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.
2013 Red Sox Post-Draft Discussion (Signings, etc.)
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 9, 2013 10:15:16 GMT -5
Does anyone have any thoughts on the bonus demands of Jordon Austin? How much below slot will he accept? He could always go to JuCo or college. He's someone I was wondering about as well.....he doesn't seem like the profile of player that would sign well below slot but I've got to believe the Sox know something we don't here.
|
|
|
Post by rasimon on Jun 9, 2013 10:23:11 GMT -5
If the top 3 picks could all even out to their respected slots....I'd call it a win. I'd say its a huge coup if the first five rounds are equal to the draft the bonus pool for those five rounds. If all of the money saved in rounds 6-10 is available for the tough signs, then the Red Sox at least could have a chance of signing Boldt. Assume they start by doing the 5% overage. That gets them $350K over slot to work with. Assume they can get Stanky and Denny signed for a total of $1.9MM (the sum of slot 2 & 3 allocations). That looks possible. Maybe they can sign rounds 3 & 4 at $100K below slot each? That would give them an extra $200K to use on later rounds. That gets them to $550K savings. If they could sign each of rounds 6-10 for $100K that would only save another $388K below slot. I really doubt they can do that. Rounds 6-10 are only allocated $888K total so its hard to get big under-slot savings here. Say they can save $200K total from rounds 6-10. That gets them to $750K. Their ability to get a Sheffield or Boldt really comes down to what they can sign Ball for. A best case would be if they could get him for $2.5MM. That would be a savings of about $750K below slot - which would give them $1.5MM total to work with (plus $100K for the late round slot). So then they could get either (a) a bunch of the lesser HSers or (b) Sheffield or Boldt plus one or two lesser HSers. But it really comes down to what they can sign Ball for. In the later rounds signing a bunch of lesser HS talents is a lot easier than signing a single Boldt type player. If you sign 5 lesser HS talents for $250K each that comes out to a total of $1.250MM spent. However you can use $100K on each without it counting against your limit so you would only need to have saved ( $1.250MM - 5*$100K = ) $750K from rounds 1-10 to make that happen. But to sign a single Boldt to a $1.250MM contract you only get $100K free - so you would need to have saved $1.150 from rounds 1-10 to do that.
|
|
|
Post by mjammz on Jun 9, 2013 10:35:13 GMT -5
You can also hear someone saying "Ball's higher on the board" during the discussion. Couldn't make out the prior comment about Ball, but it's "Ball's a super- something" I think it was "Ball's a super athlete." Also, based on past draft videos (e.g. here), looks like the colors are for differentiating between HS, JuCo, College, etc. players, as speculated above. Or, at the very least, it doesn't seem like any sort of tiering or anything like that. Your right some one says "Ball is a super athlete" Then Ben Cherington says "Ball is higher on the board" What I take away from the draft room is that the pick wasn't a slam dunk. Ball obviously wasn't they guy they were hoping would fall otherwise there would be no discussion at all. There was some indecision and the pick of Ball was being debated until the last minute.. a lot at stake on this pick.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 9, 2013 10:41:49 GMT -5
For all those Keith Law haters likers and lovers prepare for cognitive dissonance/denial/horror/validation because he really liked what Sox did: insider.espn.go.com/blog/mlb-draft/post?id=985A few excerpts: - Lefty Trey Ball (No. 7 overall ) is one of this draft class's best athletes, a two-way prospect who's up to 94 on the mound with a good delivery and a chance for a plus fastball and plus curveball, projecting as a No. 2 or 3 starter. - Jon Denney (third round) was a first-round talent who might have fallen on slight concerns about his signability but projects as an offensive catcher who can handle the position while providing plus power. - Outfielder Jordon Austin (sixth round) has a great body and is a plus runner with quick wrists and a sound swing, but some rawness to his game on both sides of the ball. Much more at the link.
