Should the MLB Draft be on TV?

[Porter]

Simple Question. Explain why.

[browntown653]

Why not? It'll be more exciting that whatever else ESPN2 would be running at the moment.

[McKain]

I think it should only be televised if it can be given proper, adequate, in-depth coverage without taking up 20 hours of TV time and without ruining the draft itself by extending the timer for each pick and cutting rounds out of it and such.

With ESPN, that's not gonna happen. They're going to show one round, with minimum coverage and discussion of players, because they're not going to have time to do anything else. And then as they televise it more and more they'll start butchering it to fit the viewing audience and it'll suck. So I am undecided.

[HollywoodLeo]

I don't like it.

I don't like the concept of the draft/draftees getting that much more glamorized.

Baseball isn't football. You can't take an unproven rookie and put him in the mix and have him have a fair shot at succeeding.

1st rounders fail in baseball a lot more than they do in football and therefore they should not be able to demand multi million dollar contracts for something they haven't proven they can handle yet.

Trying to glamorize them, which I think giving more exposure to the draft can do, only adds to this ability.

If the fans really want their team to get this highly touted prospect there's more pressure on them to sign him. If there's more pressure he has more leverage.

I'm probably stretching here with this logic as an excuse to rant about rookie contracts, though.

[Fishercat]

Just because the Padres drafted Matt Bush isn't any reason to be bitter.

Anyway, I voted yes. There's no reason not to. They show the NHL draft with players that come from countries that half of the Americans have never heard of and most of whom you won't see for a couple years. They even showed the WNBA draft. This is simple, show the first few rounds, short time limit since no one can trade picks, quick analysis and some highlights.

[HollywoodLeo]

I'm not bitter about Matt Bush because the guy who drafted him isn't in charge of the draft anymore.

I'm bitter about players who haven't even proven themselves at the rookie ball level yet being able to demand multi million dollar contracts.

[Fishercat]

Is that really different than in any other major sport? The NFL Draft has draft picks getting 20+ million guaranteed for playing college football, with most programs facing teams who are lucky to get more than one NFL player out of their talent pool. The NHL Draft has players in junior leagues being drafted or international leagues in their teens. The NBA has high schoolers being drafted at very high levels too. None of these players are proven going in, that's why they're being drafted.

How is playing four years of college football much different than four years of college baseball?

[realmofotalk]

I'm not bitter about Matt Bush because the guy who drafted him isn't in charge of the draft anymore.

Who was the guy whom Kevin Towers handed the draft to? Bill Gayton?

[HollywoodLeo]

For starters, I don't necessarily like that it can happen in any other sport, either.

But, that aside, as mentioned in my initial rant, the failure rate in the MLB is much higher than that of the NFL (and I don't follow the other two sports enough to know or care how they fare).

In the NFL you draft people and the immediatley get a shot at the roster, a good portion of them even start from the get-go. You can get an immediate return from them.

By comparison, I can only think of one player in history who was drafted and started immediately in the MLB. (Dave Winfield) I'm sure there might be a couple others, but that's irrelevant. The point is it almost never happens.

The NFL draft is still a crap shoot, but nothing in comparison to that of the MLB where players have to spend at least 2 years in the minors, and that's if they're a college player who excels quickly through the system.

Jake Peavy was drafted in the 15th round, for instance. The same draft the Padres felt Vince Faison was worth their top pick.

Other notables the Padres drafted before taking Peavy in the 15th round? Gerik Baxter, Omar Ortiz, Mike Bynum...I don't need to continue.

I can find many different examples using other teams, I was just using my team as the example.

The baseball amateur draft is a crap shoot and people should not be able to demand multi million dollar contracts for something they haven't proven themselves at yet.

[HollywoodLeo]

Who was the guy whom Kevin Towers handed the draft to? Bill Gayton?

Grady Fuson pretty much covers the draft these days.

[realmofotalk]

By the way, why isn't Paul DePodesta listed anywhere in the Padres' front office on the team website?

[HollywoodLeo]

I've wondered the same thing.

I'm not even sure how much of a role he has in the front office. But i'm sure he has some responsibilities.

[Fishercat]

For starters, I don't necessarily like that it can happen in any other sport, either.

But, that aside, as mentioned in my initial rant, the failure rate in the MLB is much higher than that of the NFL (and I don't follow the other two sports enough to know or care how they fare).

In the NFL you draft people and the immediatley get a shot at the roster, a good portion of them even start from the get-go. You can get an immediate return from them.

By comparison, I can only think of one player in history who was drafted and started immediately in the MLB. (Dave Winfield) I'm sure there might be a couple others, but that's irrelevant. The point is it almost never happens.

The NFL draft is still a crap shoot, but nothing in comparison to that of the MLB where players have to spend at least 2 years in the minors, and that's if they're a college player who excels quickly through the system.

Jake Peavy was drafted in the 15th round, for instance. The same draft the Padres felt Vince Faison was worth their top pick.

Other notables the Padres drafted before taking Peavy in the 15th round? Gerik Baxter, Omar Ortiz, Mike Bynum...I don't need to continue.

I can find many different examples using other teams, I was just using my team as the example.

The baseball amateur draft is a crap shoot and people should not be able to demand multi million dollar contracts for something they haven't proven themselves at yet.

Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round, for instance. The same draft the Pats felt that Adrian Klemm was their best choice for their first pick. They also took studs like J.R. Redmond, Greg Randall, Dave Stachelski, Jeff Mariott, and Antawn Harris before him. Just because the Padres made a great 15th round pick isn't proof that the MLB Draft is a crapshoot. It's more of a crapshoot than the NFL Draft, but that doesn't make it unworthy of television.

If people are not interested in prospects, they won't watch the MLB Draft, that's fine. But just because most of the people aren't interested in the future of their team, doesn't make it so it shouldn't be televised. Most people in America don't give a shit about PGA Golf. Yet it takes up 12 hours every weekend on CBS. Most people in America won't see any real return on analysis done in May on ESPN's NFL Show, yet it's a year-round show. Even if you limit it to the draft: why even show the second day of the NFL Draft or the second round of the NBA Draft? What are the odds that any given prospect will make headlines next year. As a Patriots fan and moderately interested watcher of the NFL, here are the number of players I heard news stories from (with a northeast bias) from the 2nd day of the 2006 NFL Draft. I don't watch much of the NFL outside of the East, so unless a prospect did really well, I didn't hear much

Round Four: 3 (Brad Smith, Leon Washington, and Stephen Gostkowski)
Round Five: 2 (Ryan O'Callaghan, A.J. Nicholson (for all the wrong reasons)
Round Six: 3 (Wali Lundy, Bruce Gradkowski, Antoine Bethea)
Round Seven: 2 (D.J. Shockley, Marques Colston)

There were a lot more that made some impact, but those are the handful I heard about. For instance on Gil Brandt's all-rookie team from 2005, I think eight were drafted on day 2. A surprisingly high amount: too bad they were an incredibly weak QB (Orton), a FB, two OL (important yes, but not really guys you look out for), a punter, a coverage man (ST), a KR, and a S.

I don't disagree that top picks are paid too much. On the contrary, I think they should be less (I think baseball has the fairest system personally, but eh). But I don't see how televising it will hurt any. It's not like the draft is getting huge press coverage before hand and people are going to David Price's uncle to tell stories about how he could throw 85 MPH when he was 12. It's mostly for draftniks and curious fans to see some potential future pieces. It's more like the NHL Draft in that, unless ESPN convinces fans otherwise, most will realize they won't see even the most ready guys for 2-3+ years.

If it were a COMPLETE crapshoot, I'd agree that it's not worth covering. But it's not. It's a bigger one than the NFL or NBA, but it's that way because, well, MLB rosters are half the size and they have a much longer journey. Still, the first round is typically more successful than the second, which is moreso than the third, and so on.

