 |
|
|
| |
« Rangers Exercise Washington's 2010 Option | Main | D'Backs Claim Blaine Boyer Off Waivers »
Determining The MLB Draft Order
USA Today has the complete draft order for tomorrow's first round. Here's how to determine it:
- You start by upending the previous year's standings. Washington had the worst record in baseball last year, so they pick first. Seattle was second-worst, so they pick second, and so on.
- But sometimes, more than one team will have the same record. Last year, for instance, the Reds, Rockies and Tigers all finished 74-88.
- In that case, you go back one more season and compare those records. The Rockies finished ahead of the Reds and Tigers in 2007, so they're the last of the three teams to select this year. The Tigers finished ahead of the Reds in '07, so they pick after Cincinnati.
- You'll notice that the Nationals will select between the Tigers and Rockies this year. This is because they chose Aaron Crow with the ninth pick last year and didn't sign him. They're bumped down to tenth this year, just as the Yankees receive the 29th pick for failing to sign the player they selected 28th.
- The Angels have two first round picks because they lost two Type A free agents last offseason. They receive the Yankees' first rounder and the Mets' first rounder, along with two picks in the supplemental round, for losing Mark Teixeira and Francisco Rodriguez.
- The Blue Jays and Brewers lost A.J. Burnett and C.C. Sabathia to the Yankees, but because Teixeira was ranked higher than either pitcher, the Angels get the Yankees' first rounder, while the Brewers receive their second rounder and the Jays get their third rounder.
- The first 15 picks in the draft are protected, so the Nationals would hold the first overall pick even if they'd signed Teixeira.
- Until this decade, AL teams and NL teams would take turns picking first overall.
- Teams cannot trade draft picks in baseball.
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Top Stories
Blue Jays Agree To Sign Alex Gonzalez
Phillies Sign DeWayne Wise & Wilson Valdez
White Sox Sign Andruw Jones
Shelley Duncan Elects Free Agency
Royals Sign Josh Rupe, Buck Coats
McDonald To Re-Sign With Blue Jays
Phillies, Juan Castro Agree To Terms
Brewers Re-Sign Chris Capuano
White Sox Sign Omar Vizquel
Aroldis Chapman Drops API
Laynce Nix Elects Free Agency
D'Backs Acquire Aaron Heilman
Royals Agree To Sign Brad Thompson
Bay Rejects Boston's Offer
Cubs To Sign Grabow To Two-Year Deal
Rockies Sign Tracy to Three-Year Extension
Reds Re-Sign Ramon Hernandez
Search MLBTR
MLBTR Features
2010 MLB Free Agent List
Top 50 Free Agent Predictions
2011 MLB Free Agent List
Non-Tender Candidates
Offseason Outlooks
Trades of the Decade
Free Agent Market Analysis
Trade Market Analysis
Scott Boras Clients
Important Dates
Recent Trades
Interviews
Elias Ranking Formulas
Hot Stove Glossary
GM Trade Histories
MLBTR On Facebook
MLBTR On Twitter
MLBTR Mobile
Transactions-Only RSS Feed
Recent Posts
Discussion: The Trade Of The Decade
Odds & Ends: Scutaro, Fielder, Bowden
Red Sox Destined To Sign Scutaro?
Halladay Would Approve Deal To Yankees
Marlins Looking To Deal Josh Johnson?
Baseball Blogs Weigh In: Revenue Sharing, Bullington, Halladay, Mauer
Discussion: Doug Davis
Odds & Ends: Johnson, Cabrera, Mets, Contreras
Cubs Will Shop For An Outfield Bat
Pirates Would Like To Bring Mike Gonzalez Back
Orioles Would Consider Sheets And Bedard
Lincecum Seeking A One-Year Deal
Jays Looking For An Arm And A Bat For Halladay
Donnelly Hopes To Land A Major League Deal
Pirates Kicking The Tires On Ankiel & Blalock
Rumors By Team
A's Rumors
Angels Rumors
Astros Rumors
Blue Jays Rumors
Braves Rumors
Brewers Rumors
Cardinals Rumors
Cubs Rumors
Diamondbacks Rumors
Dodgers Rumors
Giants Rumors
Indians Rumors
Mariners Rumors
Marlins Rumors
Mets Rumors
Nationals Rumors
Orioles Rumors
Padres Rumors
Phillies Rumors
Pirates Rumors
Rangers Rumors
Rays Rumors
Red Sox Rumors
Reds Rumors
Rockies Rumors
Royals Rumors
Tigers Rumors
Twins Rumors
White Sox Rumors
Yankees Rumors
Monthly Archives
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
Live Chats
Tuesdays at 2 p.m. CST
I think in that case of the Yankees, the worst team of the bunch should get priority, not the best player, because in theory they're losing a star player and need the most help. There is really no good reason the 100 win Angels aren't picking third in line.
Posted by: nut bunnies | June 08, 2009 at 04:14 PM
One question: the Braves' first round pick this year was protected (7th overall) from their signing Derek Lowe (type A) from the Dodgers. Do the Dodgers therefore just get the supplemental pick, or also maybe the Braves' second round pick?
Ok, one more question: what determines the order of the supplemental round picks? Elias rankings?
Posted by: leberquesgue | June 08, 2009 at 04:17 PM
They get the Braves' 2nd rounder and, yes, those wonderful Elias rankings. Worst. System. Ever.
