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.
The "blow up the draft cap" theory
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 14, 2017 13:42:58 GMT -5
I just keep waiting for a team like the Red Sox to exploit the new draft system. If you go crazy spending, it would cost you two first round picks. That being said the talent you could get makes it worth it. Can you imagine 40 straight rounds of taking the best players? Not worrying if you can sign them. In the old system a bunch of the big market teams would throw a ton of money at draft. Right now no one does, they only spend there cap money. If you were willing to spend you could rebuild a farm system overnight. Sounds like a great way to spend a 100 to 150 million with the penalties in my opinion. 3-5 million would get a bunch of top guys to change there minds about College. Nevermind 1-2 million for some of the lesser players.
You would really piss off a ton of people and the rules would most likely be changed shortly after you did it. I'm just very surprized some big market team that plans on picking at back of the rounds hasn't tried to exploit this loophole yet.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 14, 2017 13:59:57 GMT -5
I just keep waiting for a team like the Red Sox to exploit the new draft system. If you go crazy spending, it would cost you two first round picks. That being said the talent you could get makes it worth it. Can you imagine 40 straight rounds of taking the best players? Not worrying if you can sign them. In the old system a bunch of the big market teams would throw a ton of money at draft. Right now no one does, they only spend there cap money. If you were willing to spend you could rebuild a farm system overnight. Sounds like a great way to spend a 100 to 150 million with the penalties in my opinion. 3-5 million would get a bunch of top guys to change there minds about College. Nevermind 1-2 million for some of the lesser players. You would really piss off a ton of people and the rules would most likely be changed shortly after you did it. I'm just very surprized some big market team that plans on picking at back of the rounds hasn't tried to exploit this loophole yet. I think you might be overestimating the amount of talent you would obtain this way as opposed to what you would acquire "playing by the rules." And I'm not sure you'd come out with more talent in a three-year period than you would otherwise. Let's do this - if money were no object, who would you have taken at each pick on days one and two based on who was available?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 14, 2017 14:32:46 GMT -5
Short answer: Absolutely nobody worth giving up next year's #1 for.
|
|
|
Post by braziliansox on Jun 14, 2017 15:15:20 GMT -5
I just keep waiting for a team like the Red Sox to exploit the new draft system. If you go crazy spending, it would cost you two first round picks. That being said the talent you could get makes it worth it. Can you imagine 40 straight rounds of taking the best players? Not worrying if you can sign them. In the old system a bunch of the big market teams would throw a ton of money at draft. Right now no one does, they only spend there cap money. If you were willing to spend you could rebuild a farm system overnight. Sounds like a great way to spend a 100 to 150 million with the penalties in my opinion. 3-5 million would get a bunch of top guys to change there minds about College. Nevermind 1-2 million for some of the lesser players. You would really piss off a ton of people and the rules would most likely be changed shortly after you did it. I'm just very surprized some big market team that plans on picking at back of the rounds hasn't tried to exploit this loophole yet. I think you might be overestimating the amount of talent you would obtain this way as opposed to what you would acquire "playing by the rules." And I'm not sure you'd come out with more talent in a three-year period than you would otherwise. Let's do this - if money were no object, who would you have taken at each pick on days one and two based on who was available? To be fair, if they were really willing to spend an absurd amount they could agree to deals with the top guys before the draft. Lets say they'd offer McKay 15M, there's no way Tampa drafts him so he'd just fall to our pick. Im not saying its a good idea btw, just arguing that the draft would play out differently if said scenario would happen.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 14, 2017 15:38:37 GMT -5
I think you might be overestimating the amount of talent you would obtain this way as opposed to what you would acquire "playing by the rules." And I'm not sure you'd come out with more talent in a three-year period than you would otherwise. Let's do this - if money were no object, who would you have taken at each pick on days one and two based on who was available? To be fair, if they were really willing to spend an absurd amount they could agree to deals with the top guys before the draft. Lets say they'd offer McKay 15M, there's no way Tampa drafts him so he'd just fall to our pick. Im not saying its a good idea btw, just arguing that the draft would play out differently if said scenario would happen. Don't think that would work. I mean Tampa could just draft the guy and our "deal" becomes obsolete.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 14, 2017 15:52:47 GMT -5
You could have added 5-10 if not more top 200 guys if money wasn't an issue, on top of the picks we already made. We didn't even apply this strategy, but go look back at our past drafts of unsigned HS players. Everyone has one or two that went on to become first round picks or very close to that. Now imagine taking a crap load of those players. Imagine last year in second round taking best player, not an underslot guy. Imagine no senior players just best available. Imagine signing most of the top high school players we picked.
