SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Post-Draft Discussion Thread
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 15, 2016 0:24:01 GMT -5
Between Chatham and the 5% wiggle room, we could offer Groome 3.67 now. The senior signs should open up an additional 350k....so technically its not that hard to see how we get to 4 mill if thats what it takes. If he will sign for 3.6...then great, we're there now and have extra to spend later. If its 3.8, we're close now and should have at least a little to offer Quintana. Anderson, Marrero, and Espinal could also all sign somewhat below slot although I'm not banking on a ton. Dalbec and Shawaryn should almost certainly sign for slot. Jones isn't going to happen. I really Quintana though...big power, arm strength, and great dirt dog attitude from what I can tell. I think you're just about dead-on. Anderson was a "high" pick vs his ranking, but I get the impression the Sox offered him a chance to start, and probably got a good idea that he would sign for a little under slot. And I've got to think that they had at least a fairly solid idea (plan) on guys they drafted after Groome as regards to what it might take to sign them. And I imagine all of it was predicated on knowing what Groome wanted/expected for a bonus. With the new CBA, and losing that slot money if he didn't sign, I've got to think that they would've taken a different tack with their later picks (2-10) and gone strictly BPA. I just don't see them taking such a big risk on a pick (instead of, say, Rutherford, who probably could've been had for slot) if they weren't confident that they could make the deal. I also think, as many have pointed out, that he wants to sign, is glad it would be with the Sox, and probably isn't going to quibble over the bonus too much, knowing the risk he's taking on re-entering a loaded draft. Then he'd have to risk getting drafted by SD or CO or MN, and being way away from home, on a team that perennially struggles, for maybe a couple hundred thousand dollars. Now, that's not chump change, but he's got to figure (if he trusts his ability and determination) that it *will* be chump change for him eventually, and it's best to get to that place as soon as possible. There's just not *that* much benefit to him to wait the one year.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Jun 15, 2016 2:37:28 GMT -5
Hunter Smith @hsmith_3 I am truly thankful for the opportunity to continue my baseball career with the redsox organization. Now it's time to get to work!
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Jun 15, 2016 5:51:28 GMT -5
I don't know why some are in an uproar about "if" we sign Groome. When is the last time we didn't sign our 1st rounder? I know the rules have changed and there have been several 1st rounders from other teams that didn't sign but I'm 99.99% sure he'll sign. Doesn't matter what I think though. The question is for how much he'll sign, hopefully a little under slot so we can get at least one of the post 10th round guys.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 15, 2016 6:13:01 GMT -5
Groome is not signing for under slot.
I'm one of the more optimistic ones, and I think it'll take at least $3.6mill. Most think his number is $4mill. Under slot? No way.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jun 15, 2016 8:20:35 GMT -5
I agree. I dislike the Chatham deal not because it alone prevents us from signing Groome, but because I believe a few more deals like that will. 100k I don't think is a difference maker for him but 400-500k? Things could get dicey.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 15, 2016 8:55:36 GMT -5
I've updated my spreadsheet a bit. There were some concerns that we couldn't offer Groome $4mill. We can. We could offer more, but that would no $100k + signings after round 10 (well, maybe 1 slightly higher). Some concerns about not getting any post round 10 talents (i.e. $100k+ bonuses) if we sign Groome. Maybe that's how it turns out, but it's not unreasonable to think that we could get 2 post round 10 $100k bonus babies. (see below) You can see here that if Groome signs for $3.7mill you could get Quintana and Jones if $400k is enough for each of them. If you think Groome takes $4mill, which it might, then you don't sign Jones but can still get Quintana at $400k. It's based on some assumptions of other top 10 draftee bonuses, still. Anyway, feel free to change the projected bonuses and see what can be done. It's all a guessing game now, anyway. 2016 Sox draft.xlsx (21.17 KB)
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Jun 15, 2016 9:15:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Jun 15, 2016 9:17:51 GMT -5
I've updated my spreadsheet a bit. There were some concerns that we couldn't offer Groome $4mill. We can. We could offer more, but that would no $100k + signings after round 10 (well, maybe 1 slightly higher). Some concerns about not getting any post round 10 talents (i.e. $100k+ bonuses) if we sign Groome. Maybe that's how it turns out, but it's not unreasonable to think that we could get 2 post round 10 $100k bonus babies. (see below) You can see here that if Groome signs for $3.7mill you could get Quintana and Jones if $400k is enough for each of them. If you think Groome takes $4mill, which it might, then you don't sign Jones but can still get Quintana at $400k. It's based on some assumptions of other top 10 draftee bonuses, still. Anyway, feel free to change the projected bonuses and see what can be done. It's all a guessing game now, anyway. View AttachmentThanks, you should consider porting this to Google Sheets. It makes updating and keeping track easier IMO as you can just bookmark the link.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jun 15, 2016 9:26:10 GMT -5
Seems to me that some of these HS guys could get higher bonuses by being a bit more up-front about their demands and commitment to colleged before the draft. Take Quintana who might get 400k from the Sox but was ranked as a third or fourth rounder where he probably would have gotten the $500-700k slot if the team taking him hadn't been worried he might not sign.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 15, 2016 9:35:24 GMT -5
I've updated my spreadsheet a bit. There were some concerns that we couldn't offer Groome $4mill. We can. We could offer more, but that would no $100k + signings after round 10 (well, maybe 1 slightly higher). Some concerns about not getting any post round 10 talents (i.e. $100k+ bonuses) if we sign Groome. Maybe that's how it turns out, but it's not unreasonable to think that we could get 2 post round 10 $100k bonus babies. (see below) You can see here that if Groome signs for $3.7mill you could get Quintana and Jones if $400k is enough for each of them. If you think Groome takes $4mill, which it might, then you don't sign Jones but can still get Quintana at $400k. It's based on some assumptions of other top 10 draftee bonuses, still. Anyway, feel free to change the projected bonuses and see what can be done. It's all a guessing game now, anyway. View AttachmentThanks, you should consider porting this to Google Sheets. It makes updating and keeping track easier IMO as you can just bookmark the link. I've been thinking about that. I'm no Google Sheets expert though and not sure how well it can just be imported. Some of the formatting and formulas I've used may not carry over. It's on my to-do list though. And I think it's a good idea. EDIT: It appears to have imported perfectly. The issue I see is that if I share it without editing, you can't make your assumptions. Otherwise if I share it fully, everyone's adjustments will change my original. That my understanding anyway. I can certainly share a link with no editing. I was thinking the value for some might be in the ability to make their own assumptions and see how it effects everything else. Anyway, have to run. I'll try this later.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 15, 2016 10:08:13 GMT -5
Seems to me that some of these HS guys could get higher bonuses by being a bit more up-front about their demands and commitment to colleged before the draft. Take Quintana who might get 400k from the Sox but was ranked as a third or fourth rounder where he probably would have gotten the $500-700k slot if the team taking him hadn't been worried he might not sign. One thing that probably happens and people don't consider is that their demands change after the draft, either higher or lower. And I bet teams try to take advantage of that.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 619
|
Post by alnipper on Jun 15, 2016 11:13:15 GMT -5
That's why excel works better. I still have Groome at 4.2 Mil, which leaves 125,475 for picks outside the top ten. At 3.6 million that would leave 725,475. My top ten predictions look like this. 1. Groome 4,200,000 2. Chatman 1,100,000 3. Anderson 600,000 4. Dalbec 501,300 5. Shawaryn 375,500 6. Nogosek 265,000 7. Ryan Scott 20,000 8. Alan Marrero 100,000 9. Matt McLean 10,000 10.Santiago Espinal 50,000 Bonus Pool Available after 5% 125,470
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 15, 2016 14:30:42 GMT -5
A bit out of nowhere, but does anyone know if Perfect Game times are electronic? I would presume so, which makes Juan Carlos Abreu's 6.33 incredibly impressive, if run in baseball cleats. HS indoor track runs a 55m (which is every so slightly longer than 60 yards), and truly elite HS runners (basically Abreu's age) don't run much faster. For reference, here's the American HS record being set by a guy who's now world-class (but would still get smoked by Usain Bolt):
For perspective (because he had a ridiculous reaction time), Bracy finished 7th at indoor WCs in 2016, and runs just under 10 seconds in the 100m. All of which is to say, I'm really, really impressed with Abreu's speed, which legitimately grades as 80.
