The Astros may still be able to sign top pick Brady Aiken Via a loophole

[soxhop411]

You'll recall that the Astros, after a contentious negotiation, failed to come to terms with top overall 2014 pick Brady Aiken, the highly regarded prep lefty out of San Diego. Since the July 18 signing deadline has long since passed, the assumption was that Aiken would honor his commitment to UCLA or go the junior college route and re-enter the draft in 2015. Now, though, it appears a deal with the Astros may still be possible.

First, Kiley McDaniel of FanGraphs tweeted this out late last week:




Kiley McDaniel ‏@kileymcd  Aug 21
The expectation from those close to the negotiation is that Brady Aiken will end up making a deal with the Astros around the Nix hearing.




 
 

 
Then John Maffei of the San Diego Union-Tribune followed up with his:

The July 18 deadline to sign draft picks has come and gone, with Aiken rejecting the Astros' last-minute offer. But the team could still sign the No. 1 overall draft pick under a clause at Major League Baseball's discretion.
The other 29 major league clubs have signed off on that clause, industry sources said. The Aikens, however, would insist on a sign-and-trade deal before agreeing to terms with Houston.
 

 

If it's a sign-and-trade deal, then, well, this is even more unusual.
Anyhow, now, in a brief interview with ABC 10 in San Diego, MLB commissioner Bud Selig has all but confirmed that an Astros' after-deadline signing of Aiken is still in play. Here's the key excerpt:

10News asked him, "Can you confirm if (his offer) was able to go past the July 18 deadline?"
Selig replied, "We're working on that right now. There are a lot of things in movement there so it would be inappropriate for me to comment, but I would say we are working towards a hopeful solution."

 
 

Needless to say, this would be a big coup for the Astros, whose 2014 draft, absent an Aiken signing, looks fairly disastrous. I'm not sure why the other 29 teams would permit such a thing (pressure from on high, perhaps?), but these reports indicate that that's precisely what's underway.
Originally, Aiken and the Astros appeared to have a deal in place, but after Aiken's physical a dispute over the state of his elbow led the Astros to reduce their initial offer quite significantly and Aiken's camp to balk at the extent of the reduction. Maybe in the end, though, the Astros will get their pitcher, and Aiken will get his price, even if that entails an end run around the rules in place.
 

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24682831/will-the-astros-sign-brady-aiken-after-all

 

[DavidTai]

The question that wasn't made clear: Do the Astros still keep the damned compensatory pick they got for not signing Aiken?

 

[Seabass]

The question that wasn't made clear: Do the Astros still keep the damned compensatory pick they got for not signing Aiken?

 
I can't see how they would. It seems like they're making up these rules as they go along, and there's no way the other 29 teams in the league would sign off if Houston got Aiken and the #2 pick in the draft next year. 

 

[TomRicardo]

The question that wasn't made clear: Do the Astros still keep the damned compensatory pick they got for not signing Aiken?

 
Why would they?

 

[soxfan121]

And I thought the stupidity of MLS using a "blind draw" to determine where Jermaine Jones plays and the news that the NHL wants to expand by four teams would be the dumbest, most inexplicable moves by a sports league this week. 
 
What the shit is this? Why is there a deadline if the deadline doesn't mean DEADline?
 
Boffo job, Manfred. 

 

[E5 Yaz]

Boffo job, Manfred. 

 
You realize Manfred's not the commissioner, right?

 

[TomRicardo]

What the shit is this? Why is there a deadline if the deadline doesn't mean DEADline?
 

 
Basically MLBPA filed grievance for Jacob Nix.  Major League baseball really does not want to go into a grievance about a team having a verbal agreement of contract and passed physical reneging on a deal.  The Astros will lose.  Every other team has decided the easiest way to make this potentially awful case go away is to let the Astros sign Aiken and Nix.

 

[Seabass]

MLB must've realized that Nix's grievance wasn't going to be in MLB's best interests if it went forward, so they're letting them sort this out. My guess is that Nix wanted to be declared a free agent since the Astros reneged, and MLB doesn't want people to see just how much money he would get in an open market. The last CBA took tens of millions of dollars away from amateurs (most on the foreign side, but domestic amateurs lost out as well) and MLB doesn't want to show just how artificially low these slot bonuses are. 

 

[E5 Yaz]

 
Basically MLBPA filed grievance for Jacob Nix.  Major League baseball really does not want to go into a grievance about a team having a verbal agreement of contract and passed physical reneging on a deal.  The Astros will lose.  Every other team has decided the easiest way to make this potentially awful case go away is to let the Astros sign Aiken and Nix.

