The signing deadline for the first year player draft in Major League Baseball has come and gone. Did the system work well or is it broken and in need of repair?

That question is being asked in numerous locations as team executives, members of the media and fans reflect upon the net results. If you root for Tampa Bay, you aren't too happy. They failed to sign their first two picks. If you are a fan of the Washington Nationals, you're excited. Both your first two picks, both pitchers, are signed, sealed and delivered. The biggest catch of course is Stephen Strasburg. The 15.6 million dollar haul isn't too shabby. It eclipses the 10.5 million dollar deal signed by Mark Prior.

How did Strasburg find the end of the rainbow and what rubble is left in the path?

Facts are important when speaking of the first year player draft. Fact #1-All the principals involved knew the rules going in. That includes the players being drafted, the player agents and the team owners and front office personnel. Fact #2-Players are in total control of their signing destiny. As adults, they have the ability to make a decision to sign or not. Certainly, families are involved in the decision making process, but the player steers his destiny in the direction in which he is most comfortable. Nobody puts a gun to the head of player and forces him to sign a contract or to walk away from a contract. Fact #3-Most clubs know the general financial asking price of the player prior to the draft. Countless conversations and endless research is undertaken regarding the potential "signability" of players. Fact #4-Once drafted, a player can change his mind and increase his asking price. It is not unusual for a player to share an asking price with a club prior to the draft and change that price once he sees where he has been drafted or what other drafted players have signed for. That is not an unusual occurrence and it has destroyed the drafts of many clubs. Fact #5- Players wish to sign for as much money as they can. With short careers, injury issues, personal failure and other unknown factors potentially looming, players want to get the most money when they can. Who knows, they may never play a day in the big leagues. They may have a career threatening injury, or they may not be able to play up to their potential when given the opportunity. Can you blame them? Anything can happen. Often times it does.

In this particular draft, the figure 150 million dollars was floated around regarding the asking price for Stephen Strasburg. Where did that figure come from? Was it Scott Boras? Was it someone in the media? I don't know because it really is irrelevant. It is not the public that will be paying the contract or receiving the money. Rest assured, the Washington Nationals knew the parameters of what Boras was asking at the time they drafted Strasburg. They knew who Scott Boras was and they knew who Stephen Strasburg could be. How in the world could they pass on such a talent and retain credibility? They couldn't. If they sign him it would be wonderful for everyone. But if they couldn't sign him, they had first round draft pick, right-handed pitcher
Drew Storen in mind on draft day. They could sign Storen and still have a number one draft choice in the fold. And a good pitcher at that. I think it was brilliant and I applaud Mike Rizzo and the Nationals staff. As it turned out, ownership paid for both first round selections. And they paid plenty. Will there be a steep long term price to pay by using so much money on Strasburg? Will there be player development money remaining in the budget? Only the ownership and team brass know that.

How much longer can Major League Baseball pay these types of bonuses and salaries to unproven players? That's the real question. I don't think it's much longer. A greater and greater drain on the budget is being taken each year. The Office of the Commissioner has tried to stem the tide by implementing salary slots. This year the slots were less than last year. Of course, sensing that players wouldn't sign, all teams certainly did not abide by the slots. Some did. Once again, the owners were their own worst enemies and once again, they couldn't control themselves. Even with artificial speed bumps.

So, is it broken? I think so. It's broken when unproven players take charge of a system. It isn't the fault of the agents. Agents like Scott Boras only do their job. They do their job within the rules and for the good of their clients. Players only want what they can get. Why not? General Managers only want to sign their players and improve their ball clubs. They don't want to
"settle" for second best when better is available at their draft spot. Why not? They want to keep their jobs. The real culprits? Nobody yet. When the last Collective Bargaining Agreement was reached we hadn't seen the erosion of the financial system to the degree it has eroded now. The next agreement is the time to change the system. Or maybe sooner.

How do you change the draft system? Take a look at Major League rosters as they are constructed today. The current practice in baseball is the 13 man pitching staff. It used to be odd to have a 12 man staff with 5 in the rotation and 7 in the pen. Because of the reality that bullpens are used so often and so heavily, and because of match-up specialization, teams now have 5 men in the rotation and 8 men in the pen. That leaves a 4 person bench. One of those is a backup catcher. That leaves a bench of three players. Three players to use in a game other than the catcher. It's a major change and a major switch in baseball.

Why is that relevant to this topic? Because my idea is to give the Players Association a major carrot in return for a change in the MLB first year player draft. If I were in management in Major League Baseball I would approach the Players Association now and offer them an additional roster spot (making rosters 26 instead of 25) in exchange of a financial slotting system and salary schedule for the draft. The players create another job for each Major League team which is very significant. The owners have a system that is stable and won't fluctuate on whim or emotion. Once a player has proven himself (after the first year) he would bargain his salary for subsequent years. I believe everybody wins with this solution. The slots would have to be negotiated. They would have to be realistic. The extra man on the roster could really help out the thin benches.

I truly believe this solution will work. I haven't heard it mentioned anywhere else, but I think it is fair and just. I think the two sides could get together now and hammer out the details without waiting for the end of the current contract.

That's my opinion and my solution. I'd like to know what you think. Comment below or email me at thebigstrawhat@aol.com