|
|
|
Post by MLBDreams on Jun 15, 2016 15:56:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 15, 2016 16:12:55 GMT -5
EDIT: It appears to have imported perfectly. The issue I see is that if I share it without editing, you can't make your assumptions. Otherwise if I share it fully, everyone's adjustments will change my original. That my understanding anyway. I can certainly share a link with no editing. I was thinking the value for some might be in the ability to make their own assumptions and see how it effects everything else. You should share it with no editing, and people who want to play with it should make themselves a copy of it. (It's right there under File - Make a Copy.)
|
|
|
Post by MLBDreams on Jun 15, 2016 16:37:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soxfn24 on Jun 15, 2016 16:40:37 GMT -5
The signing deadline's been moved up in recent years to the third Friday in July, which is the 15th this year.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jun 15, 2016 17:03:19 GMT -5
I wish to hear news from the Red Sox about their draft players. No need to wait until Aug due to Jay Groome (above slot money situation). Clearly, the situations are different. LAA had a deal with Thaiss, which is why he signed immediately. I'd expect Groome to be one of the last (if not the last) first-rounders to sign and, as a result of Groome taking up 55-60% of the draft pool, he will affect all $100+k signings after round 10. Slot signings and sub-$100k signings won't be affected, timewise.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jun 15, 2016 17:27:07 GMT -5
Negotiating can be a tough business.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 15, 2016 20:17:47 GMT -5
I'd be stunned if Groome signs before like, July 10. I'd bet money he signs July 15.
|
|
|
Post by joshmoody23 on Jun 15, 2016 20:47:38 GMT -5
Steve Nogosek signs for 250k according to Chris Cotillo on Twitter. Saves 31,000. He says to expect Red Sox signings to be under slot to sign Groome
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 15, 2016 20:57:45 GMT -5
EDIT: It appears to have imported perfectly. The issue I see is that if I share it without editing, you can't make your assumptions. Otherwise if I share it fully, everyone's adjustments will change my original. That my understanding anyway. I can certainly share a link with no editing. I was thinking the value for some might be in the ability to make their own assumptions and see how it effects everything else. You should share it with no editing, and people who want to play with it should make themselves a copy of it. (It's right there under File - Make a Copy.) OK, for those that prefer Google Sheets, here it is, in protected form. Apparently you can just make a copy and then change the projected bonuses. I'm no Google Sheets expert, so I hope it works you. docs.google.com/a/kronoswealth.com/spreadsheets/d/1YVK37Y9y3_TUkQtEF91s0a7M8hvFHABUFSRZYdjt6Mc/edit?usp=sharing
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 15, 2016 22:57:06 GMT -5
I have to say, it boggles my mind that Padres had to go overslot to sign Quantrill coming off TJ surgery with the 8th overall pick.
|
|
|
Post by bjb406 on Jun 16, 2016 0:32:36 GMT -5
Ugh. I was reading the Speier article, and there was a quote from Rikard about Dalbec saying the scout (Vaughn Williams) had "strong convictions about him as a hitter". So I went on here and checked the scout's track record of signings to see if his convictions can be counted on.
Willie Ethington Brandon Magee Devin Marrero Jeremy Rivera Shaq Thompson
In short, no. No they cannot. At least we can say pretty confidently he won't be worse than Shaq Thompson, considering its just about mathematically impossible. Pretty sure he has to be the worst hitter in the history of professional baseball.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Jun 16, 2016 6:06:29 GMT -5
Ugh. I was reading the Speier article, and there was a quote from Rikard about Dalbec saying the scout (Vaughn Williams) had "strong convictions about him as a hitter". So I went on here and checked the scout's track record of signings to see if his convictions can be counted on. Willie Ethington Brandon Magee Devin Marrero Jeremy Rivera Shaq Thompson In short, no. No they cannot. At least we can say pretty confidently he won't be worse than Shaq Thompson, considering its just about mathematically impossible. Pretty sure he has to be the worst hitter in the history of professional baseball. In order for that list to be complete you have to include the players he scouted that we didn't sign as well. I'm also pretty sure there are plenty of scouts with similar or even worse track records. I wouldn't read too much into it either way.
|
|
|