 
Absolutely agree, but I guess there will be some franchises that will try to use this as a chip for there own difficult situations in the future.

 

[Plympton91]

Sign and trade huh?

So, which team might have a bunch of talent to offer but no slam dunk number 1 starting pitching candidates, plus the ability to send some money the Astros' way to offset that huge signing bonus?

Can't think of one, really. Oh, yes I can. What would the Astros be looking for in return for Aiken, assuming they actually believe their medical team's concerns? Could the Red Sox get him without including Bogaerts, Betts, Owens, or Swihart? Would you want to get him if you had to give up one of those 4?

 

[soxfan121]

 
You realize Manfred's not the commissioner, right?

 
Sorry. I got too excited to blame someone other than Bud for something that I jumped the gun. 
 
However, I am quite proud of "Boffo job, Manfred" and will look forward to using it again in the future.

 

[mt8thsw9th]

Could you at least never use "boffo" again? You can keep using Manfred's name.

 

[MakMan44]

 

While the Astros could work something out with Jacob Nix, there is nothing at the moment going on with No. 1 overall pick Brady Aiken, and no new reason to believe there will be a deal with Aiken, according to people familiar with the situation.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24682993/astros-working-on-a-resolution-with-nix-not-aiken-it-turns-out

 

Several news outlets took what commissioner Bud Selig said in an interview in San Diego, and apparently mistakenly believed he was referring to Aiken when he suggested that sides were hopefully working toward a "solution." Selig, in fact, was talking about the Nix, the other pitcher the Astros failed to sign.

 

[E5 Yaz]

 
So where did the author come up with the sign and trade scenario, I wonder? He certainly implies that he has spoken to Aiken about it. 

 
The earliest reference I came across for this came from Fangraphs, which MLBTR picked up and ran with.
 
Of course, there may indeed be negotiations going on with Aiken and Nix, and those asked about it are lying. As TRic pointed out, MLB wants this mess to go away

 

[cannonball 1729]

MLB must've realized that Nix's grievance wasn't going to be in MLB's best interests if it went forward, so they're letting them sort this out. My guess is that Nix wanted to be declared a free agent since the Astros reneged, and MLB doesn't want people to see just how much money he would get in an open market. The last CBA took tens of millions of dollars away from amateurs (most on the foreign side, but domestic amateurs lost out as well) and MLB doesn't want to show just how artificially low these slot bonuses are. 

 
I doubt Nix would ever have been a free agent - the more likely scenario would have been that the Astros would simply have been forced to sign Nix with the contract that he was promised. The reason that that would be disastrous for the Astros is that it would put them 17% over the cap, enough for them to lose their first-round pick for the next two years.  
 
I think that MLB is trying to figure out a way where teams aren't so beholden to their first-round pick; as we saw this year, a failure to come to terms with a first pick can completely blow up a draft class.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

Even if the system is asinine, trying to game it and failing is equally asinine and the Astros should bear the consequences. Teams should be beholden to their first round pick. They're getting the players often for a steep discount on what the players would command in a true free market bidding war. The least the teams can do is negotiate in good faith.

If the Astros didn't want to risk blowing up their cap, they should have game planned for a perfectly foreseeable scenario that a first round pick might not agree to terms. Instead by trying to be too clever or by not anticipating the possibility, they created the chance that a certain combination of not-unreasonable events would cause them to commit way too much money.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

I think the question that's hard to answer definitively is what the Astros' motivation for downgrading the offer was. I agree that the system is poorly set up to deal with someone who fails a physical. The problem is that 'failing' a physical can cover many things. My take on what happened was that the Astros appeared to be using the medical issue, combined with the natural leverage that a draft gives teams, as an excuse to lowball Aiken and thereby squeeze more money for Nix. It didn't seem to be genuinely discounting for the increased risk, and nothing in the Astros' statements or actions suggested that level of medical concern (they were willing to climb back up from their lowball offer, but only to the level that would preserve their ability to sign Nix). Since the Astros in my reading were trying to game a bad system rather than adjusting for an unexpected medical result, I have no sympathy for them losing their picks if that's what happens at the end of this saga.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

I agree lots of players drop or take lower offers because of medicals. But I don't think I'm an outlier in speculating that the Astros tried to game the system or at least thread the needle too finely. The original Aiken thread starts with the idea that the Astros outsmarted themselves: http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/84650-astros-fail-to-sign-1-overall-pick-aiken-5th-rounder-nix/?fromsearch=1

I did recall my facts wrongly though. It wasn't the Nix $1.5m offer (made possible by the difference between the $7.9m slot and the initial $6.5m offer, plus the money for Nix's slot) that made me think the Astros had made the mistake. It was the attempt to try to sign Marshall with a further $1.5m (made possible by the difference between the $6.5m offer and the reported final offer of $5m to Aiken) without considering that the whole "Aiken/Nix/Marshall for $7.9m" package was absolutely contingent on Aiken saying yes, which suggests to me Houston screwed up by assuming they had all the leverage against Aiken. They had a lot, but not all.

