THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book is Finally Written!
An in-depth analysis of: The sacrifice bunt, batter/pitcher matchups, the intentional base on balls, optimizing a batting lineup, hot and cold streaks, clutch performance, platooning strategies, and much more.
Read Excerpts & Customer Reviews

Buy The Book from Amazon


SABR101 required reading if you enter this site. Check out the Sabermetric Wiki. And interesting baseball books.
MOST RECENT ARTICLES
MAIL : You ask | We say

Advanced


THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

<< Back to main

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

CBA: How much signing bonus pool should each team be allocated?

By Tangotiger, 02:05 PM

Jeff Passan is reporting:

The draft pools start this season with the Houston Astros – who pick No. 1 overall – set to receive $11.5 million to spend in the first 10 rounds. They end with the New York Yankees having a $4.5 million budget over 10 rounds

Does it make sense?

Check out the WAR for players (through age 29) drafted in the June draft, for 1965-1999, for the top 300 picks, grouped by “order”, where order=1 is the 1st, 31st, 61st, etc picks:

WAR    order
100
%    1
72
%    2
64
%    3
59
%    4
67
%    5
60
%    6
64
%    7
48
%    8
74
%    9
70
%    10
38
%    11
47
%    12
54
%    13
44
%    14
32
%    15
69
%    16
46
%    17
40
%    18
69
%    19
62
%    20
23
%    21
46
%    22
44
%    23
38
%    24
56
%    25
46
%    26
32
%    27
37
%    28
45
%    29
56
%    30

I indexed it relative to order=1.  As you can see, if you are slotted to pick 2nd through around 10th, you get 64% of the value of picking 1st (with not much difference between picking 2nd through 10th).  Picking 11th through 30th gets you 46% of picking 1st.

MLB is giving the first team to pick 11.5MM$ to play with, while the 30th place team is getting 4.5MM$ (or 39% of the first team).  That seems pretty reasonable.

Presumably MLB has a sliding scale for each spot.  In my case, I have spots 11 through 30 to be at 46%.  Presumably, MLB has those spots at something like 53% down to 39% (so that they too will come out to average my 46%).

Using the above data, this is my recommended pool money for each slot (note that things get a bit complicated with the extra lottery picks that I have not modeled here; but, someone can take my above chart, and work it out):

WAR    Tango    pick
100
%    100%    1
72
%    72%    2
64
%    70%    3
59
%    68%    4
67
%    66%    5
60
%    64%    6
64
%    62%    7
48
%    60%    8
74
%    58%    9
70
%    57%    10
38
%    56%    11
47
%    55%    12
54
%    54%    13
44
%    53%    14
32
%    52%    15
69
%    51%    16
46
%    50%    17
40
%    49%    18
69
%    48%    19
62
%    47%    20
23
%    46%    21
46
%    45%    22
44
%    44%    23
38
%    43%    24
56
%    42%    25
46
%    41%    26
32
%    40%    27
37
%    39%    28
45
%    38%    29
56
%    37%    30

If MLB ends up having a scale anything close to what I’m proposing, then hats off to whoever at MLB worked it out.  You did a great job!


#1    bowie      (see all posts) 2011/11/23 (Wed) @ 18:35

I can see why the players are ok with this, but what do the owners gain from this system?  all the money they are keeping themselves from spending on draftees is still there to be spent on major league free agents.


#2    Michael K      (see all posts) 2011/11/23 (Wed) @ 18:36

Something that bothers me and which I haven’t seen discussed anywhere: What gives the MLBPA the standing to agree to this?

I don’t suppose that the players drafted in the first 10 rounds will start to receive union benefits going forward even if they don’t make the ML (25 or 40 man) roster(?)

In which case, the MLBPA is bargaining away the rights of employees it doesn’t even represent (and in most cases never will represent).  Presumably in exchange for concessions that benefit its veteran members.

Am I misunderstanding something or would the affected amateurs have a legal case against MLBPA/MLB for colluding against their best interests?


#3    bowie      (see all posts) 2011/11/23 (Wed) @ 19:29

the MLBPA looks out for itself only.


#4          (see all posts) 2011/11/26 (Sat) @ 10:40

I wanted to write an article about this for THT but I’m working on NaNoWriMo right now. It’s on my agenda for Dec. 1. Here are the bullet points.

-Not removing Type A status retroactively on Papelbon only makes sense if the Phillies were made fully aware up front that there was at least a chance of this happening and they would not recoup their pick if they signed Paps now.

-In such an environment the Phillies may have simply chosen to spend what they did plus a draft pick rather than more money later without the draft pick. The team has plenty of picks but is a little strapped on cash.

-The Phillies don’t have the best track record with picks around #31. They’re practically more likely to find better players in rounds 2-10 than they are to find a good MLB player at 31. Therefore, they may have seen the pick as entirely fungible.

-Again, waiting until after the CBA announcement probably means that Papelbon would add another $4-8 mil to his contract demands since hiring him would no longer also cost a pick.

I can’t imagine a scenario where these points aren’t at least mostly true. The Phillies had to know this was happening and valued cash more than pick #31.


#5    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2011/11/26 (Sat) @ 11:53

"They’re practically more likely to find better players in rounds 2-10 than they are to find a good MLB player at 31.”

Sorry, that makes no logical sense.  It’s irrelevant what the empirical data shows.  If it does show that, then it’s a sample size issue.

Rest of your points seem fine.

I also want to know exactly when the agreement takes place.


#6    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2011/11/26 (Sat) @ 21:09

Re-reading, I didn’t intend to come off as harsh.

I am sorry to Brad.


#7          (see all posts) 2011/11/27 (Sun) @ 12:40

I was wondering where this comment went!

#4 was supposed to be posted to the Papelbon/Madson article. I must have had both comments sections open and posted to the wrong one. Does that make my comment a little more reasonable Tango?

As to your response Tango, I understand what your saying which is why I used the qualifier “practically.” However, knowing the Phillies draft profile, the same type players are available at picks #31, 70ish, 110ish, 140ish, etc. They select almost purely on tools at this stage of the draft which results in a half dozen signed players from the first 10 rounds who have comparable ceilings. Why cling to pick #31?

Once drafted, they typically sign the best combination of guys they can grab and let a few high ceiling guys go. From their perspective, letting the #31 guy go probably works out to a wash since they’ll probably sign two other guys with slightly smaller ceilings that they otherwise would have let go.

Of course, the new rules throw a bit of a wrench into this thinking, but nothing that can’t be worked around.


Page 1 of 1 pages


Name (required)
E-Mail (optional; WILL be published)
Website (optional)

<< Back to main


Latest...

COMMENTS

May 25 03:39
Lack of hustle during a game

May 25 02:54
Largest demonstration in Canadian history?

May 25 02:38
NFLPA lawsuit against collusion

May 25 01:43
Neal Huntington’s best moves

May 25 00:36
Help needed with sticky issue…

May 24 23:50
Rooting for laundry

May 24 17:04
Firefox, IE, or Chrome?

May 24 12:07
How to beat the shift

May 24 11:11
Incredible story

May 24 09:41
Racial bias in card collecting: not the collectors, but the players on the cards