Bottom Nine Teams Obtain Protected Picks

For MLB teams to obtain a protected first round draft pick in 2013, they will have to finish this year with one of the nine worst records in baseball. Though the top ten draft choices are protected under the sport’s new collective bargaining agreement, one of those selections will go to the Pirates, who did not sign their 2012 first round pick, Mark Appel. This means the nine teams with the worst records in baseball will have protected first round selections in 2013, MLB confirmed to MLBTR.

MLB determines the order of its amateur draft by upending the order of the previous year’s standings. As MLBTR’s Reverse Standings page shows, the Astros, Cubs, Rockies, Twins, Indians, Marlins, Blue Jays, Red Sox and Royals would obtain protected draft picks if the season ended today. The Mets, Marlins and Padres could obtain protected draft picks depending on the results of the season’s final week.

Teams must forfeit a draft pick to sign a free agent who declined a qualifying offer from his former club. If a team's first round pick is protected, the team will forfeit its next highest selection.

“A Club that signs one Qualified Free Agent who is subject to compensation shall forfeit its highest available selection in the next Rule 4 Draft,” the CBA reads. “Notwithstanding the above, a Club shall not be required to forfeit a selection in the top ten of the first round.”

Top first round selections are especially valuable under baseball’s CBA. Not only does a top-ten draft choice provide teams with a wider selection of players, it assures them of a protected pick, regardless of what happens in free agency. 

While the top ten selections cannot be forfeited as draft pick compensation, picks from 11 on are vulnerable. This year finishing with the tenth-worst record in MLB won't be enough to obtain a protected pick.


Leave a Reply

18 Comments on "Bottom Nine Teams Obtain Protected Picks"


2 years 11 months ago

I may be wrong here so please correct me if i am but isnt a pick for an unsigned pick in the previous draft protected? If it is wouldnt that make this years top 11 picks protected? Number 9 as the pirates pick for not signing Appel and then the 10 team with the worst record.

Willy
2 years 11 months ago

“Though the top ten draft choices are protected under the sport’s new
collective bargaining agreement, one of those selections will go to the
Pirates, who did not sign their 2012 first round pick, Mark Appel.
This means the nine teams with the worst records in baseball will have
protected first round selections in 2013, MLB confirmed to MLBTR.”

Taken word for word from above.

2 years 11 months ago

I read the above just thought it didnt make much sense

Kevin Swords
2 years 11 months ago

The first 10 picks are protected. The Pirates have one of those picks for not reaching an agreement with Appel; however, they will not finish with one of the 10 worst records–meaning the teams with the 9 worst records AND the Pirates will have the first 10 picks in next year’s draft.

Otis26
2 years 11 months ago

It took me a while to figure out the old system and then they changed it. Thank goodness for MLBTR’s ability to explain all this because I don’t know that I want to take the time to re-learn it. lol.

2 years 11 months ago

As i understand it, the Pirates pick from last year counts towards the 10 protected picks. So basically, because the Pirates did not sign their pick last year, a team gets screwed this year.

Kevin Swords
2 years 11 months ago

A team (the one with the 11th overall pick) would only be “screwed” if they signed a qualifying free agent–one that was offered a qualifying offer and declined the offer. In order for this to happen, the team must knowingly chose to do so, as they will be well aware of this when approaching free agents. Additionally, teams in the lower echelon tend to be further away from competition than just one or two players, so they don’t tend to be dramatically aggressive in free agency. I don’t see this having much of an impact.

themightygin
2 years 11 months ago

So, what happens to the slot money? Does the team gaining a pick acquire the slot money for that pick from the team that signs a player who declined a qualified offer?

Kevin Swords
2 years 11 months ago

Yes. Slot money is assigned to teams based on where they are picking in the draft–makes no difference if the pick came from somewhere else.

Bob George
2 years 11 months ago

Protected draft picks do not matter as much anymore under the new CBA since there will be so few free agents who will bring draft pick compensation. Their current team has to offer them around $14 mil for 1 year (and have that declined) to get compensation. I doubt there will be more than 10 of those players a year, with several of them resigning with their current teams.

qbass187
2 years 11 months ago

I thought the qualifying offer number was set at 12.5 million?

start_wearing_purple
start_wearing_purple
2 years 11 months ago

It’ll still matter. Hamilton, Soriano (if he opts out), Jackson, etc are all likely to get qualifying offers so teams like the Cubs, Jays, and Red Sox (team with money to burn) are more likely to make competitive bids on certain players knowing they will save their first round draft picks.

I’m not saying it’ll have a huge impact but I’m betting that a couple of teams on the bubble of having a protected pick are all setting up a couple of scenarios of how they will approach the offseason.

johnsilver
2 years 11 months ago

I wouldn’t put money against Anibal Sanchez getting offered the 13m by Detroit either. Thin SP market and other than Greinke? nobody (including Edwin Jackson) has put up consistent numbers the last 4 seasons and going to be available as a SP FA this winter and Sanchez will only be 29 next year.

johnsmith4
2 years 11 months ago

What I am getting from this

“A Club that signs one Qualified Free Agent who is subject to compensation shall forfeit its highest available selection in the next Rule 4 Draft”

is “highest available selection” includes any compensation picks you receive. Under the old system, Red Sox seemed to gain draft picks (supplemental picks) and draft positioning by letting go a Type A pick while signing another one.

For example, in 2010, Red Sox moved from 29th overall to 20th overall by letting Billy Wagner sign with the Braves while signing John Lackey from Angels.

It appears this new agreement would not allow them to move up to 20th overall nor gain a 36th overall supplemental.

That year, Red Sox lost a 2nd round pick because of signing Marco Scutaro. With the new agreement, Red Sox would lose both (theirs & Wagner compensation) first round picks and not pick until the second round.

Some people thought Boston was simply “buying talent” when signing free agents. In fact, they were cycling Type A free agents to gain high draft picks and advance their draft position in the first round.

In short, the previous CBA for Boston was about using free agency to get more and better draft picks.

Guest
2 years 11 months ago

Removed bc I got tired of reading the entire CBA

johnsmith4
2 years 11 months ago

I am reading “shall forfeit its highest available selection” to include compensation picks. Hopefully, someone is kind enough to correct my interpretation if it is wrong.

By the way, I do understand supplementry picks no longer exist.

Jimmigan
1 year 11 months ago

And of course it was the Mets who got screwed.

They didn’t sign a Type A free agent specifically because they would have lost their #1 draft choice in 2014.

JaysGLawrie
2 years 11 months ago

yet life goes on…