The signs are good and bad
- |
TORONTO - Ten million dollars. It's less than the Red Sox are paying David Ortiz or J.D. Drew or Mike Lowell. But it was a barrier that, according to Baseball America, no club had crossed in signing bonuses for a draft class. That is, until the Sox handed out approximately $10.5 million in bonuses to the 29 selections from the 2008 draft who signed.
Although that was partially because of the $3 million given to first-rounder Casey Kelly, the 30th overall pick, it was also because of a number of big deals later in the draft. It's a tactic the Sox and other big-market clubs have used to grab talent with signability issues - namely, money and/or Scott Boras as an agent - and shore up their farm systems so they are less dependent on free agency.
"[Baseball] certainly wants the draft to work as it's intended to: Teams with the worst records take the best players," Red Sox scouting director Jason McLeod said. "I think, for the most part, they did that this year. There's no secret there was a lot of money paid out in bonuses this year."
So, the Red Sox (and reportedly the Royals) broke $10 million in a draft that yielded good and bad news for baseball.
"Obviously, we'd rather spend less than more; that's part of what my job is. But I think the real concern with the draft is when some clubs aren't able to select the best player," said Rob Manfred, baseball's executive vice president for labor relations and human resources. "The second issue is cost. I can't say we're thrilled with the escalation that has occurred in signing bonuses the last couple of years."
There is progress. The Royals and Pirates, small-market teams, took big talents in the first round (and later) and signed those players. In past years, such teams have passed on players because they thought they would not be able to sign them.
The Royals and Pirates each signed one player to a $6 million bonus (first baseman Eric Hosmer for Kansas City; third baseman Pedro Alvarez for Pittsburgh). The Sox, on the other hand, didn't exceed $3 million, but followed that up with a record $2 million to a fifth-rounder, outfielder Ryan Westmoreland, who had made a commitment to Vanderbilt.
That's where things get tricky. It's with the signees later in the draft, like 18th-rounder Lars Anderson, that teams willing to spend can clean up. Out of high school in 2006, Anderson got $825,000, well above his draft slot, and has turned into the Sox' top position prospect. Not yet 21, Anderson is hitting .330 with five home runs and 25 RBIs in 103 at-bats with Double A Portland.
The Sox signed Anderson, but they didn't sign Alvarez (14th round, 2005) when they had the chance. He had slipped because of his commitment to Vanderbilt, which he attended.
"Believe me, it's a very bitter taste in our mouths when we lost out on Pedro Alvarez, and what he became over three years at Vanderbilt," McLeod said. "That's when we went and took Lars Anderson. We took Matt LaPorta [the central piece for the Indians when they dealt CC Sabathia to the Brewers] and couldn't get that done. I think more and more teams have seen that, which is why you've seen more clubs paying overslot bonuses. Teams, I think, are realizing that this is our opportunity to strengthen our organization."
There is no question Major League Baseball is against teams giving prospects far more than their draft position warrants. While the issue may be addressed in the next collective bargaining agreement, there is little that can be done at the moment.
"We work very hard each year to try to encourage the clubs to work within the slotting system," Manfred said. "Seventy-something percent of the players sign at slot. One solution is to work hard with the system we have now. Longer term, I think a more concrete solution is going to be a product of collective bargaining. We have had discussions with the Players Association in earlier rounds of collective bargaining. We are constantly evaluating solutions."
Such as a hard-slotting system, or an international draft, or an aggregate limit on expenditures. Then there's this piece of advice from Manfred: "A signing at $6 million in the first round that happens on July 15 does a lot more damage than if it happens at 11:59 [p.m.] on Aug. 15 [the deadline for signing draftees]."
But no matter how close to the deadline teams sign them, there is no question prospects are getting more money. In the current economic climate, it makes good business sense. It takes money to save money, in other words.
"I think the majority of the clubs just see what's happening at the major league level as far as free agents, what they're costing," McLeod said. "Everybody's already said, 'We want to build from within.' But really putting your money where your mouth is? It's not just bonus payments. It's everything: infrastructure, the number of scouts you have. With all the signs we saw this year, the amount of money that was spent, a number of teams believe in investing in their own system."
That was the reason Kelly got what he did, but more graphic cases occurred in the lower rounds - Anderson in 2006, Will Middlebrooks in 2007 ($925,000, fifth round), and Westmoreland in 2008.
"Sitting here today, we felt like we got another first-round player in the fifth round," McLeod said. "Time will only tell, but the draft's purpose is to help strengthen our team. The system probably isn't perfect. We felt the talent alone was too good to see go to school and have it happen again: another kid to Vanderbilt, and [then taken] at the top of the draft. We weren't going to let that happen again."
Amalie Benjamin can be reached at abenjamin@globe.com.
