think there's room for him in the pen
Closer
Rauch (if he stays)
Villa
Litsch
Carreno
Janssen
Lefty (Perez?)
What's up with the Tigers announcement?
Do they think the deadline is Pacific time?
So a conservative estimate
Would be 2 first-rounders, 3 supplemental first rounders and 2 second rounders (assuming we get a 2nd rounder for Johnson and that Rauch accepts). That is by all means comparable to the awesome 2010 draft, and it could get even better.
Side deals
To what extent are side deals permitted? That is, how formal can they be? Why do so people talk about a “handshake agreement” with Rauch?
I don’t understand why a side deal couldn’t have been made with Camp. I mean, he had 2 choices. (i) The Jays don’t offer arbitration and he’s out looking for a job. (ii) The Jays give him $X, he declines arbitration and he’s out looking for a job. The end result is the same, but he makes some money in case (ii). Or maybe the Jays are not allowed to make monetary side deals…
Camp may have wanted an arbitration offer so that he could accept it.
They can’t be formal agreements although I have no idea what the punishment would be.
by JaysSaskatchewan on Nov 24, 2011 9:14 AM EST up reply actions
"The Jays give him $X, he declines arbitration"
why would he decline? Unless the jays completely underball him, he has no incentive to not settle.
No Dad, What About You?!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!
But that would be the side deal — the agreement would be that he would decline arbitration for $X.
by DavidLondon on Nov 24, 2011 12:02 PM EST up reply actions
oh, I see
i misread your case (ii).
No Dad, What About You?!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!
Superduper illegal
If a handshake agreement with no exchange of money was formalized and ever got out, it would probably cost the team a solid number of picks. If you add cash to the equation, I’d guess the team would be forced to sit out a full draft or two (plus major financial penalities)
Check yoself before you rec yoself.
Yep
But theoretically, you could make a verbal commitment that if the player declines the arb offer and tests the market, you will give them an offer of $X by a certain date. That essentially gives the player a salary guarantee, which is a similar idea to what was proposed above. There’s value in the guarantee (assuming you trust the GM to honour it), since it sets a floor in the market for the player.
Hmm, our number of supplemental picks gives me an idea for fudging this new draft system longterm
As the signing pool is assigned on number of picks, we’re going to have a bigger pool than slot this year by about $4million (End of first rounder slot will be in the $1million range so $4million is maybe a little conservative). What is to stop the Jays not signing three of our supplemental picks this year, pocketing the $3million to raise our offers to the first rounders (allowing us to offer top 10 money at mid-round), and still having compensation picks next year in the supplemental for our non-signings. We’d have exceeded slot and yet not broken the tax level on the pool.
2nd year we’d have three supplemental picks unprotected still we could sign, and could reverse the trick by not spending our 1st and 2nd round picks (diverting about $3million of the pool to overslotting on the supplementals).
3rd year and on, we’d spend the unprotected picks, waste the protected picks, and be able to offer well over slot every single year by having two essentially dummy picks’ worth of money artifically raising the pool limit we could divert to our actual picks.
We could pretty much raise the Jays pool $2-3million above slot every year, and given we’d be using the extra picks this year to start the chain, we’d not have a down year to start it off.
After two years, there would be little advantage to this, but yes, I think this is possible unless MLB changes the rules – I essentially said this in the thread on Tuesday.
The biggest advantage though might be for the teams at the top of the draft, especially in a weak draft like 2012 is supposed to be at the top. Houston will get a $7.2M allocation for the 1-1 pick, but they could easily just not sign the player, have a ton of money to go overslot on other players, and then get the #2 overall next year.
The only way this is prevented is if (1) you don’t get picks back anymore who don’t sign; or (2) when picks don’t sign that money is taken out of your current year allocation and transferred forward. I haven’t seen anything about either of these, so I don’t know if it’s the case
After two years
you’d just be cycling picks, but with the new system you’ll still be getting the pool increase each year to the value of slot for those picks. While we’d not be getting more picks, we’d still be getting the larger pool, so we could essentially offer double slot on our 1st and 2nd each year. I think this would still be worth it.
