2014 MLB Draft

[HalfSmokes]

how much would he have to get next year for it to have 'worked out'? Value of school to him (degree + fun) - whatever risk premium you want to use- getting to the 51st pick would net him about 100k, I'd say that would probably be worth it to him and that seems doable

[tomterp]

Fascinating, detailed analysis of the Astros' draft disaster.  I think non-members can read this.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=24223

2014 Draft
The Anatomy of an Astros Breakdown

by Nick J. Faleris

[RD]

There are a couple flaws in that article that I see, although it is a very thorough piece.

I can speak on VERY good authority that Nix did not fall because of commitment concerns and nobody thought he would command $2mill. He made it clear to anyone that woukd listen that if someone offered him a mill, he was signing and that was his goal. Also, him falling isnt really true. The people ive talked to were actually surprised he was taken where he was. This is a kid that went 1-6 with a mid 3 ERA in high school.

Also, the idea of Aiken feeling slighted and taking a 45% discount is a pile of crap. The slot recommendation is just that: a recommendation. He wasn't expecting that, didnt demand it. Hes not entitled to it. They discussed numbers prior to the draft and agreed to much less, pending a physical.  And the physical turned up an abnormality. I dp not believe this was some grand plan of the Astros so that they could get enough money to sign Marshall. I think it turned out to be that the Astros were comfortable going to $5mill on Aiken (which was raised from their initial offer after the physical) because they were able to still add anotjer talent to the organization. They increased their offer to the max they could afford, in order for them to also get Marshall.

While this is a mess and looks bad for the Astros because they lost some talent, I do not blame them. Pitchers, especially high schoolers are gambles, period. Add in a possible issue with the kids arm? Id be leery of offering $6.5mill as well. They were well within their right to do so. I understand feeling a bit slighted by getting less money but this isnt a little kids game anymore. Possible ohysical issues play huge roles. You were still offered $5mill. That should still be enough to sign on the dotted.line. its not like they held firm at the $3.2mill offer. And taking $5mill was not a 45% discount.

As far as Nix ... I understand being upset his deal fell through, but he knew the details of the situation. Close advised both pkayers and he knew his offer was contingent upon Aikens deal. He should be upset with Aiken not taking $5mill if his anger is placed at anyone.

Ive heard a couple pieces of info..Both kids are signed with UCLA but may not end up there, and it may not be their choice.

Scott Boras is trying to get in contact  with Nix,.Hes tje small fish but the hope is get Nix and maybe he works on Aiken. If Boras gets his hands on them, you never know what will happen.

[tomterp]

There are a couple flaws in that article that I see, although it is a very thorough piece.

Note there are dozens of comments below that expand on the topic. 

[blue911]

Note there are dozens of comments below that expand on the topic.

You keep say Conflict of Interest but unless Close represents the Astros in some capacity then you're using the wrong term. Both Aiken and Nix were able to reach an initial agreement suggests he is quite capable of separating the two.

[HalfSmokes]

You keep say Conflict of Interest but unless Close represents the Astros in some capacity then you're using the wrong term. Both Aiken and Nix were able to reach an initial agreement suggests he is quite capable of separating the two.

he's representing two clients before the same potential employer and those clients have interests that are potentially conflicting. In this case they ended up not conflicting, but it's easy to see how they could (one client is in a position to get a portion of the bonus pool that would preclude the second client getting the portion that the agent thinks they are entitled to). Not a technical conflict of interest because no personal gain, but definitely not totally kosher

[blue911]

he's representing two clients before the same potential employer and those clients have interests that are potentially conflicting. In this case they ended up not conflicting, but it's easy to see how they could (one client is in a position to get a portion of the bonus pool that would preclude the second client getting the portion that the agent thinks they are entitled to). Not a technical conflict of interest because no personal gain, but definitely not totally kosher

Nothing about any draft is kosher. 

[JCA-CrystalCity]

You keep say Conflict of Interest but unless Close represents the Astros in some capacity then you're using the wrong term. Both Aiken and Nix were able to reach an initial agreement suggests he is quite capable of separating the two.

If it were a legal representation and there was the potential for the interests of one to be affected by your representation of the other, you would need full disclosure and consent of both clients before you could take them on even if they are on the same nominal side of the case.  Even then, it might be necessary to find one another attorney.

Friend of mine represented in-state cigarette distributors in some tobacco liability litigation.  They were nominally on the same side as the tobacco companies. Even though for most purposes (lobbying, dealing with regulators) they used the same law firm, they had to hire separate counsel for the litigation.  My friend got the representation because his firm was not big enough to handle the other legal work and he and his partner were known quality litigators who had big firm experience.  I think the cigarette companies even paid for the distributors legal work (probably some sort of contractual relationship; would not want them settling because they could not afford to stay in the case).

Here, because of the limited draft pool of money, the interest of one potentially conflicted with the other because they were all trying to divvy up the same pie.  Add in the fact that the ability to go over slot for the lower pick was contingent on the higher pick signing a below slot deal, the potential conflict is great enough that there at least would have had to be disclosure under bar rules (which may not even apply to agents).

[blue911]

If it were a legal representation and there was the potential for the interests of one to be affected by your representation of the other, you would need full disclosure and consent of both clients before you could take them on even if they are on the same nominal side of the case.  Even then, it might be necessary to find one another attorney.

Friend of mine represented in-state cigarette distributors in some tobacco liability litigation.  They were nominally on the same side as the tobacco companies. Even though for most purposes (lobbying, dealing with regulators) they used the same law firm, they had to hire separate counsel for the litigation.  My friend got the representation because his firm was not big enough to handle the other legal work and he and his partner were known quality litigators who had big firm experience.  I think the cigarette companies even paid for the distributors legal work (probably some sort of contractual relationship; would not want them settling because they could not afford to stay in the case).

Here, because of the limited draft pool of money, the interest of one potentially conflicted with the other because they were all trying to divvy up the same pie.  Add in the fact that the ability to go over slot for the lower pick was contingent on the higher pick signing a below slot deal, the potential conflict is great enough that there at least would have had to be disclosure under bar rules (which may not even apply to agents).

1) he wasn't an agent but an advisor. ( I know but under the present charade that is how he's classified)

2) he was able to reach a preliminary agreement for each client

3) it isn't a hard cap, yes there are penalties but that's another issue.

4) the tobacco settlements were class action suits as far as I am aware.

[blue911]

What you need to keep in mind is players pick their "Advisors" prior to the draft, not the other way around.

[tomterp]

You keep say Conflict of Interest but unless Close represents the Astros in some capacity then you're using the wrong term. Both Aiken and Nix were able to reach an initial agreement suggests he is quite capable of separating the two.

I posted it once in the BP thread, that isn't "keep saying".  Another poster mentioned it as well, because it's a fact.

If I'm Nix, I gotta be thinking his advice to Aiken not to sign leaves me screwed.  No wonder Boras wants a piece of the action.

[tomterp]

If it were a legal representation and there was the potential for the interests of one to be affected by your representation of the other, you would need full disclosure and consent of both clients before you could take them on even if they are on the same nominal side of the case.  Even then, it might be necessary to find one another attorney.

Yes.  We don't know if he advised his advisees of the potential conflict, but he sure should have.

Here, because of the limited draft pool of money, the interest of one potentially conflicted with the other because they were all trying to divvy up the same pie.  Add in the fact that the ability to go over slot for the lower pick was contingent on the higher pick signing a below slot deal, the potential conflict is great enough that there at least would have had to be disclosure under bar rules (which may not even apply to agents).

Agreed.  That's my point. 

[blue911]

I posted it once in the BP thread, that isn't "keep saying".  Another poster mentioned it as well, because it's a fact.

If I'm Nix, I gotta be thinking his advice to Aiken not to sign leaves me screwed.  No wonder Boras wants a piece of the action.

Nix was screwed by the system not Close. He still wouldn't received the $1.5M bonus regardless of who was advising him.

[tomterp]

Nix was screwed by the system not Close. He still wouldn't received the $1.5M bonus regardless of who was advising him.

Close did him no favors.

And it's laughable that the MLBPA should profess to be indignant over the failure.  They were a major force, if not THE major force behind the changed rules that prevent teams from negotiating freely with their draftees.  Their one and only objective was to reduce to the extent possible how much $ goes to draftees and to ex-US signees, so that more is funneled into the few free agents coming on the market each year.  Mission accomplished.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

1) he wasn't an agent but an advisor. ( I know but under the present charade that is how he's classified)

2) he was able to reach a preliminary agreement for each client

3) it isn't a hard cap, yes there are penalties but that's another issue.

4) the tobacco settlements were class action suits as far as I am aware.

I'm figuring different ethical rules apply to consultant / not quite agents here than to lawyers in litigation, and that disclosure would have probably taken care of any conflict.  For confflict of interest in other professions, it isn't even the actual conflict that matters, it is the potential and appearance.  The fact he had a preliminary agreement for both does not change the fact that there was a potential for one's interest to be at the expense of the other.  the only way Nix was getting an above cap offer was if Aiken signed cheaply.  Soft cap doesn't matter because you can't assume the Astros would take the penalty.

(Not clear why you would say class action matters).

[HalfSmokes]

Close did him no favors.

what we'll never know is if he would have signed for cheaper, if not, he was un-signable once Houston lost the Aiken.

And it's laughable that the MLBPA should profess to be indignant over the failure.  They were a major force, if not THE major force behind the changed rules that prevent teams from negotiating freely with their draftees.  Their one and only objective was to reduce to the extent possible how much $ goes to draftees and to ex-US signees, so that more is funneled into the few free agents coming on the market each year.  Mission accomplished.

the union looked out for its membership - that's its job. What is a joke is that they can negotiate on behalf of draftees and minor leaguers most of whom will never have the chance to be members of the union.

[blue911]

I'm figuring different ethical rules apply to consultant / not quite agents here than to lawyers in litigation, and that disclosure would have probably taken care of any conflict.  For confflict of interest in other professions, it isn't even the actual conflict that matters, it is the potential and appearance.  The fact he had a preliminary agreement for both does not change the fact that there was a potential for one's interest to be at the expense of the other.  the only way Nix was getting an above cap offer was if Aiken signed cheaply.  Soft cap doesn't matter because you can't assume the Astros would take the penalty.

(Not clear why you would say class action matters).

I think that if MLB or the MLBPA really thought that this represented a conflict of interest they would have changed the CBA. It isn't as if agents have any more say in the rules than the draftees. The soft cap matters only in as far as you stating there is a limited amount of money, which isn't quite true. I wouldn't expect any team to forfeit two first round picks to sign one fifth rounder. But then I wouldn't expect a team to reach a verbal agreement with a player then reneg because of another one of the picks wouldn't sign. You can try to dress it up any way you want but the Astros made a complete mess of their draft. 

[blue911]

The MLBPA filed a grievance against the Astros today.

[tomterp]

The MLBPA filed a grievance against the Astros today.

How can they have standing on behalf of a non-member?

Anyway, this whole fiasco reminds me of the 1979 draft, when the Royals whiffed on their 4th round and 18th round picks, Dan Marino and John Elway, respectively.     

Of course both went on to hall of fame careers, too bad for the Royals.

 

[blue911]

How can they have standing on behalf of a non-member?

Anyway, this whole fiasco reminds me of the 1979 draft, when the Royals whiffed on their 4th round and 18th round picks, Dan Marino and John Elway, respectively.     

Of course both went on to hall of fame careers, too bad for the Royals.

 

I would think that Congress insisted on some protection when baseball instituted the draft

[blue911]

Rick Giolito just stuck his foot up Jeff Luhnow's ass.

Giolito’s father, Rick, recently questioned an article on the Houston Chronicle’s website that stated that “teams don’t see MRIs before the draft.” He says his son’s experience says otherwise.

“All draft-eligible players are required to submit complete medical histories to Major League Baseball, which includes MRIs, X-Rays, etc., prior to the draft,” Rick Giolito says. “MLB is responsible for delivering copies of medical history to the individual teams. Lucas’ injury occurred prior to the MLB deadline for delivery of Draftee Medical Histories,” so the information provided including information regarding what was then determined to be a strained Ulnar Collateral Ligament.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/25/injury-disclosures-loom-large-for-future-mlb-drafts/

[HalfSmokes]

Rick Giolito just stuck his foot up Jeff Luhnow's ass.


http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/25/injury-disclosures-loom-large-for-future-mlb-drafts/

would Houston really lie about something that easily disprovable?

[tomterp]

Rick Giolito just stuck his foot up Jeff Luhnow's ass.


http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/25/injury-disclosures-loom-large-for-future-mlb-drafts/

But since Aiken was healthy and had not had injury, there may not have been an MRI or Xray available for Houston to review.

[NJ Ave]

Isn't the issue here that the kid has never had arm trouble, and thus would not HAVE any MRI results or anything like that? Every team knew Giolito had already had arm trouble, so it makes sense to get his test results pre-draft. But the major problem is that kids don't go through comprehensive sports physicals prior to the draft. Any underlying weaknesses, such as thin or missing UCLs that have not been diagnosed, would appear only AFTER the team picks them and gives them a full physical.

[NJ Ave]

Sorry to repeat TT.