I think the disagreement between our two positions (and this is where game theory comes into play) is the probability each of us puts in returns becoming diminished because of rising prices caused by other teams deciding to disregard the slot recommendations in order to keep pace. I've got no clue where that tipping point is ($#@! Gladwell), but I think it's in any teams best interest to avoid contributing to a movement that could cause the system to get to that point. The degree of aggressiveness in breaking slot should correlate to how probable that scenario is.
FTN wrote:The list of teams willing to go over slot has started to rise dramatically. The Phillies will end being bag holders if they aren't proactive
kruker wrote:Good call with Shelby Miller in the top 10. Haven't seen another mock with him that high.
With rumors flying around about everything from bonuses to clubs looking for players that will sign for slot, I asked one NL club's V.P. of Scouting and Player Development his opinion on the draft.
"It's not a bad class," he said from the start. "But it's not one you want to stretch your budget for in terms of bonuses unless you're a club with money to spare. But those that aren't drafting high but have a pick in the right spot after the first 20 and maybe an extra pick, too, they're going to get two top 10 or 15 players, if they want to spend. This is what's wrong with the draft.
"The teams that need the help are drafting in the top 10, but since they can't afford the best players sometimes, they pass, sending that player to a 'have' team. It's why there is a lot of talk about trading draft picks.
"Come the end of the draft, many of the have-nots will have draft classes that pale in comparison to those that had fewer picks and drafted 20 slots lower. That's not the end-result we all want with the draft. Baseball has to look at that and the slotting system and make some changes."