I agree it would be worth it, if it works under the new system. The other consideration is that when you have an unprotected pick, the player has some leverage on you – in the past, this has lead to signability picks of college players forthe most part (Arizona was an exception this year and got Archie Bradley). So this strategy might mean forgoing higher upside players with those picks, because they could hold out for a pile of cash or credibility threaten to take a scholarship and go to school.
Syndergaard was the result of this IIRC
So you can still get high upside picks when unprotected.
Good point
Syndergaard was a hidden gem – was thought of as an overdraft who would sign cheaply at the time, but now looks like a shrewd scouting find. A couple guys from last year’s draft are in the boat – Musgrove comes to mind.
The new system puts a premium on finding thse types of undervalued players. Investing in the scouting staff the way AA did two years ago looks even better than it did before (and it looked smart then)
This is all on the assumption that there is a reason to go overslot
Simply offering more money to the same prospect means nothing. There needs to be a prospect that drops due to signability for this to mean anything. The whole point of this “hard” slotting is to stop signability from having an effect on who gets picked and where. We’ll see in June/July whether signability is still an isue.
But it’s not a hard slot. Teams can still pay whatever they want so long as they’re willing to accept the consequences. It’s not soft slot anymore but it’s not hard either.
Signability will still be a concern because there will almost certainly be at least one kid who says…
Kid: I want X or I’m going to school
Club: That’s way above slot we’d get taxed to hell and maybe lose a pick
Kid: You’ve seen me play, you know I’m worth it.
It won’t so much matter for picks 1-5 who don’t have the option to realistically get more money their second time through the draft. But below that there is sure to be some kid who has that kind of self-confidence.
That's why I went with the quotation marks
I wasn’t about to call it a soft cap because it seems a lot harder than that.
But
Kid: I want X or I’m going to school
Club: That’s way above slot we’d get taxed to hell and maybe lose a pick
Kid: You’ve seen me play, you know I’m worth it.
Club: You might be worth X, but it’s going to cost us X+Y and you are not worth that. I hope you have some good years in college so you can improve on your draft position to get X.
Club: However, our offer of Z remains on the table, at least until we run out of signing money. Consider the sure money against the uncertainty. If you get injured or have a poor season, you might drop in the draft.
Your point is well taken
Additionally, there is a claim out there that the slot value will increase by 50%. So can your 1st round pick this year , the 17th pick and 1 of your supplementary picks and it will increase next year by the rate % wise of baseball revenue, this has the same affect
Question
I hear we get a draft budget allowance based on the number of picks and where they are situated.
Would it be smart to purposely not come to terms with whoever you draft 16th and use the money to sign high end supplemental picks?
in theory, yes
but only if you could guarantee that better or comparably good players will be available later in the draft and not picked by teams who will actually spend their first round slot money.
As an example, you deliberately don’t sign a guy at the 16th pick (say the slot here is $1M). You then have an extra $1M to spend on your 2 supplemental round picks (say their slot is $500k). So you can sign 2 guys in the supplemental round for $1M each, using the $1M unused from your $16th pick. If you can get 2 $1M talent guys here, then you`ve doubled the number of $1M talents in your system. But you run the risk that teams picking from /17 to your sandwich round picks don`t snap up those guys and sign them for slot or slightly above.
Well you don't run that risk
because you don’t decide whether or not to sign him until after you’ve completed the draft.
Possibly, yes
This is the discussion directly above. The one thing being possibly overlooked is whether there is an adjustment to the old system of getting picks the next year when you don’t sign a pick to reflec tthe changes made – it seems as though this is a loophole, and I can’t imagine someone didn;t think about it while thy were negotiating the system. As I say above, the biggest advantage could come from punting the first overall pick – grab a bunch of high school players in lower rounds with singability concerns, and buy them out, then get the second pick the following year (especially in a year with a weak top of the draft like next year is thought to be)
I don't think that strategy would work
Lets say you don’t sign the #16 guy who’s slot $$ is $1M.
So now you can sign 2 supplemental picks who’s slots are $500K.
Lets say that both those supplemental picks are worth $1M.
You still got two $1M guys.
You would get the same if you signed the #16 at his slot price & overspent on one of the supplemental picks.
I don’t think any real strategies will work.
The thing i fear is this: players now hold out for big $$. They say they are going to school so they can get paid extra.
With the new system, their paydays will be reduced significantly.
Will you now see players, knowing that they are going to basically get the same amount of $$ no matter who picks them, try to angle themselves towards the biggest “name” teams?
i.e: saying "i’m going to go to school…..i won’t sign for anywhere near slot $$…..and wait for the yankees to pick them? maybe it won’t happen….but that’s my fear.
just think about your job. if the pay was basically the same everywhere, wouldn’t you want to work for google instead of some sweatshop?
That's not right
Will you now see players, knowing that they are going to basically get the same amount of $$ no matter who picks them, try to angle themselves towards the biggest "name" teams?
Each team will not have the same ability to offer money to the player (without going over their total and getting fined, etc). Teams with higher picks have higher slot allocations, so have more money to offer.
Maybe
Well….you are right that teams with higher picks have higher slot allocations.
But teams can’t go WAY over slot.
The difference between slot at 10 and slot at 15 was always there.
But teams used to be able to over-spend if they wanted.
Now (unless you want to risk the rest of your draft) you will only have tens of thousands of dollars difference to lure players with….and is that enough?
Teams can go as far overslot as they want to
if they are willing to pay the penalties.
by JaysSaskatchewan on Nov 24, 2011 10:50 PM EST up reply actions
Can someone tell me if other teams are doing this with the arb and draft picks? If this has been a rule and a way to get draft picks then why doesn’t everyone do it? Wouldn’t this make 40 or more “1st” round picks which is essentially like a 2nd round when you get to the end anyway?
Man, I have a S#*t laod to learn of baseball…
Some other teams are
The big ones who are doing year in, year out are the Jays, Rays, Red Sox, Rangers and Padres. Why don’t more do it – well, some don’t like draft bonuses (White Sox for example), some may do it with one or two guys here and there, and some teams don’t have room on the roster for the marginal type players that can usually be used for this strategy (Yankees, etc – though note that Boston does). And a number of front offices just haven’t really caught on or aren’t interested.
There could be as many as 40 or so extra picks, but there will likely only be about 25 to 30. Somefree agents will re-sign with their own teams, some will accept arbritration, etc. But your point about essentially a second round is correct, in some years anyway. Last year, there were 33 first rounders (three teams didn’t sign their first rounders in 2010 so got the pick back) and 27 supplementals. So basically, the second round started at 61, which would be where the third round absent any extra picks. In recent years, the second round has usually began around 46-50, though the supplmentals has been trending upwards – from 2002-04, it only average about 10 picks.
This is basically why the system is being ended starting in 2012.
Baseball Nation had an article the other day about who's been taking advantage of the arbitration/pick system.
And who hasn’t, and why.
http://mlb.sbnation.com/2011/11/23/2583065/how-much-did-the-old-cbas-compensation-plan-work
"Captain Picard Day is for the children."
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bluebird Banter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Giancarlo Stanton busts Marlins Park scoreboard with tape-measure grand slam (VIDEO)
- Baltimore’s tradition of fans shouting ‘O!’ during national anthem sparks interleague feud
- Chris Perez follows rant against Cleveland fans with even better rant against Cleveland fans
- Pitcher Clayton Richard gets key pinch single in 13th after coming in 0 for 16
- Livan Hernandez welcomes ball boy to the bigs with shower of sunflower seeds (VIDEO)
