Negotiations with Kentrail Davis have "gotten ugly"

"...they agreed to his figure and he wouldn't take it." Give you three guesses as to who his agent is, and the first two don't count.

Davis was the Brewers' second pick in this year's draft, #39 overall.

8 months ago battlekow 23 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

39 is a compensation pick right?

So, if we don’t sign him we would get a pick in next years draft?

battlekow: Bill is having an oppo-gasm

by Michael M on Jul 9, 2009 8:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I thought that, too

But I asked KLaw, and he says supplemental picks are subject to compensation, so we’d get pick #39A next year.

It was a great selection of awesome.

by battlekow on Jul 9, 2009 8:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

what is the difference between 39 and #39A?

The designated hitter rule is like letting someone else take Wilt Chamberlain's free throws.

by Kyguy922 on Jul 10, 2009 9:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There isn't necessarily a #39A

all it means is that, if we don’t sign Kentrail, we get the pick after #39 next year. Technically the Nats second pick this year wasn’t #10 overall, it was #9A, since they picked (but didn’t sign) Aaron Crow with #9 the previous year.

Also, cheese.

by Jeff Sackmann on Jul 10, 2009 11:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right

So if everyone picked before Davis signs and Davis doesn’t, we’d have pick #40; it would be pushed back by one for every player above him that doesn’t sign.

It was a great selection of awesome.

by battlekow on Jul 10, 2009 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bean Stringfellow?

Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.

by TheJay on Jul 9, 2009 8:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Nez Balelo?

by Et tu Brewte on Jul 9, 2009 8:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Bus Cook?

battlekow: Bill is having an oppo-gasm

by Michael M on Jul 9, 2009 8:57 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs

He would have retired

…and then go signed with the Cubs just to stick it to Melvin.

Blow Cubs Blow! Blow Cubs Blow! Hey Milwaukee, what do you say? The Cubs are going to lose today.

by RahRahBullCrap on Jul 11, 2009 12:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ned Yost?

by Jeo on Jul 9, 2009 9:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Bill Hall?

by Bernie's Mustache Wax on Jul 9, 2009 9:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

John Montgomery Ward?

Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.

by TheJay on Jul 9, 2009 9:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Ryan Braun?

Wants the team to save the green for pitchers. Don’t need no more OFers.

by Getting Yosted on Jul 9, 2009 9:55 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs

He is the King of Deputies, you know.

"I will agree that the attitude [at BCB] is ridiculous and they have done so much to instigate animosity and then block us from responding. Real mature!"

by roguejim on Jul 9, 2009 11:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Drew Rosenhouse(sp)?

"You have no honor!" - McClung to Fukudome

by zsxander567 on Jul 9, 2009 10:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'll take Scott Boras

…for the win.

Blow Cubs Blow! Blow Cubs Blow! Hey Milwaukee, what do you say? The Cubs are going to lose today.

by RahRahBullCrap on Jul 9, 2009 11:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Good luck, Kentrail,

I hope you blow out your knees.

by Braunstalker on Jul 10, 2009 7:11 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

More Proof of how important signability is when drafting.

Maybe it is time to adjust the draft rules.

If a College Senior is taken in the draft and does not sign with the club that drafted him, he may not sign a free agent contract with another club for two years (instead of the one that it is now)

Sophmores & Juniors should have to declare for the draft like they do in the football & basketball. If you declare yourself eligible, then the same rules apply as a senior draftee. Sign or sit for two years.

I really don’t like wishing people harm – but Boras really pushes that… I hope the lug nuts come off of his Bugatti Veyron @ 190 mph

by Saberilliterate on Jul 10, 2009 7:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

It depends upon the goal of the draft

It’s really a fundamental question of the goal of the draft. If it’s truly supposed to be a way to increase competitive balance by giving the worst teams better players, then signability questions have to go out the window. If the only goal is adding order to what would be a completely chaotic process for signing rookies (see: college recruiting) signability is a perfectly acceptable aspect of the draft.

Personally, I would like to see a more stringent “slot money” set-up because I’m in favor of the balance aspect of the draft. It’s not very capitalistic, though.

by ecocd on Jul 10, 2009 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm against any kind of restrictions of that sort, but...

a better alternative (to me) would be to give every team a draft “salary cap” — say, they can spend $20MM on draft bonuses, or whatever. That way if a team drafting at the very end of the first round wants to load up on a few overslot guys and only bother signing 25 of their picks, they can … if somebody else wants to sign 50 new players, they can do that too, but they couldn’t spend as much per pick.

Also, cheese.

by Jeff Sackmann on Jul 10, 2009 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I could buy that, but I agree with ecocd – it isn’t a very capitalistic plan. I think the other plan is to loosen the lug nuts on Boras’ car and let him go all James Dean

I don’t know what the solution is. I know that what we have sucks. And I don’t want to be one of those people that say something sucks without offering a possible solution.

by Saberilliterate on Jul 10, 2009 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs