The only restless Cubs fans are the ones that aren't understanding how good the farm is right now along with amount of flexibility the club has to sign some FAs this coming offseason and next offseason. So aka, the casual/stupid fans.
does anyone else hear the same complaints we heard about Drayton, and the same complaints we heard about McMullen before that? SSDD. (same stuff, different decade)
If we don't sign the compensation pick next year , we do not receive another compensation pick the next year. If we do not sign our own pick, we will receive a compensation pick in '16. Will be very interesting to see who they draft #2 next year, knowing that the player will have some pretty serious leverage.
I've never heard that. Link? Not that I don't believe you. I know you can get a compensation pick for an unsigned FA compensation pick, but not for an unsigned unsigned pick compensation pick. That sentence was fun to type.
It is in the draft pick thread. Some poster was able to find multiple sources including Baseball America & Keith Law. It was news to me as well. Edit: Here is the page. DoitDickau has the info: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=255241&page=9
So it's possible that in 2017, we could have the top 4 picks? Isn't 2017 supposed to be a great draft?
I'd be more concerned about it if the kid wasn't only 17. I think you'd be looking at 3 years minimum before they bring that kid up. Next year they'll get a compensation pick to go along with whatever other pick they'll have in the first round...potentially, if they use that compensation pick on a college guy, that speeds up the talent stemming from that pick to the big league club. I just don't see the sky falling because they didn't sign a 17 year old pitcher. By the way...have we all discussed how stupid it is to turn down $5 million as a high school pitcher? I can't believe the adults in his life (including his agent) allowed him to do that, much less counseled him that direction. I will be very surprised if he comes back out next season and signs a deal for $5 million or more.
After taking a few days to let this stew, I've got the following observations: I've seen this more than once about how people can't fathom how this kid "turned down" this offer... unfortunately, the Astros thought the same way and thought they'd get him no matter how they handled the negotiations. First of all, this offer only came in at the very last second... while the Astros were playing a game of chicken between themselves... and nobody else apparently. By that point, it wasn't about the money as much as it was about the negotiating "tactics" that one side finally had "enough" of. Apparently it was the Astros who leaked the "short UCL" info. It was the Astros that went out of their way to point out Aiken had a "agent" (which would jeopardize his college eligibility)... all designed leaks to try and force a deal. Secondly, the original offer that had been agreed upon ($6.5 million), was in Aiken's camp's eyes, what the kid was worth (which was still below slot). They weren't buying into the "failed physical" that caused the Astros to reduce their offer. They clearly had enough confidence in the other opinions that they had received, and confidence that Aiken's elbow will not be falling off over the next year (if he goes to juco) or 3 years (if he goes to D1) to lower his future earning potential. Lastly, if the Astros truly were "scared" about his elbow... I doubt they try to raise their offers not once but twice at the last second. I understand that they wanted to try and get Nix/Marshall as well... but in the end, they're still backing out of an agreed deal simply due to the MRI findings. He was still the same pitcher at that point, and for the unpredictable foreseeable future that Luhnow said was the "most developed HS pitcher ever". Sure, there is concern as the elbow is not your "normal" elbow (that still has the ability to get injured)... but no doctor can predict an increased injury risk one way or the other, and again team Aiken is confident that his elbow will be fine (or no more so at risk than any other elbow exposed to the awful strain of being a baseball pitcher). I don't think its a huge loss... and they'll be fine with the extra compensation money next year (although it wouldn't surprise me if they take a more "singable" player higher than he should go, as they have very little leverage)... but I am bothered by the negotiating tactics they used along with the extra reputation hit the team takes amongst agents, other players, the union, the media, and the fans for just $1.5 million dollars. I also don't know if this could lead to changes in the way the front office does things, as while there was some "bad luck" involved here... they still seemingly made the "wrong" decision on who to pick, and now make it sound like they will never be on board to picking HS players early. Combine that with the Appel issue, the hacking of the computer system, and the upcoming grievences/lawsuits that the team could have to deal with... somebody within the group could be held as a fall-guy of sorts.
Nick, I hear what you're saying, but I'm talking about the other side of the coin. I'm thinking that a high school kid who has the specter of a health issue shouldn't turn down $5 million. That's life changing money for that kid. I don't care how insulted you are...how how pissed off you are...you take that money and run. And then as soon as you can become a free agent, you leave and stick it to them. We can argue all day over whether the Astros made a mistake...and they may have. It's also possible both sides screwed up when looking solely at their own respective interests. But I think the Astros have a far better shot of recovering from this lost pick through the draft next year than Aiken does of seeing that kind of cash again next year through the draft.
The difference in all of this is 1.5 million, from most reports, right? Aren't we paying Jesse Crain over 3 million this year?
We shall see... I wonder if other teams would have balked at the MRI findings like the Astros did. Yes, $5 million is life changing money... so was the $6.5 million that they had originally agreed to. If people were touting the mindset of Appel "believing in himself" to take a risk of injury and go back to college... same sort of thing has to be said about Aiken as well (although it looks like Appel may have pitched his arm off just to get that great deal the following year). That sort of confidence won't hurt his potential for a great signing bonus. Again, not worried about the team recovering the "talent" (although if Aiken is ultimately healthy, the Astros themselves said he was truly special... so not sure if they would then no longer believe themselves)... more worried about the potential future perception issues/agent issues/reputation issues/leverage issues/union dispute issues/retaining their own free agent issues/"the experiment failed" issues. At the very least, I do hope that somehow this front office finds a reason to "improve" as a result of this (rather than take the approach of "we're great already... we have no problems, everybody else has the problem!")
I don't disagree with this But I bet the agent was getting plenty of pressure from the players association to not sign for 3 million under slot
Agreed. If he had done that, it could set a dangerous precedent for "X-ray" or "lab" abnormalities that lead to "failed" physicals left and right. Radiologists can pretty much find an "abnormality" in any MRI or CT scan, even though its mostly an incidental finding that has no bearing on someone's overall health or well-being (and is likely separate from the original issue they were looking at). Now in this case, the MRI definitely found "something" elbow related... but until Aiken gets injured, nobody can say for sure if it means anything. I'd like to see what Rodon's, Kolek's and Appel's MRI's looked like... chances are, one of those three guys is going to end up having surgery at some point as well.
Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: money spent on MLB player salaries just isn't equivalent to money spent on draft bonuses. The regulations placed on draft bonuses make each dollar more valuable. You can happily toss a couple million to a risky reliever at the MLB level. Not so much with draft picks.
