Teams show more willingness to defy draft slot recommendations
What: A recent Baseball America study revealed that the Red Sox spent more than $10 million on their draft picks, the first team to cross that barrier. It was symbolic of a growing trend among owners to open up their pocketbooks for kids.
When: Signing bonuses have caused reason for pause the past two months. Even the Pirates went above the commissioner’s recommended slot. That’s notable, given that first-year Pirates team president Frank Coonelly worked directly with Bud Selig for years to eliminate such extravagance. Coonelly approved $6 million for Vanderbilt’s Pedro Alvarez, more than $2 million over slot. Even more ironic, the agreement was reached with agent Scott Boras, for whom slotting was designed to foil.
Background: The argument for salary slotting is theoretically sound — that it would allow the worst teams to select the best players, not the most signable picks. Problem is, there is no rookie salary cap, such as in the NBA, so salary slotting is a guideline, not a rule. That led to abuse.
Renck’s take: Rather than benefit small-market teams, salary slotting hurt the clubs it was supposed to help most. Teams like Colorado, Cleveland and Kansas City would pass on a star that the monsters like the Red Sox could sweep up with more lucrative offers. So it is that the Giants spent a record $6.2 million to sign catcher Buster Posey last week. The Indians and Royals also spent freely. The Rockies must take note. They have decided never to compete again for big-name free agents, so they must spend more money on the draft. They finished in the bottom seven of signing bonuses this summer. You can’t have it both ways — meager major-league payroll and low draft investment. They have long shown loyalty to the Dan O’Dowd-led front office, but what does it mean if they don’t trust him to spend huge draft bucks?