2014 Kendall and Peterson
2013 Sheffied and Boldt
2012 Fulmer and Bregman
If getting a bunch of players like that isn't worth giving up next year's #1, then I just don't know what to say to you. Look at the top 200 players still on the board right now.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 14, 2017 16:01:45 GMT -5
You could have added 5-10 if not more top 200 guys if money wasn't an issue, on top of the picks we already made. We didn't even apply this strategy, but go look back at our past drafts of unsigned HS players. Everyone has one or two that went on to become first round picks or very close to that. Now imagine taking a crap load of those players. Imagine last year in second round taking best player, not an underslot guy. Imagine no senior players just best available. Imagine signing most of the top high school players we picked. 2014 Kendall and Peterson 2013 Sheffied and Boldt 2012 Fulmer and Bregman If getting a bunch of players like that isn't worth giving up next year's #1, then I just don't know what to say to you. Look at the top 200 players still on the board right now. If they had pulled this with Kendall and Peterson, they would have lost Benintendi, Rei, and Logan Allen. Again, no thank you.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 14, 2017 16:06:58 GMT -5
You could have added 5-10 if not more top 200 guys if money wasn't an issue, on top of the picks we already made. We didn't even apply this strategy, but go look back at our past drafts of unsigned HS players. Everyone has one or two that went on to become first round picks or very close to that. Now imagine taking a crap load of those players. Imagine last year in second round taking best player, not an underslot guy. Imagine no senior players just best available. Imagine signing most of the top high school players we picked. 2014 Kendall and Peterson 2013 Sheffied and Boldt 2012 Fulmer and Bregman If getting a bunch of players like that isn't worth giving up next year's #1, then I just don't know what to say to you. Look at the top 200 players still on the board right now. If they had pulled this with Kendall and Peterson, they would have lost Benintendi, Rei, and Logan Allen. Again, no thank you. Like I said you only do this if you're going to be picking late in each round. For example the Red Sox doing it this year. The chances we are picking top 10 the next two years is very small.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 14, 2017 16:24:16 GMT -5
You could have added 5-10 if not more top 200 guys if money wasn't an issue, on top of the picks we already made. We didn't even apply this strategy, but go look back at our past drafts of unsigned HS players. Everyone has one or two that went on to become first round picks or very close to that. Now imagine taking a crap load of those players. Imagine last year in second round taking best player, not an underslot guy. Imagine no senior players just best available. Imagine signing most of the top high school players we picked. 2014 Kendall and Peterson 2013 Sheffied and Boldt 2012 Fulmer and Bregman If getting a bunch of players like that isn't worth giving up next year's #1, then I just don't know what to say to you. Look at the top 200 players still on the board right now. If they had pulled this with Kendall and Peterson, they would have lost Benintendi, Rei, and Logan Allen. Again, no thank you. I don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole, but I think the penalty would be giving up first round picks in two consecutive years. So if we went ahead and drafted and signed say 15-20 Top 200 guys last year, we wouldn't have drafted Houck this year and would have lost a pick probably in the #20-30 range next year. From a pure talent tradeoff perspective, It might not be as crazy as everyone is suggesting but I think there are other factors we're not considering (e.g., 100% tax, some college commitments might not be bought out, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 14, 2017 16:35:44 GMT -5
I mean if you're talking about allocating like $30-50 million to the draft budget, then maybe? I mean, it's not my money. Theoretically I guess there's a break-even point where it would be worth it, but realistically it's hard for me to see.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 14, 2017 16:43:17 GMT -5
If they had pulled this with Kendall and Peterson, they would have lost Benintendi, Rei, and Logan Allen. Again, no thank you. Like I said you only do this if you're going to be picking late in each round. For example the Red Sox doing it this year. The chances we are picking top 10 the next two years is very small. 1) That's exactly what you would have said in 2014 though. On June 5, 2014 the Red Sox were just 5 games under .500 at 27-32. They likely wouldn't have guessed they would finish 72-90 by going 45-58 the rest of the way. So the rationale you use here - the team's chances of having top draft picks the next two years is small - would have cost the organization Andrew Benintendi and Jay Groome. There's no chance that would've been worth it for Benintendi alone, nevermind Groome. 2) I'm not sure the percentage of times the strategy would prove optimal would make it worth it. Certainly, there are years in which it'd be worth doing. Looking at the guys you list, 2012 would've been a great haul (especially given what Trey Ball turned into...), but 2013 would absolutely not have been worth it (neither Sheffield nor Boldt became a first-round pick). 2014's crew would've led to you coming out even at best, and to me, that's also not worth it. You need to come out ahead most of the time. 3) Can someone find an old BA500 or something? I was writing a long post using the bonuses from the first 10 rounds and then a list of the BA500 guys who didn't sign for 2014, but I guess you'd just be doing BPA every pick, right?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 14, 2017 17:40:29 GMT -5
1) No. There's a huge difference a. between there records and b. between the talent you know you will have. Come on 8 games over .500 is a huge difference compared to 5 games below .500.
I never said they should have done it in the past, I used those guys as examples of the type of players you can get in lower rounds by overpaying. I'm talking about going massive. After the 6th or 7th round when most teams start talking seniors or easy to sign HS players, you just start talking best available for rest of draft. You could easily add 15-20 top 200 players and a bunch more top 500. Nevermind in the top 7 rounds you just take best available without worrying about money. Your not looking at only two players, but a massive group of elite HS players and tough to sign college guys.
It will cost a ton, 50 to 75 million minimum, which with the tax would be 100 to 150 million. At the same time you could be looking at adding 25 top 200 guys and 40 top 500 players. You would need to be very careful in planning how to do it. You would need a good draft, with a bunch of hard to sign HS players and be good enough that you most likely pick at back end of each round.
I know someone is going to say some players just won't sign, they are going to College no matter what. My response to that is, not many HS players will turn down millions. 3-5 million will get just about anyone to sign. That's life changing money. Thats top 10 money, chances are the player will never see that type of money again. It's one thing to turndown 500,000 to 1,000,000, it's another thing to turndown 3-5 million.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 15, 2017 8:15:01 GMT -5
No ownership group is going to spend $100-150M on a single draft, especially when you're mostly buying a bunch of mid- and lower-tier top 200/500 guys rather than, say, the top 15 guys on your board. Even before the hard slotting limits, no ownership group came close to that amount of spending. Max annual draft spending was literally an order of magnitude (10x) less.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 15, 2017 8:17:00 GMT -5
This conversation comes up every year. Next up, the briefcases of cash to convince every draftee to sign.
The precedent would be pretty ridiculous (think of all future high school draftees). The league would squash it instantly and maybe even penalize further because they always have some untapped authority.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 15, 2017 8:28:37 GMT -5
It will cost a ton, 50 to 75 million minimum, which with the tax would be 100 to 150 million. Jesus Christ dude. "The Red Sox could own the draft if they spent $150 million on it" is both factually true and totally bonkers. How is that a better financial investment than just drafting well every year at $7 million. $150 million on the draft! That is more money than the Red Sox have spent on the draft. Not more than they've spent on one draft, but rather more than they've spent on all of the drafts. Imagine John Henry having $150 million kicking around to invest in something and him going "I could build an international airport, or like 10% of Tesla, or maybe just get all of the draft picks."
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jun 15, 2017 8:52:30 GMT -5
Worth noting that the Red Sox top 500 ranking would differ vastly from the BA rankings. Some of these guys that are not ranked really might be the Red Sox BPA. Betts and Ockimey come to mind. These are also the type of guys the Red Sox target in the middle of day two, which we would also lose out on because of lack of extra bonus pools for 2 years.
Honestly, I do think there could be a scenario where this could work, but it's would take a special situation and a lot of luck.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 15, 2017 9:40:45 GMT -5
I don't think you can assume that every HS player has a realistic price they would sign for if they are dead set on going to college. Not everyone thinks only about money. And then if one guy signs for $15 million, the rest of them will want the same or more because they'll realize what the team is doing.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 15, 2017 12:12:28 GMT -5
I find it so funny that everyone is acting like it's crazy, when the Red Sox spent about the same amount of money on Moncada and Castillo. That's on just two players. So John Henry will spend the money. What they did in the international market with Moncada, is basically the same thing I am proposing. They blew by the threshold and had a limited pool for two years. Everyone loved that move, but I'm crazy for thinking you apply that to the regular draft. You know because Henry could build an airport or buy a car company. Give me a break.
I have no problem with the Red Sox going by there top 500. The fact remains they could buy all the hard to sign HS and College players they want.
As to the Red Sox being limited for two years. Yea you lose the chance at two top 30 players. I don't for one second think it effects the rest of your draft though. That extra 5% of like 2.5 million, is about the same as the saving of a senior sign in round 10. The truth be told the majority of our overslot money has never come from our first round pick. It mostly comes from senior signs in rounds 7-10 or underslot picks after the first round. Go look at Mike Andrews signing projections. He doesn't have Houcks 5% needed to sign the top 10 guys, but a guy after the top 10.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 15, 2017 12:22:52 GMT -5
I don't think you can assume that every HS player has a realistic price they would sign for if they are dead set on going to college. Not everyone thinks only about money. And then if one guy signs for $15 million, the rest of them will want the same or more because they'll realize what the team is doing. How many HS players have gone to College after being taken in first round? Sure a few have, the fact remains that almost every HS player given the choice of 3-5 million or College took the money. You would have to come from a very wealthy family to turn that down. It's not going to take 15 million. You get a bunch of the top 200 guys going to College because they are picked after round two and its hard to give them first round money at that point. Turning down less than a million, just isn't the same as turning down 3-5 million. The facts of the draft back up my claim. You have any proof about yours?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 15, 2017 12:31:37 GMT -5
I find it so funny that everyone is acting like it's crazy, when the Red Sox spent about the same amount of money on Moncada and Castillo. That's on just two players. So John Henry will spend the money. What they did in the international market with Moncada, is basically the same thing I am proposing. They blew by the threshold and had a limited pool for two years. Everyone loved that move, but I'm crazy for thinking you apply that to the regular draft. You know because Henry could build an airport or buy a car company. Give me a break. I have no problem with the Red Sox going by there top 500. The fact remains they could buy all the hard to sign HS and College players they want. As to the Red Sox being limited for two years. Yea you lose the chance at two top 30 players. I don't for one second think it effects the rest of your draft though. That extra 5% of like 2.5 million, is about the same as the saving of a senior sign in round 10. The truth be told the majority of our overslot money has never come from our first round pick. It mostly comes from senior signs in rounds 7-10 or underslot picks after the first round. Go look at Mike Andrews signing projections. He doesn't have Houcks 5% needed to sign the top 10 guys, but a guy after the top 10. At the time, Moncada and Castillo were thought of as talented enough to be number one overall picks in the draft, and Moncada in particular was thought to be one of the more talented amateur players in recent history. Here, you're talking about, what, maybe two or three top 50 guys, two or three more 50-100 guys, and some others further down? The value proposition, purely for return on the dollar and without taking into account the lost draft picks, is not there. Look at any analysis of what draft picks are worth. Once you get beyond the top handful of guys, amateur players just aren't worth $5M+ apiece.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 15, 2017 12:51:38 GMT -5
I don't think you can assume that every HS player has a realistic price they would sign for if they are dead set on going to college. Not everyone thinks only about money. And then if one guy signs for $15 million, the rest of them will want the same or more because they'll realize what the team is doing. How many HS players have gone to College after being taken in first round? Sure a few have, the fact remains that almost every HS player given the choice of 3-5 million or College took the money. You would have to come from a very wealthy family to turn that down. It's not going to take 15 million. You get a bunch of the top 200 guys going to College because they are picked after round two and its hard to give them first round money at that point. Turning down less than a million, just isn't the same as turning down 3-5 million. The facts of the draft back up my claim. You have any proof about yours? Plenty of HS players tell teams not to draft them in the 1st round because they're going to college. So if you modify the question to "How many HS players who are worthy of being drafted in the 1st round have gone to college?" the answer would be a lot.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 15, 2017 13:38:09 GMT -5
How many HS players have gone to College after being taken in first round? Sure a few have, the fact remains that almost every HS player given the choice of 3-5 million or College took the money. You would have to come from a very wealthy family to turn that down. It's not going to take 15 million. You get a bunch of the top 200 guys going to College because they are picked after round two and its hard to give them first round money at that point. Turning down less than a million, just isn't the same as turning down 3-5 million. The facts of the draft back up my claim. You have any proof about yours? Plenty of HS players tell teams not to draft them in the 1st round because they're going to college. So if you modify the question to "How many HS players who are worthy of being drafted in the 1st round have gone to college?" the answer would be a lot. Show me who these players are, because what you're saying didn't happen in this draft. There aren't a bunch of top 30 high school players that fell in draft because they are going to College no matter what. Based on rankings and draft data what your claming is just not true.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 15, 2017 13:56:11 GMT -5
I find it so funny that everyone is acting like it's crazy, when the Red Sox spent about the same amount of money on Moncada and Castillo. That's on just two players. So John Henry will spend the money. What they did in the international market with Moncada, is basically the same thing I am proposing. They blew by the threshold and had a limited pool for two years. Everyone loved that move, but I'm crazy for thinking you apply that to the regular draft. You know because Henry could build an airport or buy a car company. Give me a break. I have no problem with the Red Sox going by there top 500. The fact remains they could buy all the hard to sign HS and College players they want. As to the Red Sox being limited for two years. Yea you lose the chance at two top 30 players. I don't for one second think it effects the rest of your draft though. That extra 5% of like 2.5 million, is about the same as the saving of a senior sign in round 10. The truth be told the majority of our overslot money has never come from our first round pick. It mostly comes from senior signs in rounds 7-10 or underslot picks after the first round. Go look at Mike Andrews signing projections. He doesn't have Houcks 5% needed to sign the top 10 guys, but a guy after the top 10. At the time, Moncada and Castillo were thought of as talented enough to be number one overall picks in the draft, and Moncada in particular was thought to be one of the more talented amateur players in recent history. Here, you're talking about, what, maybe two or three top 50 guys, two or three more 50-100 guys, and some others further down? The value proposition, purely for return on the dollar and without taking into account the lost draft picks, is not there. Look at any analysis of what draft picks are worth. Once you get beyond the top handful of guys, amateur players just aren't worth $5M+ apiece. You are looking at this all wrong. You can't just look at the normal return of a pick that has slot money attacked to it. That's like saying Betts was just like every other 5th round pick. Which just isn't true. The higher bonus money allowed you to get a better player. Just like our 5th rounder this year. So you think 4-6 more top 100 guys, a bunch more top 200 guys is what nothing? Then a bunch more top 500 guys. Where do you think the majority of the top College players come from? Those exact players. Some players come out of no where, but not a ton of them. You really don't even have to hit on that many of them for this to workout. You would be spreading the risk out over a ton of very good players, rather than just two first round picks. Your risk/reward factor would be threw the roof. 15 top 500 players is better than one top 25 player. This is baseball, not basketball.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 15, 2017 14:19:42 GMT -5
At the time, Moncada and Castillo were thought of as talented enough to be number one overall picks in the draft, and Moncada in particular was thought to be one of the more talented amateur players in recent history. Here, you're talking about, what, maybe two or three top 50 guys, two or three more 50-100 guys, and some others further down? The value proposition, purely for return on the dollar and without taking into account the lost draft picks, is not there. Look at any analysis of what draft picks are worth. Once you get beyond the top handful of guys, amateur players just aren't worth $5M+ apiece. You are looking at this all wrong. You can't just look at the normal return of a pick that has slot money attacked to it. That's like saying Betts was just like every other 5th round pick. Which just isn't true. The higher bonus money allowed you to get a better player. Just like our 5th rounder this year. So you think 4-6 more top 100 guys, a bunch more top 200 guys is what nothing? Then a bunch more top 500 guys. Where do you think the majority of the top College players come from? Those exact players. Some players come out of no where, but not a ton of them. You really don't even have to hit on that many of them for this to workout. You would be spreading the risk out over a ton of very good players, rather than just two first round picks. Your risk/reward factor would be threw the roof. 15 top 500 players is better than one top 25 player. This is baseball, not basketball. I think you are putting way, way too much stock into the publications' top 500 lists. I think what you're doing, now that I see you explain what you think would happen a bit more, is asking the club to put more stock into the scouting consensus rather than what their own scouts are telling them, and to spend a ton more money doing it. Yes, they definitely would structure the board a bit differently if signability weren't a thing. But I think you're overestimating how universal the BA or PG rankings are. Heck, look at the Red Sox draft this year - they drafted two guys who PG had in their top 300 that BA didn't even have in their top 500. And these are the aggregations! It's a very interesting theory, which is why I keep asking you (or someone with more time than I have) to go back for a past draft and do this to see how it comes out. It's intriguing. I just think it's a strategy that's going to work once every 20 years or something at best, which makes it not worth trying.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Jun 15, 2017 15:53:36 GMT -5
Wouldn't it be better to spend more money on scouting and figuring out why the sox have not been able to develop starting pitchers. I would think that would help us draft better players. This certainly is not going to cost $100 mil.
|
|
|