Somebody forgot to send the memo to Major League Baseball
commissioner Bud Selig: The MLB amateur draft is designed to give
the worst teams in the league the first crack at the next pool of
superstars.
This seems like an easy enough concept to understand, but for
whatever reason, the MLB has yet to understand this simple
philosophy of competitive balance.
So while Brett McMillan will probably be the highest current
Bruin to be selected and prep star John Drennen will likely lead a
list of highly touted UCLA recruits who will forgo their college
eligibility to jump straight to the pros, there is a bigger issue
at heart.
Several top prospects will predictably see their position fall
in the draft because low to mid-revenue baseball teams refuse to
shell out five or six million dollars on a highly touted collegian
or high school teenybopper. In other words, the notoriously lousy
baseball teams will not be afforded the chance to develop the best
young players and replenish their organization. The worst teams are
simply not getting the best players, which completely negates the
purpose of a draft.
Last year, Florida State shortstop Stephen Drew and Long Beach
State’s Jered Weaver sought sports super-agent Scott
Boras’ representation entering the draft. Boras made it well
known that if the San Diego Padres, who held the first pick, wanted
either Drew or Weaver’s services, then they better be
prepared to pay twice what other prospects were seeking. The
result: the Padres signed a less ballyhooed prospect, Matt Bush, on
the cheap.
In 2002, then USC pitcher Mark Prior hired Boras to do his
negotiating. Like clockwork, the revenue-deprived Minnesota Twins
opted for Twin Cities high schooler Joe Mauer while the big market
Chicago Cubs gobbled up Prior.
Why would Boras and his clients, who have yet to play a single
inning in professional baseball, hold teams ransom for a signing
bonus that so few owners can afford to pay? Because they can.
The NFL and NBA both have adopted obligatory allotted signing
bonuses within the structure of their draft. In layman’s
terms, the player drafted first gets a little bit more than the
player drafted second, who gets a little bit more than the player
drafted third and so on.
This limits the demands of drafted athletes and enables the
poorer teams to develop a nucleus of talent. If the smaller market
teams aren’t given the opportunity to draft the best players,
then the cycle of haves and have-nots is only intensified because
the big market teams, such as the New York Yankees and Boston Red
Sox, are free to sign the most expensive players. Meanwhile, the
small market teams are forced to build a patchwork group of
second-tier players.
Why would baseball perpetuate the financial problem in their
sport by not adopting draft allotment? Because the commissioner and
the owners are at the mercy of the powerful Major League Baseball
Players’ Association, widely regarded as one of the most
powerful unions in the country.
Nobody can blame the agents or the players for trying to get the
maximum dollar out of the current rules. Who wouldn’t try to
take their obscenely rich employers to the cleaners?
The concept of the solution is simple; change the amateur draft
by implementing draft allotment so the Detroit Tigers, Milwaukee
Brewers, Kansas City Royals and company will eventually give the
big market teams a run for their money, literally.
The execution of the solution, however, remains elusive.
When the draft ends Tuesday afternoon, UCLA coach John Savage
will finally piece together next year’s squad as potential
recruits, who could help fledgling programs like UCLA climb to
prominence, are either drafted or passed over.
Baseball purists just hope that the Kansas City Royals
aren’t passed over by the expensive talent.
E-mail de Jong at adejong@media.ucla.edu.