Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 63
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    36,950
    vCash
    1000

    Draft Pick Compensation. The Mets making an Appeal

    http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/ml...rst-round-pick

    The Mets had the 10th worst record in baseball last year. Under the new CBA that should technically qualify them to have their first pick protected.

    But the Pirates didn't sign Appel last year so they are getting the 9th pick in this upcoming draft, pushing the Mets to the 11th pick and technically it is unprotected.

    But they should have the 10th pick (if not for Appel) and it would then be protected.


    Now correct me if I am wrong, but should they get this pick?



    The link is no surprise, of course the union would support the Mets claim. It would make another suitor possibly for Bourn who seems to have a cold stove right now. So that's just an obvious link for you.

    But it's an interesting discussion and case.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,064
    vCash
    1500
    I don't think an exception should be made. It seems like the owners and the PA deliberately (for some reason) wrote the CBA in a certain way in which the top 10 picks get protected, rather than the top 10 seated teams.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    21,557
    vCash
    1500
    I am admittedly subjective here but in the spirit of the rule the Mets deserve a protected pick.

    The whole idea was to help the teams that finished among the ten worst records and to improve competitive balance in some respects by allowing those teams to sign FA without the worry of losing said protected pick.

    The Mets want Michael Bourn but they don't want to lose that pick as they are rebuilding and it would hurt their longer term development. But it seems contradictory for the Mets to be among those 10 worst teams record wise and not be allowed the same luxury of signing a guy without losing the pick and the allotted slot money in the draft.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    14,913
    vCash
    1500
    maybe lose/throw games in final month and secure a better pick?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    21,557
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by CubsFanBudMan74 View Post
    maybe lose/throw games in final month and secure a better pick?
    I don't think tanking was or is the way to go regardless of whether they have anything to play for or not.

    These guys have pride as major league ballplayers..
    Last edited by metswon69; 01-24-2013 at 06:56 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    52,937
    vCash
    1500
    just when you thought it couldnt get worse for the mets.........
    30 Team Stadium Checklist: 10 to go

    1) Yankees 2) Orioles 3) Rays 4) Red Sox 5) Mets 6) Braves 7) Phillies 8) Nationals 9) Marlins 10) Pirates 11) Padres 12) Astros 13) Mariners 14) Twins 15) Cubs 16) White Sox 17) Cardinals 18) Indians 19) Tigers 20) Royals


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wethersfield/Storrs, CT
    Posts
    8,889
    vCash
    1500
    I think it's BS that it isn't protected. If anything the pirates pick shouldn't be because they were the ones that were stupid enough to draft a guy with no intention to sign with them.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    6,190
    vCash
    1500
    no, it should be left unprotected. what happens if a lot of teams this upcoming draft dont sign their top 10 picks.. cant imagine mlb setting a precedent

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wethersfield/Storrs, CT
    Posts
    8,889
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Toxeryll View Post
    no, it should be left unprotected. what happens if a lot of teams this upcoming draft dont sign their top 10 picks.. cant imagine mlb setting a precedent
    Then a lot of teams are stupid. No team should fail to sign a top 10 pick. That is a failure. They should set a precedent by not protecting teams that take guys who don't sign.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    21,557
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Nomar View Post
    Then a lot of teams are stupid. No team should fail to sign a top 10 pick. That is a failure. They should set a precedent by not protecting teams that take guys who don't sign.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    12,602
    vCash
    1500
    I think it should be protected. If the point is to kind of spread the wealth and help out the lower ranked teams, then thats what they should do. Cause right now, thats not what its doing. Its just making some imaginary line after ten with no purpose.

    The bottom 10 teams should be protected because that is what the system was created for.
    You have no idea how excited I am right now.


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    T.O., Canada
    Posts
    14,435
    vCash
    1500
    ^^Yup, spirit of the law is to give the worst 10 teams in the league a protected pick. Unless someone can come up with a particular reason it was worded specifically the way it was then I say it should be changed.
    2013

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Boogie Down
    Posts
    77,917
    vCash
    1500
    I blame Scott Hairston.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    21,557
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Sick Of It All View Post
    I blame Scott Hairston.


    Damn him and his 2 fWAR...

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    UNIT€D $TAT€$ OF AM€RIKA
    Posts
    609
    vCash
    1500
    I hate the mets, but it should be protected. The protected picks should be for the top ten picks excluding compensation picks.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •