Draft pick slotting isn't going to happen

6 Comments

As is almost always the case following the draft and its attendant August signing deadline, the calls are going out for a hard slotting system in which draft picks are paid a set price based on where they’re taken. No haggling! Just like buying a Saturn!

While there may be some merit to the idea on an intellectual basis — Maury discusses some of the pros and cons here — almost every article I’ve seen on the matter ignores how difficult it will be to impose such a system. Why will it be difficult? Because contrary to the popular belief that the union would willingly toss non-member draftees over the side if they got something in return, the MLBPA has given every indication that they would fight draft slotting tooth and nail.

Case in point: union chief Michael Weiner referred to the idea of hard slotting as “a salary cap”
last December. That’s the first time I can ever recall someone using that term in connection with the draft. It’s a term that, as you know, is a rallying cry for the union. They are opposed to such caps in all cases, and if they’re referring to the draft slotting as a “salary cap,” they will be philosophically obligated to oppose it. I don’t think the choice of words is an accident.

The owners know this,
and they have publicly abandoned any effort to impose a general salary cap because they
know the union will gladly strike over it and will likely win. Again. And let’s be clear here: the stakes are way lower on draft bonuses for the owners than regular player salaries are, with most teams paying bonuses of less than $10 million for their entire draft in a given year. Do you think owners would risk a work stoppage to save less money than Jose Guillen makes?

People are underestimating ust how hard the union is prepared to
fight on this point.  I think it’s just something people are talking about now and that we’re highly unlikely to see slotting imposed anytime soon.

Nationals release Joe Nathan and Matt Albers

Getty Images
1 Comment

At the end of January, the Nationals signed relievers Joe Nathan and Matt Albers. Today the Nationals have released Joe Nathan and Matt Albers.

Nathan, 42, pitched in just ten games last year, totaling only six and a third innings, between the Giants and the Cubs. He missed the entire 2015 season except for one third of an inning on Opening Day. Albers pitched in 58 games for the White Sox last year, posting an unsightly 6.31 ERA He pitched wonderfully in 30 games in 2015 however.

This spring Nathan and Albers pitched in more games than any other Nats relievers. Twelve for Nathan, ten for Albers. And they pitched well, with Nathan giving up five earned runs and Albers none. Apparently, however, there just isn’t room on the roster for those two.

This could be the end of the line for Nathan, a 16-year veteran with 377 career saves.

Six-year old boy reports the Indians want to give Francisco Lindor a seven-year contract

4 Comments

The substance of the report is not shocking. Francisco Lindor is one of baseball’s brightest young stars and the Cleveland Indians would, no doubt, wish to lock him up for an extended period of time. The surprising part is the guy who reported that, yes, the Indians are working to get Lindor a seven-year extension.

That guy: six-year-old Brody Chernoff, son of Indians general manager Mike Chernoff. Brody was invited into the team’s broadcast booth during the ninth inning of their game against the Chicago White Sox. Indians announcer Tom Hamilton asked, no doubt jokingly, if his working on anything interesting. Brody:

“He’s trying to get, um, Lindor to play for seven more years,”

Again, not shocking. It would’ve been way worse if Brody had said “Dad’s working on a three-way deal that’ll send Naquin to an NL team in order to affect a three-way trade that’ll land us Verlander without having to deal directly with a divisional rival.” But I imagine Dad still would’ve preferred he not mention that.

Watch: