Beefy's Corner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread

[(Conor)]

How does the players draft work in MLS?

Same way it does in the NFL. Players from college (and in some cases straight out of high school, like Brek Shea) are eligible for the draft, and the draft order is decided by the finishing position in the previous season, such that the worst team gets first pick. Then the teams pick players in order until the draft finishes, currently after 2 rounds.

 

[tomw24]

Torres scores. 1-1.

 

[- Doing The Lambert Walk]

I saw someone on my Facebook timeline trying to sell these earlier... £8 for a big one, £5 for a regular one...

You must log in or register to see images

They're free from the council!

 

[tomw24]

Same way it does in the NFL. Players from college (and in some cases straight out of high school, like Brek Shea) are eligible for the draft, and the draft order is decided by the finishing position in the previous season, such that the worst team gets first pick. Then the teams pick players in order until the draft finishes, currently after 2 rounds.

And MLB.

 

[OddRiverOakWizards]

I think Torres wanted that!

 

[OddRiverOakWizards]

Doesn't change the game much but the next goal does.

 

[tomw24]

2-1 Chelsea. Moses.

 

[(Conor)]

And MLB.

Although both the NBA and the NHL have lotteries determine the selection order for non-playoff teams...

 

[Piebacca]

Same way it does in the NFL. Players from college (and in some cases straight out of high school, like Brek Shea) are eligible for the draft, and the draft order is decided by the finishing position in the previous season, such that the worst team gets first pick. Then the teams pick players in order until the draft finishes, currently after 2 rounds.

It certainly seems to keep the leagues competitive.

 

[tomw24]

What a goal from Luiz!

 

[OddRiverOakWizards]

But when Vancouver and Portland Timbers entered the league it seems they were able to pick up players from other clubs?

 

[- Doing The Lambert Walk]

David Luiz!! :O

 

[(Conor)]

It certainly seems to keep the leagues competitive.

Ehhhh, the bigger teams always seem to get around it, moreso in the MLS. For example, LA Galaxy have been MLS champions past two years, and have made the playoffs the past four years. They're just able to bring in the best players from other leagues.

I would say though, the MLS has a BIG problem of bringing in players from a very poor standard of league, compared to where the commisioner sees the league in 10 years time. Players like Lewis Neal and Luke Rodgers are hardly worldbeaters.

 

[(Conor)]

But when Vancouver and Portland Timbers entered the league it seems they were able to pick up players from other clubs?

The draft always happens in the off-season, so new teams always get first pick in the draft for the season they are entering. They also hold an "Expansion Draft" prior to this, whereby new teams are able to take players from other MLS clubs (current clubs are allowed to protect a certain number of players i.e. stop them from being nabbed).

I should also say, these draft picks can be traded between teams.

 

[OddRiverOakWizards]

The draft always happens in the off-season, so new teams always get first pick in the draft for the season they are entering. They also hold an "Expansion Draft" prior to this, whereby new teams are able to take players from other MLS clubs (current clubs are allowed to protect a certain number of players i.e. stop them from being nabbed).

I should also say, these draft picks can be traded between teams.

The expansion draft explains it. I suppose they have to hope the players are agreeable and have to match previous wages. Can you imagine if this occurred in the Premier League . If so who would be the initial 11 that you would protect?

 

[- Doing The Lambert Walk]

Superb piece of Journalism in The Independent - on how a journalist who received an anonymous letter led to Stuart Hall's admission: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ed-the-sex-assault-investigation-8601517.html

 

[Schad]

It certainly seems to keep the leagues competitive.

Depends on the league. In the NFL, the bonus structure of the draft has in the past punished teams that ended up with a top three pick, in some respects; you had to pay them like an elite player straightaway, so teams that sucked for 3-4 years in a row would end up with one or two players who failed to meet that standard, and the effects on their cap was destructive.

In the NBA, it adds so much incentive to being awful that 'tanking' (clearing salary and intentionally sucking for at least a couple years) is by far the best way to build a contender. There is very little elite talent, and most of it ends up going with one of the top five picks...Oklahoma City built in this fashion, getting Kevin Durant with the 2nd overall pick in his year, Russell Westbrook 4th overall, and the now-departed James Harden 3rd overall.

In baseball, it's all about managing your draft budget; until this year teams were free to spend as much or as little as they liked, and there is no cap on the bonus given to any player or draft slot, just an entirely-ignored recommendation. Because of how little (relative to average salary) baseball players are paid, there is a huge premium placed on cost-controlled youngsters, such that teams ought to have been spending far more on draft bonuses than they did; a team going absolutely crazy could spend in excess of $20m in draft bonuses, and if that resulted in even two above-average players among the 40+ drafted, the surplus value provided would render that a bargain. And because players' draft position varied depending on their demands -- it wasn't, and still isn't, uncommon for one of the consensus three-best picks to get selected much lower because they're asking for a fortune -- getting a high pick wasn't the biggest concern. Thus, it didn't inherently add competitiveness, as a team with deep pockets could simply outspend the competition...oddly, though, the teams that tended to throw cash around were smaller-market teams that recognized the value to be had.

Now, however, there's a pseudo-cap; teams are only allowed to spend a certain amount, which is based on the recommendation that I mentioned previously. How this will play out remains to be seen, but as a fan of one of those smaller-market teams who were spending big and reaping the benefits, it kinda sucks.

 

[tomw24]

Depends on the league. In the NFL, the bonus structure of the draft has in the past punished teams that ended up with a top three pick, in some respects; you had to pay them like an elite player straightaway, so teams that sucked for 3-4 years in a row would end up with one or two players who failed to meet that standard, and the effects on their cap was destructive.

In the NBA, it adds so much incentive to being awful that 'tanking' (clearing salary and intentionally sucking for at least a couple years) is by far the best way to build a contender. There is very little elite talent, and most of it ends up going with one of the top five picks...Oklahoma City built in this fashion, getting Kevin Durant with the 2nd overall pick in his year, Russell Westbrook 4th overall, and the now-departed James Harden 3rd overall.

In baseball, it's all about managing your draft budget; until this year teams were free to spend as much or as little as they liked, and there is no cap on the bonus given to any player or draft slot, just an entirely-ignored recommendation. Because of how little (relative to average salary) baseball players are paid, there is a huge premium placed on cost-controlled youngsters, such that teams ought to have been spending far more on draft bonuses than they did; a team going absolutely crazy could spend in excess of $20m in draft bonuses, and if that resulted in even two above-average players among the 40+ drafted, the surplus value provided would render that a bargain. And because players' draft position varied depending on their demands -- it wasn't, and still isn't, uncommon for one of the consensus three-best picks to get selected much lower because they're asking for a fortune -- getting a high pick wasn't the biggest concern. Thus, it didn't inherently add competitiveness, as a team with deep pockets could simply outspend the competition...oddly, though, the teams that tended to throw cash around were smaller-market teams that recognized the value to be had.

Now, however, there's a pseudo-cap; teams are only allowed to spend a certain amount, which is based on the recommendation that I mentioned previously. How this will play out remains to be seen, but as a fan of one of those smaller-market teams who were spending big and reaping the benefits, it kinda sucks.

I don't know how much NFL players earn but most baseball players earn ****loads. I dread to think how much Zack Greinke and Josh Hamilton get per year for example.

 

[(Conor)]

I don't know how much NFL players earn but most baseball players earn ****loads. I dread to think how much Zack Greinke and Josh Hamilton get per year for example.

Well Aaron Rodgers has just signed a 6 year $120m contract, and I think Joe Flacco signed a similar contract.

 

[Schad]

I don't know how much NFL players earn but most baseball players earn ****loads. I dread to think how much Zack Greinke and Josh Hamilton get per year for example.

That's the point, though. Baseball players earn a tonne on average, but very little when they first enter the league; generally, a pre-arbitration player makes $500,000, no matter how good they are. Mike Trout very nearly won the MVP as a rookie, and he's making (IIRC) $520,000 this year.

Basically, there are three tiers: pre-arb, which lasts for the first three seasons of a player's career (unless they hit Super Two status, which is based on service time and results in salary arbitration for their third season), three years of arbitration, and then free agency. So there are six years there where the player is tied to their original team, and the salary they earned is significantly below what they would make on the open market, though arbitration figures are starting to escalate to sums closer to free agent value. Those are the cost-controlled years that I mentioned, and they're a huge deal; a league-average player might cost you $7-10m a year in free agency, so if you have two kids making $1m combined filling spots and producing league-average results, you then have a huge pile of surplus value that allows money to be allocated elsewhere.

It also provides leverage for signing kids to long-term deals; careers get cut short by injury all the time, so there's significant risk in waiting out those six years in the hopes of a huge free agent payday, and prior to that you're going year-to-year. Tampa signed Evan Longoria (one of the best third basemen in the league) to a ridiculously cheap deal within days of him making the big leagues because it gave him financial security, and then they signed him to another below-market deal that pays him through 2022 because of the leverage gained through the first contract. Basically, by being smart, they have him for what amounts to a 15 year, $152.5m deal...which, in baseball terms, is insanely cheap for an elite player.