|
|
|
Post by smokinjoewood on Jun 9, 2013 11:06:56 GMT -5
I covered 18th rounder Joe Gunkel's run in the DII National Championship tournament last year. He got a ton of groundballs and worked really quickly. Dominated in West Chester's first game and the championship. Final was something crazy like 1 hr 45 minutes. Didn't miss a ton of bats but had movement on almost everything he threw.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jun 9, 2013 11:27:32 GMT -5
I think it was "Ball's a super athlete." Also, based on past draft videos (e.g. here), looks like the colors are for differentiating between HS, JuCo, College, etc. players, as speculated above. Or, at the very least, it doesn't seem like any sort of tiering or anything like that. Your right some one says "Ball is a super athlete" Then Ben Cherington says "Ball is higher on the board" What I take away from the draft room is that the pick wasn't a slam dunk. Ball obviously wasn't they guy they were hoping would fall otherwise there would be no discussion at all. There was some indecision and the pick of Ball was being debated until the last minute.. a lot at stake on this pick. Well the draft room was not exactly rife with smiles and high fives. We can speculate about the Red Sox thinking: Callis had mentioned Ball several times as a player the Red Sox would take if their draft board fell apart (though he felt it was unlikely); the Red Sox obviously looked at all the top guys. That does not mean that Ball was not higher than Moran, Stewart, and Frazier on the draft board, but I suspect he was. Its not that far fetched to assume that the Red Sox just had their pocket picked by the Twins, Indians, and Marlins, and are wondering if they are having a last second debate about who to take. I am happy they stuck to their guns and took the guy higher on the draft board. That draft board was the product of months of scouting and days of discussions.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Jun 9, 2013 11:33:39 GMT -5
Assume they start by doing the 5% overage. That gets them $350K over slot to work with. Assume they can get Stanky and Denny signed for a total of $1.9MM (the sum of slot 2 & 3 allocations). That looks possible. Maybe they can sign rounds 3 & 4 at $100K below slot each? That would give them an extra $200K to use on later rounds. That gets them to $550K savings. If they could sign each of rounds 6-10 for $100K that would only save another $388K below slot. I really doubt they can do that. Rounds 6-10 are only allocated $888K total so its hard to get big under-slot savings here. Say they can save $200K total from rounds 6-10. That gets them to $750K. Their ability to get a Sheffield or Boldt really comes down to what they can sign Ball for. A best case would be if they could get him for $2.5MM. That would be a savings of about $750K below slot - which would give them $1.5MM total to work with (plus $100K for the late round slot). So then they could get either (a) a bunch of the lesser HSers or (b) Sheffield or Boldt plus one or two lesser HSers. But it really comes down to what they can sign Ball for. In the later rounds signing a bunch of lesser HS talents is a lot easier than signing a single Boldt type player. If you sign 5 lesser HS talents for $250K each that comes out to a total of $1.250MM spent. However you can use $100K on each without it counting against your limit so you would only need to have saved ( $1.250MM - 5*$100K = ) $750K from rounds 1-10 to make that happen. But to sign a single Boldt to a $1.250MM contract you only get $100K free - so you would need to have saved $1.150 from rounds 1-10 to do that. according to somebody in the thread yesterday Boldt's asking price is 2.5 million. That's not happening.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 9, 2013 11:34:05 GMT -5
We don't even need catchers that badly in the farm. We have an excellent pipeline of catchers already. And they just drafted 5 more if I remember correctly. I'd offer just slightly above slot for Denney. A) Blake Swihart and Christian Vazquez does not an "excellent pipeline" make. Sopilka and Suarez are interesting, but nothing more. They're not close to Denney's level. Denney signs and is an immediate top 20 guy in the system most likely, at least imo. B) It's not a given he's staying at catcher. He's a bat primarily. C) "Slightly above slot" isn't even going to be half of what it takes to sign him. Slot was $671k. It'll take something like $1.5 or $1.6M, at least. D) Of the 4 other catchers they drafted, Romanski looks like a catch-and-throw guy, Bethea is probably an org depth guy, Thaiss is a tough sign (and early frontrunner for my signability binky), and Lidge is a complete mystery who has very little information available on the web, to be frank. Point being - they have nothing to do with Denney signing.
