Last year MLB and the MLBPA agreed to some draconian rules regarding the draft. Gone were the days when you could spend whatever you want. You might think that MLB may have adopted some penalties that may still have allowed teams to go over their first 10-rounds budget, but they made the penalties so damn harsh that they essentially eliminated the possibility.
Here are the basics for the 2013 MLB Draft:
- Each team gets a budget based on the combined slot values of where they pick in each round.
- There is a 75% tax on any overage up to 5%
- A 75% tax for overage between 5-10% and the loss of next year's first round pick
- 100% tax on overage between 10-15% and the loss of next year's first and second round picks
- 100% tax on overage over 15% and the loss of the first round picks in the next two drafts
The Cubs budget this season is $10,556,500 and below is a table that has the total amount of money the Cubs could spend on draft picks and taxes for 5%, 10%, 15% and greater than 15%.
| % Over | Maximum | Penalty | Total |
| 0% | $10,556,500 | None | $10,556,500.00 |
| 5% | $11,084,325 | 75% tax on overage | $11,480,193.75 |
| 10% | $11,612,150 | 75% tax on overage, loss of next season's 1st round pick | $12,403,887.50 |
| 15% | $12,139,975 | 100% tax on overage, loss of next season's 1st and 2nd round picks | $13,723,450.00 |
| 15%+ | $12,139,975+ | 100% tax on overage, loss of 1st round pick next two seasons | $13,723,450.00+ |
- The cash penalty up to 5% over is $527,825.
- Between 5-10% it's $1,055,650
- The 10-15% would be $1,583,475
- Spending more than 15% over would cost the Cubs more than $1,583,475.
Safe to say that no team will give up a 1st round pick. The Cubs will probably try to play it as close to their allowable budget as they can. It gets costly otherwise.
Here's the slot value for each pick, but remember this doesn't matter as much as the overall budget in the first 10 rounds.
| Round | Pick | Assigned Value |
| 1 | 2 | $6,708,400 |
| 2 | 41 | $1,361,900 |
| 3 | 75 | $736,200 |
| 4 | 108 | $477,300 |
| 5 | 138 | $357,400 |
| 6 | 168 | $267,600 |
| 7 | 198 | $200,400 |
| 8 | 228 | $159,400 |
| 9 | 258 | $148,900 |
| 10 | 288 | $139,000 |
| Bonus Pool | $10,556,500 |
Comments
You mean they really have picks 2 and 228
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
They could potentially play it straight on the first three or four guys, then sign seven scrubs to $50K contracts to make up the difference. It could work, and Appel or non-Appel can still earn a buttload at the #2 spot.
Also:
Recalcitrant Blogger Nate wrote:
(dying laughing) (I knew what you meant)
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
I just think things like that are less likely these days because this system almost forces teams to draft the best player available. It doesn’t happen all the time, but it did a much better job of that last year than ever before. In years past you could count on certain guys dropping several rounds. Don’t think you can do that now so even in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounds, you’re going to get of player of that quality.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
If last year was any indication, they tried to underslot the picks in the first ten rounds after the first few, then started throwing Hail Mary’s at the 11th round and after because those picks won’t force a pool of money to be forfeit if the player doesn’t sign. So they can try the plan I outlined to an extent, but certainly that plan has its limits as you alluded to.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
http://deadspin.com/the-big-ten-is-scrapping-leaders-and-legends-for-east-a-476601062?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_facebook&utm_source=deadspin_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
So B1G folk, it looks like new names, new alignments for the divisions, plus two new teams to bring the total up to 14. 14 teams in the “Big Ten”…seems they should rename this conference too 😛
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I’d like to see a team really blow through the bonus pool and just sign EVERYONE to a huge deal. Spend, like, $40 million on draft picks and just know you aren’t getting a 1st for a couple years.
MylesQuote Reply
Adam Dunn is now hitting .098 (wRC+ = -8).
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat wrote:
Fix yer post, mister?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Luis Valbuena has been a league-average or so third baseman this year. He has a 110 wRC+ at this point, and his BABIP is just .241. His wOBA of .346 is good for 8th among all third basemen this year and his defense has been average.
MylesQuote Reply
The Cubs only have 1 player in the top 50 in RE24 this year (Nate Schierholtz, 4.723, 48th)
MylesQuote Reply
Myles wrote:
This is kind of a pet peeve of mine. Who cares what his BABIP is? It doesn’t change the fact that his numbers are better than his career norms and therefore likely to get worse.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Myles wrote:
There’s still plenty of time before the list eventually has zero Cubs on it (dying laughing)
BerseliusQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat wrote:
It’s because BABIP generally normalizes around .300. Sure, he’s probably going to get worse, but his gains are not all ephemeral. He is not just “hit-lucky”; his walks are up and K’s are down. These are good things.
I don’t think this is what Valbuena is likely to do going forward, but he’s going to get luckier with his hit balls and that will likely offset some of the diminution he will show later.
MylesQuote Reply
Berselius wrote:
Last year, the highest was Alfonso Soriano, at 51st (dying laughing)
MylesQuote Reply
@ Myles:
BABIP actually varies quite a bit from hitter-to-hitter (Tony Gwynn’s was .341), and Luis’ career BABIP is pretty low. And more to the point, I think hitters, over a short period of time, have luck in other areas besides BABIP. i.e., home run rate, contact rate and walk rate are subject to regression just as BABIP is.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Comedy of errors.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
Minus the comedy.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat wrote:
That’s just it, though. His LD% rate is normal, his walk rate is only slightly elevated, and his contact rate is basically normal. In fact, his actual contact (not his strikeout rate) his down this year (78.7 from 82.0). Basically, his most anomalous statistic to this point his a crazily high flyball rate and associated high HR/FB% rate. I don’t know how much “better” flyballs are than groundballs, but that’s the only difference I can really find.
You’re right about the variable BABIP; however, a career .241 BABIP would be the 4th lowest since Integration. Even his .268 rate would be in the bottom 15% all-time (of course, someone has to be there). It just seems really low for someone who isn’t all that slow.
MylesQuote Reply
@ Rizzo the Rat:
Well, I laughed.
/not a true fan
Rice CubeQuote Reply
These Cubs Suck
MylesQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Yes they suck a lot.
dmick89Quote Reply
I love how the Marlins score exactly two runs per game. That’s what happens when you have Juan Pierre (.191/.225/.221) as your leadoff hitter. (Talking about the Marlins and Adam Dunn are the only two things that take my mind off how bad the Cubs are.)
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
You know who the Cubs could use? Bryce Harper. Trade Marmol for him. If that’s not enough, throw in Valbuena to sweeten the deal.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat wrote:
They wouldn’t say yes unless we threw in Campana and we already traded him.
MylesQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat wrote:
That’s way too much. Maybe the Cubs could add Shawn Camp and we could get them to throw Strasburg in.
dmick89Quote Reply
Cashner got the start tonight: 4 IP, 5K, 1 BB, gave up a 2 run homer to Sandoval
GWQuote Reply
Nats are putting Zimmerman on the DL, calling up Rendon
GWQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
I would’ve said to go back in time and have the Cubs suck harder in those draft years, but they probably still would’ve picked Hayden Simpson.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
New Shit
MylesQuote Reply
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?c_id=mlb&content_id=26442715&partnerId=as_mlb_20130421_7325324
Well then. 8-unassisted.
Rice CubeQuote Reply