As far as your arguments…

“This concern about top athletes going pro in other sports seems misguided to me.”

Well yeah, of course baseball probably offers the chance for a longer career than, say, football does, and a hard-slotting draft system won’t change that fact. But if you’re a guy who’s going to get drafted in the mid to later rounds of the MLB draft, and you have a decent shot at getting drafted into the NBA after playing some college ball, aren’t you going to be more likely to go the basketball route when the financial incentive to play baseball is stripped away than you would be if the financial incentive to play baseball was not stripped away? You may not think the effect will be very pervasive, but there’s no denying that baseball loses some leverage in those decisions when you strip away some/most of the financial incentive to choose baseball.

“I don’t see the current system funneling the best players to the worst teams.”

You go on to give Porcello, Brackman and Strasburg as supporting examples, but only one of those three is a valid example. You admitted yourself that Brackman didn’t fall due to only financial considerations – the guy didn’t have much of a college baseball track-record and came with major injury concerns. He really went right about where he should have. Strasburg is an irrelevant example, since he went to the worst team with the top pick. How much money he got is irrelevant to a discussion of whether the worst teams get the best talent in the current draft format. Porcello… He’s really the only example that works, here. Surely there are other guys who fall a bit due to financial concerns, but I submit that the current system works pretty damned well. The worst teams do, no matter how much some may belly-ache about the draft, tend to get the very best talent available (talent, projectability, probability of success all taken into account).

it’s about money and for kids in baseball it SHOULD be about money. they’re slaves for up to 10 years for major league ball clubs. joey votto was drafted in 2002. he isn’t even eligible for a raise until 2011. the reds bumped him from 390K to 4375K from 08 to 09, but they didn’t need to. so, he’s not even eligible for a raise at his job for NINE years. and then he can only demand what he wants and either settle out of court or has a 50/50 chance at getting a big raise or a minimal one while his team tears down his entire skillset.

and he does that for three years.

then, 2014, a full 12 years after he first was drafted, he finally gets to command what he wants on an open market.

“the way things have gone in the past, top talent isn’t necessarily restricted to the first 10 or so picks. it isn’t like the NBA or NFL where talent is top heavy and drops off after the first round”

a guy that may have more of a ceiling/upside that dropped to the 27th pick (sup, porcello) than a guy that was drafted top 15 (looking at you, dan moskos) will actually be getting paid less just because he has higher demands than others?

That wouldn’t happen though, would it? Because in a hard slot system, there are no demands that picks can make. They get what they get based on where they’re drafted. Or am I misunderstanding what you’re trying to say?

It doesn’t seem implausible to me that they don’t select the best player because they don’t want to face the specter of negotiating with that player, having said player make exorbitant demands, and then losing the pick entirely. With a hard slot, you’d expect the value of the top pick to be nowhere near Strasburg levels, thereby making it more affordable for the Pirates, and allowing them to know ahead of time that they can afford the pick.

I see what you’re saying about the Pirates not wanting to pay their picks, but I think they’d spend more liberally with some cost certainty.

first off, as broken as the system is – it WORKS. on a surface level, it’s something that’s fair for everyone to a degree (i’ll get to that in a moment). if your team has a bad year, you’re rewarded with a higher pick dependent on where you placed in the standings. what’s so bad about that? but wait, it’s something of a double edged sword. now that baseball has changed there’s a few things to consider: 1) more of a focus on young, cost-controlled players, 2) these players have multiple options other than accepting a major league team’s offers, and 3) these offers are typically a lot of money.

now, this degree i mentioned. like i said, these offers are typically very expensive. more money than i’ll ever seen in my lifetime. i understand that – due to baseball being these guys’ careers and being team controlled for such a long time – but these teams, regardless of having a method of ‘sharing the wealth’, are sometimes unwilling to spend the money because often times it’s more detrimental than it is beneficial.

i’m not sure making ANY changes to the draft helps. what will it accomplish? the way the draft is constructed and just a general aspect of baseball, teams evaluate talent differently. the way things have gone in the past, top talent….so a possible solution to this is to have a designated amount of money per draft position?! a guy that may have more of a ceiling/upside that dropped to the 27th pick (sup, porcello) than a guy that was drafted top 15 (looking at you, dan moskos) will actually be getting paid less just because he has higher demands than others?

i know i’ve said it before, but making changes to one aspect of the draft directly influences another which directly influences another. if they’re going to change one part, they’re going to need to overhaul the entire process. if they’re so set on changing things, we’re going to be seeing the scope of major league baseball change — possibly for the worse.

As I said, I think this aversion (or in my case, enthusiasm) for a hard-slotting system is an aesthetic disagreement.

You’re of course free to disagree, or to take offense at perhaps badly executed attempts at humor, as you see fit.

…

“Bottom line, IMO, baseball should do what is best for baseball, and a hard slot system creates the most competitively balanced system of joining bad teams and talented prospects.”

Actually, no, it’s not a “free market circle-jerk.” There have been many theories offered for why the current system is better than the proposed hard-slotting system (and there have been theories offered in support of a hard-slotting system), all of which have as their most basic underpinning that they are in baseball’s best interest. Those arguing against a hard-slotting system, for the most part, are not making that argument in order to defend a free-market system, but because they do not think a hard-slotting system is in baseball’s best interest. Your comment is myopic and ignores the bulk of the discussion that has occurred here.