It's Scott Boras' World. And We're All Just Living In It. - Page 2

Big Hugg · 08-16-2007, 01:16 AM

Boras wanted $11 million for Matt Wieters.

He signed with Orioles for $6 million.

Another example of how taking them early gives you more leverage.

darkhorse · 08-19-2007, 04:57 PM

Here's some interesting info about why teams don't want to have anything to with compensation picks for not signing their draftees.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ch...php?chatId=337

tmavor (DC): Loved Rany's article (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=491) today. Love him or hate him, it always seems Boras is one step ahead. Just not sure what his plans are for Weiters.

Kevin Goldstein: It was a very good piece, and I enjoyed it greatly. One thing I would add is that those compensation picks (ie you get 5A if you don't sign 5) are without any leverage, so nobody wants them. For example, if the Royals get 2A next year, they really have to be careful, because they HAVE to sign 2A or get NOTHING. There's no compensation for not signing a compensation pick, if that makes sense. As far as Boras goes, I'm reminded of what a scouting director told me way before the draft when I asked him how he thought Boras would work with the new system. "I don't know how he's going to work it to his advantage, I just know he is." I agree totally on the love him or hate him. I will say this much, if I had an 18-year-old son who was a top 10 talent, I'd certainly consider having Boras as his advisor.

Long_Long_Name · 08-19-2007, 07:27 PM

So, if the guy was a top 5 talent, then teams at the top of the draft would have been wrong not to pick him due to hi extraordinarily high demands?

Joshv02 · 08-20-2007, 07:57 AM

I'm don't think these articels make any sense. They are starting with the wrong baseline.

The baseline from last year is that there a team failed to sign a #5 pick and it would receive a #31 pick (or whatever) -- the compensation was after the first round, rather than at the same point in time. The new CBA moved that up. Now, if you fail to sign a #5 pick you get hte #5a in the next draft. That is a huge difference. So, whe the Orioles failed to sign Wade Townsend as the #8 pick overall in the 2004 draft, they received the #48 pick as compensation in the 2005 draft. That clearly is not much help, but it is more help than nothing. If that happend today, the Orioles would get the #8A pick in the next draft (#8A instead of #9 because the #7 or 6 or 5, whatever, picks may also fail to sign, pushing everyone back).

Of course, this does not effect latter picks as much. If you are Detroit picking at #27, or whatever, the #27a for next year vs the #48 (or whatever) for next year isn't as huge a difference - though it isn't nothing. But in any respect, the new CBA improved team's positions - it did not make things worse for teams. All Rany is doing is pointing out that it doesn't effect team's positions enough to warrant a drastic change in the prior CBA's incentive structure.

Rany is wrong when he writes

Quote:

This is classic game theory: a rule change that should give teams more leverage in general – because they have a better BATNA than before – gives a specific team in a specific circumstance (a team that drafts a top talent late in the first round) less leverage specifically.

The change didn't give the Tigers less leverage specifically - it gave them more leverage than they had before, but not enough to drive down THIS price any more than it did.

(Also, iirc, previously if teams failed to sign a comp pick, they would NOT get another comp pick. Thus, again, this does not give teams any LESS leverage than they previously had - it just does not give them a ton MORE.)

Big Hugg · 08-20-2007, 08:44 AM

The point of the article is relevant though. The further Porcello fell in the draft, the more leverage Scott Boras got. A team that picked him in the top 5 could just say fine, we'll get a comprable talent next year and not signed him. The Tigers, or any other team down there, didn't have that option. You pick a top 5 talent in the 20s and then not sign him, the odds you get a similar talent with that comp pick are slim to none.

08-19-2007, 04:57 PM	#22
darkhorse Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: fort worth, tx Posts: 10,850	Here's some interesting info about why teams don't want to have anything to with compensation picks for not signing their draftees. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ch...php?chatId=337 tmavor (DC): Loved Rany's article (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=491) today. Love him or hate him, it always seems Boras is one step ahead. Just not sure what his plans are for Weiters. Kevin Goldstein: It was a very good piece, and I enjoyed it greatly. One thing I would add is that those compensation picks (ie you get 5A if you don't sign 5) are without any leverage, so nobody wants them. For example, if the Royals get 2A next year, they really have to be careful, because they HAVE to sign 2A or get NOTHING. There's no compensation for not signing a compensation pick, if that makes sense. As far as Boras goes, I'm reminded of what a scouting director told me way before the draft when I asked him how he thought Boras would work with the new system. "I don't know how he's going to work it to his advantage, I just know he is." I agree totally on the love him or hate him. I will say this much, if I had an 18-year-old son who was a top 10 talent, I'd certainly consider having Boras as his advisor. __________________ "The Human Torch was denied a bank loan."

08-19-2007, 07:27 PM	#23
Long_Long_Name Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Montréal Posts: 7,065	So, if the guy was a top 5 talent, then teams at the top of the draft would have been wrong not to pick him due to hi extraordinarily high demands? __________________ Beta Baseball. Join it!

08-16-2007, 01:16 AM	#21
Big Hugg All Star Reserve Join Date: May 2004 Location: Columbus, OH Posts: 933	Boras wanted $11 million for Matt Wieters. He signed with Orioles for $6 million. Another example of how taking them early gives you more leverage.

08-20-2007, 08:44 AM	#25
Big Hugg All Star Reserve Join Date: May 2004 Location: Columbus, OH Posts: 933	The point of the article is relevant though. The further Porcello fell in the draft, the more leverage Scott Boras got. A team that picked him in the top 5 could just say fine, we'll get a comprable talent next year and not signed him. The Tigers, or any other team down there, didn't have that option. You pick a top 5 talent in the 20s and then not sign him, the odds you get a similar talent with that comp pick are slim to none.