So Begins the Usual Gnashing of Teeth over Draft Bonuses

Despite the fact that this year’s bonuses were very much in line with past draft bonuses, the size of the contracts received by Stephen Strasburg, Dustin Ackley, Donovan Tate and Jacob Turner, in particular, have caused much gnashing of teeth and demands for reforms in the draft system.  Here’s a pretty typical article of this type from ESPN’s Jayson Stark.

Understandably, the teams complain about how much they have to pay draft picks every year.  They obviously wish to see as little competition in the signing of amateur players as possible, so they can ultimately pay as little as possible.  As with free agent signings, the owners want someone to protect them from themselves by prohibiting them from  paying top talent what it’s really worth.

There is talk that the Players Association may be more amenable to negotiating changes in the collective bargaining agreement regarding the draft, because the Association’s members (major league players) want that bonus money going to them rather than to amateurs.

I can see the Players Association throwing the amateurs overboard, by perhaps agreeing to a draft bonus cap system similar to what the NBA employs, but only if the Players Association gets tangible concessions for its members (i.e., higher minimum major league salary, higher minimum salary for those minor league players with time spent on a major league roster, less service time to become arbitration eligible, no draft picks received by teams losing veterans as free agents).

However, unions are not in the business of sticking it to other workers unless there is something substantial in it for their own members. The Players Association won’t agree to anything unless its members are sure that any money saved by owners in the signing of amateur players will be placed instead in the members’ own pockets.

The biggest advantage of a bonus cap system of some kind is that it would make it easier for the bad, small market teams to sign the best amateur players.  However, many of the other arguments raised by Jayson Stark and his ilk don’t hold up under closer examination.

One argument he makes that I find particularly irratating is his anger that Stephen Strasburg’s $15.1 million contract is more than Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez and John Smoltz got combined for pitching in 2009.

Stark sums up his article above with, “any system that’s paying an 18-year-old amateur more than a five-time Cy Young winner needs more repairs than a 1962 Volkswagen.”

First, it’s just factually inaccurate.  The only player receiving more than five time Cy Young winner Randy Johnson (2009 salary of $8 million) is Stephen Strasburg, who is a 21 year old collegian as close as you are going to get a sure thing for an amateur pitcher.

Second, following Stark’s logic, Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux should still be receiving eight-figure salaries from MLB whether they pitch or not because they have won so many Cy Young awards between them.  Think about it –  who is likely to win more major league games from this date forward, Stephen Strasburg or all of Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez and John Smoltz combined?  If you’d bet even money on Johnson, Martinez and Smoltz, that’s a bet I’d take every time.

Unless Strasburg blows out his arm, the odds of which I would handicap at something less than 50%, he’s certain to win more games than these three aged veterans combined, none of whom is more likely than not to pitch in the major leagues after this season and none of whom will ever again have anything approaching a Cy Young season.

Needless to say, if you look at the combined salaries each of Johnson, Martinez and Smoltz made over the course of their long major league careers, the money they made dwarfs the $15.1 million Strasburg will receive for his first four professional seasons.