The Astros’ failure to sign Brady Aiken resulted in the team receiving a compensation pick (No. 2 overall) in the 2015 draft, and while we’ve seen problems caused by comp picks in the Top 10 under the new CBA (specifically heading into the 2013 season), MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes reports that a change has been made to the protected pick structuring (Twitter links). Previously, the CBA had called for the “Top 10” picks to be protected, but changes have been made that will protect the picks of the teams with the 10 worst records, regardless of whether or not comp picks are inserted into the first 10 selections.
This very situation may have cost the Mets a chance to sign Michael Bourn in the 2012-13 offseason (an outcome that, in hindsight, may have been beneficial to New York). The Mets finished the 2012 campaign with the 10th-worst record in baseball, but their No. 10 pick was pushed back to No. 11 due to the Pirates’ inability to reach agreement with 2012’s No. 8 overall pick — Mark Appel (who was drafted 1-1 by Houston the following season).
The Mets were weighing an appeal to the commissioner’s office that would have allowed them to sign Bourn and surrender a second-round pick, as Bourn had turned down a qualifying offer from the Braves and was subsequently linked to draft pick compensation. Before any resolution of the matter could ever be hammered out, the Indians made a four-year, $48MM offer that Bourn accepted. It’s not clear if that scenario prompted the change, but it’s logical to speculate that the Bourn situation could have sparked the change.
Coincidentally, the Mets currently have the 10th-worst record in baseball once again, though obviously that’s subject to change over the final two-plus months of the season. However, regardless of which team ends up having their pick pushed back from No. 10 to No. 11 to accommodate the Astros’ new selection, that pick will remain protected. That team, therefore, would only have to surrender a second-round pick in order to sign a free agent that turns down a qualifying offer.
This will mark the second consecutive year that the Top 11 picks are protected in the draft, although the reasoning behind the protection of this year’s No. 11 pick was different. The Blue Jays received the No. 11 pick as compensation for failing to sign 2013 No. 10 overall pick Phil Bickford, and compensation picks, by definition, are protected under the CBA.
Wow, I remember all the arguing about the Mets situation a couple years back. I guess THIS is actually the way the majority of the teams had interpreted the protected picks rule after all.
I’m not surprised at all by it. Why should the Mets have been penalized that offseason for signing Bourn when they did indeed finish with a top 10 worst record? (Not that I especially wanted Bourn). It’s not the Mets’ fault the Pirates couldn’t sign their pick the year before.
My argument at the time was that everyone signed an agreement that said “the top 10 picks are protected” and not “the picks of the 10 worst teams from the previous year are protected.” The Mets didn’t really have a case given what was honestly pretty cut-and-dry wording.
That said, I think this is a fairer and more sensible way of doing things, and is likely how a decent chunk of the CBA signees probably envisioned things.
Fair point on the literal semantics, I think the Mets’ stance was more about the “spirit of the rule” which seems to be “10 worst records.” However, I do agree that this is a fairer and more sensible interpretation.
Most people, including myself, were not arguing over what the rule was… as that’s pretty black and white, but more so over what it SHOULD be. The system was broken. Everyone on our side wanted the system to change so the Mets can save their first round pick, not show them any preferential treatment for this one time case.
How is the slot value system effected, do the #3-11 slots now have the same value as slots #2-10 would have without the Astros comp pick?
Good. Unintended consequences should be corrected when possible.
If Astros finish with worst record, they get number 1 AND number 2?
Well the Astros did miss out on 3 picks this year, including the #1 overall, to get one extra first round pick next year. Seems fair to me.
Oh I’m not saying it’s unfair. It’s just crazy.
Good point. That’s crazy!
But since it’s the “worst record”. if the Astro’s were to sign someone this offseason, would they lose the #2 pick? Because thay wouldn’t have gotten THAT one from their record last year.
Or if they are the 11th worst team this year, and the sign a FA with a QO do they lose the #2 pick?
To answer your fist questions: “changes have been made that will protect the picks of the teams with the 10 worst records”
Picks not pick…..all the astros first rounds picks will be protected in the have one of the 10 worst records.
To answer your second questions: good question.
The number 2 pick is protected regardless of where they draft next year. If they are to lose a pick, it will not be their 2nd overall. @bomok:disqus
Under the old system I know that how it would work but how do you know it works that way now?
“Previously, the CBA had called for the “Top 10″ picks to be protected, but changes have been made that will protect the picks of the teams with the 10 worst records, regardless of whether or not comp picks are inserted into the first 10 selections”
According to that statement, which is from this article and not the CBA, only the picks of the teams with the 10 worst records regardless of their position in the draft are protected. If you have a link to a relevant section of the new CBA I would appreciate it.
The No. 2 pick they received as compensation is protected, as the title and the final paragraph of the post outline. Comp picks are protected, as are the top (natural) picks of the 10 worst teams.
If they’re the 11th worst team, they will draft 2nd and 12th. If they sign a free agent with draft pick compensation attached, they will lose the 12th pick, since it is not protected as the top 11 are.
If they are the 10th worst team, they will draft 2nd and 11th, and thus will not lose any first round picks to draft pick compensation in the event they sign a free agent with a QO attached.
This very situation may have cost the Mets a chance to sign Michael Bourn in the 2012-13 offseason (an outcome that, in hindsight, may have been beneficial to New York)……………and very UNbeneficial to Indians fans.
One of these days, FA prices are gonna start dropping BECAUSE so many of them keep going bust. Right?
I don’t know, but I would have to guess no. I think there will always be teams desperate enough to throw too much money at a player, in the hope that they’ll be the guy to bring a ring to their team. I guess I’m old-school. I believe in developing your own players. That’s why more should be spent on scouting and development. And as an Indians fan, this is pretty much the reality that we live with.
Is it wrong to hope that the Astros make an incredible stretch run and finish with a better than 11th worst record? They end up the season with six games against the Rangers and Mets, both of whom might be competing for one of those ten slots. I know no team ever makes it a strategy to be bad and collect top picks, of course.
The Astros have tanked for three seasons running.
How about this? You don’t sign a pick… That’s it. No extra pick the next year. No doubt that that helped Houston decide to reduce their offer to Aiken.
Why would you give all the leverage to the player?
There’s a middle ground here. The teams already have leverage, because, as we can see with Aiken and Nix, if they go to college they can’t sign for three years unless the accept the team’s offer. A team that doesn’t sign a first rounder shouldn’t be handed a nearly equal pick the next year. Let them have pick in the first round, but put it in the middle of the stack. Plenty of talent there.
But they would be inclined to give the player the money he wants or else they may end up drafting in the middle of the pack in a weaker draft (in your scenario). The whole Aiken thing is a weird situation but if he really does have some sort of injury then I don’t blame the Astros for not giving him the money he wanted. Thats just from my understanding of that situation, I will admit I have not been following it all that closely.