The Official MLB 2024 Amateur Draft Lottery Thread

[tdawg87]

9 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I like the lottery. I don’t want teams that tank multiple years to actually benefit. 

In baseball this really isn't as much of a problem as it is in football or the NBA. 

I'm ok with only allowing teams 2 years to have a top pick. But it doesn't matter if those teams don't actually get a top pick because of the lottery.

[Stradling]

7 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

In baseball this really isn't as much of a problem as it is in football or the NBA. 

I'm ok with only allowing teams 2 years to have a top pick. But it doesn't matter if those teams don't actually get a top pick because of the lottery.

The Astros and Baltimore both built their teams off tanking. 

[tdawg87]

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

The Astros and Baltimore both built their teams off tanking. 

I think they built teams off of being terrible and drafting well. 

The top pick in the MLB doesn't mean an automatic superstar. 

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, tdawg87 said:

I think they built teams off of being terrible and drafting well. 

The top pick in the MLB doesn't mean an automatic superstar. 

They both drafted well but they absolutely tanked. 

[tdawg87]

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

They both drafted well but they absolutely tanked. 

Well then maybe the Angels should have done that instead of "trying" to compete. 

[m0nkey]

28 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I like the lottery. I don’t want teams that tank multiple years to actually benefit. 

You prefer to be stuck in mediocre purgatory like the Angels have been in for 10 years?

[Stradling]

Just now, m0nkey said:

You prefer to be stuck in mediocre purgatory like the Angels have been in for 10 years?

Than purposely lose for five years?  Yes. 

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

AWESOME !!!! So, who is the under slot C we can draft at #2... 

 

[tdawg87]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

Than purposely lose for five years?  Yes. 

Well they've accidentally lost for five years and look at where we are.

[m0nkey]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

Than purposely lose for five years?  Yes. 

Orioles have made the playoffs 3 times (on both sides of the tanking period) since the Angels have been there, and needless to say you’d think they’re in a better spot for at least a few years. 

Think I’d take the trade off, who knows when the Angels will be back in playoff contention  

 

[Hubs]

39 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

In baseball this really isn't as much of a problem as it is in football or the NBA. 

I'm ok with only allowing teams 2 years to have a top pick. But it doesn't matter if those teams don't actually get a top pick because of the lottery.

I think it’s only the teams that win a top 6 lottery pick that get bumped after two years. I’ll look

[Hubs]

No revenue sharing payee (a smaller-market team that receives revenue sharing money) can have a lottery pick three years in a row. No revenue sharing payor or market disqualified team (a larger-market team) can pick in the lottery two years in a row. The earliest those teams could pick would be 10th overall.
 

 

[Hubs]

I don’t know if the Angels pay more or less than they receive in revenue sharing, it probably is pretty even. They’re never referenced on revenue sharing recipients list, and I don’t know if they’re on the payors list. 
 

if they pay in, they’ll pick no higher than 10th next year. If they receive, they’ll be eligible for the lottery. I’m not sure what happens if they neither pay nor receive. 

[Stradling]

5 minutes ago, Hubs said:

I don’t know if the Angels pay more or less than they receive in revenue sharing, it probably is pretty even. They’re never referenced on revenue sharing recipients list, and I don’t know if they’re on the payors list. 
 

if they pay in, they’ll pick no higher than 10th next year. If they receive, they’ll be eligible for the lottery. I’m not sure what happens if they neither pay nor receive. 

They pay in to revenue sharing. 

[Hubs]

4 minutes ago, Stradling said:

They pay in to revenue sharing. 

I assume it’s one or the other. So they’ll be where the White Sox were this year in 2026. No higher than 10th. Guess they should try to win. lol.

Edited December 11, 2024 by Hubs

[Hubs]

Rockies will also be ineligible for 2026 lottery. 

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, Hubs said:

I assume it’s one or the other. So they’ll be where the White Sox were this year in 2026. No higher than 10th. Guess they should try to win. lol.

Correct. 

[Ender]

1 hour ago, eligrba said:

This is the guy that signed Baldoquin over Vlad Jr. despite all of the available information regarding both.

Dipoto is fully capable of drafting another "Sam Bowie".....which I hope he does.

I don't think Jerry has as much to do with our drafts as he did when he was the Angels GM. 

And if he does, he's had some pretty decent drafts with the Mariners.

But yeah Baldoquin over Vlad Jr is a big ol bomba.

 

On the subject of the lottery, I do enjoy that tanking teams like the White Sox don't get the first pick.

[Angel Oracle]

2 hours ago, eaterfan said:

Weren't the Angels able to sign Caden Dana using their draft slot savings? Why is that a bad strategy? I don't follow the draft closely enough to know about all the players, but it seems like the MLB draft is much more random than other sports. Isn't getting more bites at the apple good?

I have heard of Holliday, and that he's a generational talent in the Griffey, ARod, Harper mode, but haven't really heard much about anyone else.

It’s fine when you don’t have one of the top 3 or 4 picks.   #2 is another story.

That said, Bremmer is intriguing.

60 rating, no individual rating below 55, potential #1/2 starter?

[Inside Pitch]

2 hours ago, eligrba said:

This is the guy that signed Baldoquin over Vlad Jr. despite all of the available information regarding both.

Dipoto is fully capable of drafting another "Sam Bowie".....which I hope he does.

The biggest thing he learned while in Anaheim if maybe the only thing was that if you have a great scouting dept, leave it alone.  

The Mariners had that in place, they always drafted well, they were just awful at the development part.  JD kept most of that crew intact in Seattle to his benefit.

[Inside Pitch]

1 hour ago, tdawg87 said:

Well then maybe the Angels should have done that instead of "trying" to compete. 

They could have just drafted well.

[Inside Pitch]

1 hour ago, SlappyUtilityMIF said:

AWESOME !!!! So, who is the under slot C we can draft at #2... 

 

Second round.... 

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

3 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

l think they built teams off of being terrible and drafting well. 

A distinction without a difference...

[BTH]

I think the lottery should be limited to like the top 3 picks or something. When you do the top six picks, it creates problems. Good teams end up getting high picks and bad teams end up falling way below where they should.

[ADHB]

Simple solution, just do it like the NHL and do the draw like you normally would, but make it so that teams can jump up no more than "x" number of slots... pick your number. 3, 5, 10, etc.  That way a team that barely misses the playoffs won't somehow be picking top 3.  Then like this year, if the Mariners "win" a lottery pick, they move up the maximum number of spots to 12 or 7 or whatever.