I haven't read the SI article yet, I will do so and see if I change my views. Thanks PP.

 

[MakMan44]

You'd walk away from buying te car because there's a million other cars, and the value of them is pretty clearly defined. I don't think it's really comparable. I think Aiken let his pride get in the way here; he's never going to make back the amount of money he forfeits by starting his career a year later. I understand why he did it- but in the end, it seems like he's got the most to lose by far.

I agree, but I can see his point. He feels screwed over, and probably didn't want to spend close to the next 7-10 years of his life with the organization that feels did wrong by him. 
 
On Nix, reports have the Astros making little headway. Seems likely they're headed to a hearing. 

 

[cannonball 1729]

You'd walk away from buying te car because there's a million other cars, and the value of them is pretty clearly defined. I don't think it's really comparable. I think Aiken let his pride get in the way here; he's never going to make back the amount of money he forfeits by starting his career a year later. I understand why he did it- but in the end, it seems like he's got the most to lose by far.

 
Why is this a certainty?  Players make next to nothing in the minors, so it only sets him back financially if he makes the majors later than he would have otherwise - and I don't know why an extra year of minor league ball is assumed to be a faster track to the bigs than an extra year in college.

 

[Section15Box113]

 
Because baseball players have an expiration date. The sooner they get to the ML, the sooner the get through their 6 years of control and can make real money. Losing a year on the front end of the equation means he gets to FA at, say, 28 instead of 27. He cannot make that up, short of advancing through the minors faster, which is unreasonable to assume he has control over. 

But top prospects can move quickly at the lower levels.

While perhaps he doesn't have control over the timeframe of advancement, seems Cannonball's point is that losing a few months in the Appalachian League (think GCL) may well not delay his ETA in Tri-Cities (Short-A) or Quad Cities (A).

 

[Boggs26]

But this isn't about losing a few months, it's about going back to college, getting drafted again next year and THEN spending a few months in the Appalachian league or a short season league. The reason he likely won't ever make up the monetary difference is that he's starting the process a year later. Assuming he still moves through the minors at the same pace , that means he makes the maps a year older and theoretically plays a year less at that level before retiring - of course this all assumes he actually makes the majors and is good enough to dictate his own exit from the game.

Taking those assumptions, he basically cost himself one years salary on the back end of a free agent contract - which would likely be considerably more than the $2 million or so he and the asteroids were fighting over.

 

[Section15Box113]

Here's actually a good article on it by a guy that was in the draft room http://www.si.com/mlb/2014/07/23/houston-astros-number-one-pick-brady-aiken-inside-story

 
That's a good piece.  Thanks for sharing, PP.
 
And kudos to the author for working in transmogrified. 

 

[OCD SS]

But this isn't about losing a few months, it's about going back to college, getting drafted again next year and THEN spending a few months in the Appalachian league or a short season league. The reason he likely won't ever make up the monetary difference is that he's starting the process a year later. Assuming he still moves through the minors at the same pace , that means he makes the maps a year older and theoretically plays a year less at that level before retiring - of course this all assumes he actually makes the majors and is good enough to dictate his own exit from the game.

Taking those assumptions, he basically cost himself one years salary on the back end of a free agent contract - which would likely be considerably more than the $2 million or so he and the asteroids were fighting over.

 
This assumes  the player is going to get the majors, given the attrition rates of prospects, especially pitchers, maximizing their bonus is their only probable payday.
 
Now add on that he doesn't trust the Astros, who he feels has totally jerked him around, but they have messed with players service time to leverage them into signing exceedingly team friendly deals; so even if he does make it to the majors there's the potential that he's going to be looking at negotiations with a front office he distrusts just to get out of the minors, or face lost earnings on option years from his FA years.
 
That the draft system is flawed doesn't excuse the Astros for trying to leverage an already stacked deck to further reduce the bonus of a draft pick who on performance they chose 1/1, and could still go out and throw at that level after he was picked.