Posted by: Not Joe Morgan | June 08, 2009 at 04:18 PM
I agree with NJM. The entire system is broken and it's never been more prevalent than this year's draft. As long as there's the possibility of one team gobbling up more than one Type A in a single offseason, it's a broken system. The Blue Jays got screwed, but it's the Brewers I really feel for. They lost one of the best pitchers in baseball, yet all they're getting for offering him arbitration is a supplemental and a late second round pick because a winning team picked him up.
Posted by: 0bsessions | June 08, 2009 at 04:38 PM
Not Joe Morgan,
I can think of a few worse systems. Like.... well, not really. I'll think of one.
Posted by: PWHjort | June 08, 2009 at 04:39 PM
nut bunnies,
yeah but the draft system is far from perfect, plus this way we only give our division rivals our 3rd rounder, so I like it this year, haha.
I noticed the Angels have quite a few picks early, I think it would be wise to invest high since they can afford it and try to get a good draft class this year.
Posted by: Yanksallday | June 08, 2009 at 04:39 PM
"Not Joe Morgan,
I can think of a few worse systems. Like.... well, not really. I'll think of one."
The BCS rankings may have a spot up there also. The elias rankings certainly do suck though.
Posted by: nrmax88 | June 08, 2009 at 04:42 PM
the one thing i dont get is why cant we trade picks? is it because they are worried that teams will trade picks based on $$, so teams like the Sox, Yanks, Dodgers, etc can get top picks for cash? or something else
Posted by: lakersdodgersyankees4life | June 08, 2009 at 04:50 PM
"Not Joe Morgan,
I can think of a few worse systems. Like.... well, not really. I'll think of one."
The BCS rankings may have a spot up there also. The elias rankings certainly do suck though.
Posted by: nrmax88 | June 08, 2009 at 04:42 PM"
The BCS takes the cake.
Posted by: 661dodgerblue | June 08, 2009 at 05:37 PM
"I agree with NJM. The entire system is broken and it's never been more prevalent than this year's draft. As long as there's the possibility of one team gobbling up more than one Type A in a single offseason, it's a broken system."
This type of thing isn't that common though.
At least it's not the NBA lottery. I can't think of anything dumber than that.
Posted by: icedrake523 | June 08, 2009 at 05:42 PM
I have a confession. I like the BCS. I wish they would use computer rankings exclusively and eliminate the polling portion of the system, but I like the idea that every game of the season matters.
Posted by: PWHjort | June 08, 2009 at 06:28 PM
The Brewers got hosed. They lost Sheets and Sabathia and won't get a decent draft pick for either one.
Posted by: Invader3K | June 08, 2009 at 07:57 PM
"the one thing i dont get is why cant we trade picks? is it because they are worried that teams will trade picks based on $$, so teams like the Sox, Yanks, Dodgers, etc can get top picks for cash?"
Yeah, that's pretty much the reason that isn't allowed. You can bet the Yankees wouldn't have such a barren farm system if they could have bought the Marlins/Twins/etc. draft picks, or even traded middling players for lower round picks. It's particularly important b/c many owners would gladly have dealt away draft picks, and with them any hope at all of revitalizing their system and their franchise, for quick cash. This rule prevents them from doing that.
A few problems with midtown's suggestions.
The problem with making ALL amateur players subject to the draft is that player discovery in undrafted areas is not what it is in the US and Canada. Take, for instance, Mariano Rivera. The guy was discovered basically at random. A scout randomly went to a game to see another player and liked Rivera, a shortstop at the time. He managed to sign him because no one else was looking at Rivera. The same is likely true of 60-70% of Latin players, if not more.
Now, if you force all amateur players to be subject to the draft, then those diamond-in-the-rough discoveries probably won't happen. The reason is that the clubs have invested heavily in discovery, and why should they if the talent they unearth has to go into the draft? Do you think it makes sense for the Mets to build a baseball academy in Venezuela in order to find the next great pitcher, who ends up getting drafted by the Phillies and dominates the Mets for the next six years? Why would the Mets invest in something that's that much of a crapshoot? Why would anyone? The end result would be that all the clubs pull their investments in Latin America, scouts and other discovery people get laid off, and the owners get even more money, since they now don't have to invest in that stuff anymore.
I'd be hesitant to allow the carry-over picks to be lost too. After all, it's very possible that a player may simply have a change of heart and no amount of effort on the team's part may allow them to sign him. What instituting this rule would do is, in effect, dock the team their first round pick from last year, AND this year. That's effectively the same as taking away their 1st rounders for this year and next year, and NO ONE is going to do that. The end result here is that no Type-A free agents EVER get signed. The union would never, ever allow that to happen. The other possible outcome, if the union did allow it, would be players intentionally tanking their free agent years so they don't qualify for Type-A status, or something crazy like that.
On the other hand, I actually do agree with a graduated cap on signing bonuses. It's not as big a deal for MLB as for other sport since there's no overall salary cap in baseball, but its insane that draftees can get more money in bonuses than Major League players sometimes. Strasburg is in line to make more money than Tim Lincecum, Cole Hammels, Justin Verlander, Jon Lester, Joba Chamberlain, Chad Billingsley, and a slew of other big-league pitchers. That's just wrong.
-JM
Posted by: jagteq | June 09, 2009 at 12:29 PM