Let's look at 2001. It's been six years, so unless the prospect was a kid right from HS, he should have seen the majors by now.

Four of the Top 5 were legitimately stud prospects who either got real close (Gavin Floyd), or made it (Prior, Mauer, and Teixeira). The next five feature a lot of crap, along with a solid major leaguer (Chris Burke), and VanBenSchoten. Scattered along are potentially good players like Kotchman, Heilman, Sowers, Crosby, and Lowry, along with Bonderman who looks to be great. The supplementary includes Jeff Mathis (who was a highly rated catcher) with some solid role players. However, once it reaches R2, it gets worse (two legitimately good players in Haren and Hardy). Then it gets ugly, but still some major leaguers are strewn in there. Of course, when it comes to success of players, you have to consider that NFL teams can carry 53 guys and often have to use them, as they have 22 starters. MLB is a 25/9 (or 10) ratio. You have to wonder how many more prospects we'd know if MLB teams started separate offenses and defenses and carried twice as many players.

If you want to just skim or ignore my wall of doom above, my basic message is that it is more of a crapshoot, but televising it would only reward the fans and I doubt would cause any more problems in signing, just because 1000 of your fans saw the Brewers take x prospect with their first rounder and Jim Callis hyped him up.

[HollywoodLeo]

Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round, for instance. The same draft the Pats felt that Adrian Klemm was their best choice for their first pick. They also took studs like J.R. Redmond, Greg Randall, Dave Stachelski, Jeff Mariott, and Antawn Harris before him. Just because the Padres made a great 15th round pick isn't proof that the MLB Draft is a crapshoot. It's more of a crapshoot than the NFL Draft, but that doesn't make it unworthy of television.

I direct you back to two points that I've already stated.

1) I don't like that unproven football rookies can demand millions either.

2) I admitted at the end of my original rant that I'm really just using this thread to rant about unproven rooks demanding millions. In case you haven't noticed I haven't even voted on this poll yet.

If people are not interested in prospects, they won't watch the MLB Draft, that's fine. But just because most of the people aren't interested in the future of their team, doesn't make it so it shouldn't be televised. Most people in America don't give a shit about PGA Golf. Yet it takes up 12 hours every weekend on CBS. Most people in America won't see any real return on analysis done in May on ESPN's NFL Show, yet it's a year-round show. Even if you limit it to the draft: why even show the second day of the NFL Draft or the second round of the NBA Draft? What are the odds that any given prospect will make headlines next year. As a Patriots fan and moderately interested watcher of the NFL, here are the number of players I heard news stories from (with a northeast bias) from the 2nd day of the 2006 NFL Draft. I don't watch much of the NFL outside of the East, so unless a prospect did really well, I didn't hear much

Posting this entire paragraph was a waste of your time due to point 2 above.

Round Four: 3 (Brad Smith, Leon Washington, and Stephen Gostkowski)
Round Five: 2 (Ryan O'Callaghan, A.J. Nicholson (for all the wrong reasons)
Round Six: 3 (Wali Lundy, Bruce Gradkowski, Antoine Bethea)
Round Seven: 2 (D.J. Shockley, Marques Colston)

There were a lot more that made some impact, but those are the handful I heard about. For instance on Gil Brandt's all-rookie team from 2005, I think eight were drafted on day 2. A surprisingly high amount: too bad they were an incredibly weak QB (Orton), a FB, two OL (important yes, but not really guys you look out for), a punter, a coverage man (ST), a KR, and a S.

What's the point you're trying to make here? That the number of instant impact players via the NFL draft isn't as high as I make it out to be?

That list is still a hell of a lot more than I can list for MLB all time

I don't disagree that top picks are paid too much. On the contrary, I think they should be less

Then we agree. Why are you debating with me?

Since we agree I won't bother reading the rest of the post. (I'm kind of busy right now)

[Fishercat]

We're arguing two different things. You're arguing the validity of MLB Prospects in the Draft. I'm arguing the validity of showing the MLB Draft.