Mickey Mantle signing bonus

I found this amazing.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/mickey-mantle-1-150-bonus-check-yankees-auction-023835062--mlb.html

His signing bonus was only $1150 but what I found most interesting was why he signed for so little.

'Why did I sign for peanuts during a time when kids, a lot less known than myself, were getting fabulous bonuses? Well, I'll tell you why,' Mickey told Ben Epstein of the New York Daily Mirror. 'Nobody offered me one.' "

So I am to believe that any team in baseball could have had Mickey Mantle as the centerpiece of their team if they had just bothered to make an offer? Imagine how different history would have been.

What if the Giants had made an offer? And had an OF anchored by Mantle/Mays?
Or the Dodgers to have an OF of Mantle/Snider?
Or what if the Cubs had made an offer and could send Banks and Mantle to plate back to back?
Or the Braves checked their couch for loose change and pitchers had to face Aaron, Mantle, Mathews in a row?

Would the Yankees still have been able to win any championships in the 50s and 60s without Mantle? And would the franchise have been able to become what they are without that tradition?

The way the reserve clause worked at that time, as I understand it, he played for the Yankees, or he didn't play in MLB.

Right but I don't think the amateur draft existed back then, so a young player could sign with the highest bidder.

I replied with this earlier but for some reason post is not here.

Whoopycat is right. The draft began in 1965. When Mantle signed rules were different.
The reserve clause did not limit you to one team until you signed that first contract. it was only after Mantle signed that first contract and cashed that $1150 check that he had to play for the yankees or nobody. So, as Mantle said the only reason the yankees won is because they were the only ones to offer a contract.

My assumption is everyone else assumed he would be unsignable and thus made no offer at all.

Wow.

This draft and reserve a guy has been around since 1965. Idea was to limit player choices and thus limit bonuses. That rule applied to all american prayers. It did not apply to Latin American and Latin talent. With a few exepctons any team can sign any playe Rangers made the most of this to replenish their farm stock to the point it is considered one of the best n the game.

Risks are there . Give a guy millions as a17 yrold prospect and not going to detail all due to time.

And returning to my original theme any team could have signed him but found some logic in waiting.

The catch to the bonus rule at that time was that players had to be carried on the 40 man roster for two years if they signed for more than 4K. There was a provision to that rule that prohibited them from playing in the minor leagues during that time.

That's why Tom Carroll and Frank Leja were on Yankees teams in the mid 50s, even though they made Mario Mendoza look like Ty Cobb.

That is a significant catch. But I think given Mantle had a reputation for hitting 500 foot HRs as a teenager might have took a chance. That is especially true given some of the other names in the article who were getting more than 4000.

Still, what you mention may have been a factor. And that could make for another interesting discussion. That being how seemingly well meaning or harmless rules end up having unexpected results.

A good example is the rule that was placed in the current CBA. I refer to the one where instead of classifying players as either type A or type B and compensation corresponding they changed it to make a qualifying offer equal to the average of the 125 highest paid players. I read for weeks how the Mets might have been interested in Bourne except for the question of whether they would lose a draft pick. And I keep reading that Kyle Lohse has not even received as much as a one year offer because teams do not want to lose their #1 draft pick. I doubt it occurred to the players that rule might make some of them unsignable. And I doubt the owners thought it through either. It effectively has made only the 10 worst teams interested in some players and suspect those teams are not much interested in spending money or putting top effort in to winning anyway.

Part of the hesitation on Mick was most likely that he needed a lot of work to change him from a very bad shortstop into an outfielder, something that couldn't have happened with him in NY with Joe D. in center and the Yankees on a WS winning streak. The small bonus let him play in Joplin and figure out center field.

Probably one of the reasons for the silly rule was to prevent teams from spending big (for the time) money on non productive players, something which would definitely get the attention of the large number of underpaid productive players.

As you say, rules have interesting ramifications. I cover the AAA Syracuse Chiefs as a photojournalist and got to see a lot of Bryce Harper till he went up. It was pretty well known that he would not go to Washington until after the date that would push his arbitration eligibility date back a year, but because of injuries, he went up sooner. So he had a great season, was rookie of the year, and my Yankees will be able to get him a year earlier than if he had stayed in Syracuse till June.

That is an excellent point about Mick needing to change from SS to OF. There probably were a number of teams with that thinking.

Probably one of the reasons for the silly rule was to prevent teams from spending big

Seems like there have been a number of rules over the years to prevent teams from stockpiling players in minors and/or spread out the talent. There were several rule changes in this last CBA designed to do that. One which impacts the Rangers a lot is the limit on spending for draft picks and the limit on spending on South American players. Rangers were focusing a lot of their spending on the South American teenagers. New rules make that more difficult to do. Be interesting to see how that plays out over the long term.

Though I would not count on Harper ending up on Yankees. The sons who have taken the team over do not seem near as interested in spending on players as George was. They were discussing on the radio this week how several teams who have been inherited are in the same position. Kids who grew up seeing their employees living as well as they do and resented it. The guy pointed out how the son had spoken out publicly about Jeter's home. And indeed from everything I have read and seen the last few years yankees seem more intent on getting their salary below the luxury tax threshold than they do on obtaining/retaining talent. Look how many players they lost this year to other teams.