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Jun 9, 2013 11:34:25 GMT -5
Article on Denney being chosen as Player of the Year in Oklahoma. Based on this and other articles about him, he appears to be very strong on defense--quickness, arm, leadership are very strong. newsok.com/yukons-jonathan-denney-is-player-of-the-year/article/3843383Perhaps the baseball people who have been referencing his ability to move to another position are simply emphasizing the quality of his bat not questioning his defensive potential.
|
|
|
Post by mjammz on Jun 9, 2013 11:43:30 GMT -5
We don't even need catchers that badly in the farm. We have an excellent pipeline of catchers already. And they just drafted 5 more if I remember correctly. I'd offer just slightly above slot for Denney. A) Blake Swihart and Christian Vazquez does not an "excellent pipeline" make. Sopilka and Suarez are interesting, but nothing more. They're not close to Denney's level. Denney signs and is an immediate top 20 guy in the system most likely, at least imo. B) It's not a given he's staying at catcher. He's a bat primarily. C) "Slightly above slot" isn't even going to be half of what it takes to sign him. Slot was $671k. It'll take something like $1.5 or $1.6M, at least. D) Of the 4 other catchers they drafted, Romanski looks like a catch-and-throw guy, Bethea is probably an org depth guy, Thaiss is a tough sign (and early frontrunner for my signability binky), and Lidge is a complete mystery who has very little information available on the web, to be frank. Point being - they have nothing to do with Denney signing. Prior to the Draft Denney wasn't considered a tough sign. There were rumors before day 2 started that he had a deal worked out with KC for a above slot deal. So he wants to sign and play pro ball. Considering he was expected to go at the end of the first round or the early second round, I think as long as we pay him what he was projected he will sign. My prediction on Denney is that something between 1.2 on the low end to 1.5 on the high end gets it done. No way are they paying him 2 million.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 9, 2013 12:00:45 GMT -5
I don't think he's a tough sign. But he's going to sign for a lot more than 700K was the point. Even at the low end of your estimate, that's more than half a million over slot.
Put it this way - Ty Buttrey wasn't at his level and he got $1.3M last year.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jun 9, 2013 12:04:33 GMT -5
Never heard a club say their farm system had too many quality catchers. You will always take more catching. Depth is never and I mean never a bad thing. Having depth is what allows you to make trades to bring in MLB ready talent.
The truth is for many of us who follow the prospects closely you start to feel attached to these guys and picture their upside playing in the majors and don't want to see them get traded away.
Realistically which prospects in the system would you personally classify as tradable pieces? Who could you part with that would get you something of value in return, not org guys?
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Jun 9, 2013 12:04:54 GMT -5
Prior to the Draft Denney wasn't considered a tough sign. There were rumors before day 2 started that he had a deal worked out with KC for a above slot deal. So he wants to sign and play pro ball. Considering he was expected to go at the end of the first round or the early second round, I think as long as we pay him what he was projected he will sign. My prediction on Denney is that something between 1.2 on the low end to 1.5 on the high end gets it done. No way are they paying him 2 million. Prior to the draft he was expected to go in the back of the first round.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jun 9, 2013 12:11:56 GMT -5
Never heard a club say their farm system had too many quality catchers. You will always take more catching. Depth is never and I mean never a bad thing. Having depth is what allows you to make trades to bring in MLB ready talent. The truth is for many of us who follow the prospects closely you start to feel attached to these guys and picture their upside playing in the majors and don't want to see them get traded away. Realistically which prospects in the system would you personally classify as tradable pieces? Who could you part with that would get you something of value in return, not org guys? For instance I love Cecchini as a player. He is my favorite prospect besides Bogaerts and I don't want to see him traded. But if the club is set on Middlebrooks at 3B or see Bogaerts at 3B in the next 4 years w/ Middlebrooks at 1B then you have to consider the alternatives. Maybe he could project at 2B but Pedroia will be here for awhile. So in terms of a valuable trade piece Cecchini is one of the best the system has outside of the arms. Looking at this situation I classify either one of Cecchini or Middlebrooks as tradable. Personally for me I'd trade Middlebrooks as soon as the end of the 2014 season if Cecchini is ready.
|
|
|
Post by mjammz on Jun 9, 2013 12:16:12 GMT -5
I don't think he's a tough sign. But he's going to sign for a lot more than 700K was the point. Even at the low end of your estimate, that's more than half a million over slot. Put it this way - Ty Buttrey wasn't at his level and he got $1.3M last year. I agree with that. But, I do think that as we go on the asking price of these kids will have to come down over the years. A lot of these kids are basing their numbers off the old system. As we get further away from the old system the numbers will correct themselves somewhat and be more reasonable. With that being said, I believe the Red Sox know exactly what it took to sign Denney prior to taking him and will get it done.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jun 9, 2013 12:16:54 GMT -5
Never heard a club say their farm system had too many quality catchers. You will always take more catching. Depth is never and I mean never a bad thing. Having depth is what allows you to make trades to bring in MLB ready talent. The truth is for many of us who follow the prospects closely you start to feel attached to these guys and picture their upside playing in the majors and don't want to see them get traded away. Realistically which prospects in the system would you personally classify as tradable pieces? Who could you part with that would get you something of value in return, not org guys? For instance I love Cecchini as a player. He is my favorite prospect besides Bogaerts and I don't want to see him traded. But if the club is set on Middlebrooks at 3B or see Bogaerts at 3B in the next 4 years w/ Middlebrooks at 1B then you have to consider the alternatives. Maybe he could project at 2B but Pedroia will be here for awhile. So in terms of a valuable trade piece Cecchini is one of the best the system has outside of the arms. Looking at this situation I classify either one of Cecchini or Middlebrooks as tradable. Personally for me I'd trade Middlebrooks as soon as the end of the 2014 season if Cecchini is ready. Other tradable pieces to me include Brentz, Almanzar and up to two of De la Rosa, Barnes, Ranaudo, Workman, Britton and Owens. Depends how you personally (or more importantly the MLB teams) rank them but the system could handle moving up to two of these arms and survive.
|
|
|
Post by mjammz on Jun 9, 2013 12:25:43 GMT -5
We have to remember too that the Red Sox are going to have some very tough decisions regarding the 40 man roster at the end of the season. That's why I think it's likely we see some of these prospects traded this summer and the reason why you need to keep replenishing the system with high upside pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jun 9, 2013 12:29:28 GMT -5
Correct. If you signed all 40 drafted players where would they play. The team knows there will be a list of unsigned players. How many players of the 40 went unsigned last draft?
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jun 9, 2013 12:31:02 GMT -5
Correct. If you signed all 40 drafted players where would they play. The team knows there will be a list of unsigned players. How many players of the 40 went unsigned last draft? I count 16 unsigned. 24 signed.
|
|
|
Post by TheCerebral1 on Jun 9, 2013 12:33:29 GMT -5
Correct. If you signed all 40 drafted players where would they play. The team knows there will be a list of unsigned players. How many players of the 40 went unsigned last draft? I count 16 unsigned. 24 signed. Not all play right away. Extended spring tranining, injuries, super regionals, and other sometimes commitments. It's not impossible to divide them up.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jun 9, 2013 12:54:05 GMT -5
I assume Austin is a bit if a different case than the others, but how much do we estimate the easy signs in rounds 7-10 will receive. I know the Blue Jays gave them $5k. Other teams gave $10 or $25k.
|
|
|
Post by cba82 on Jun 9, 2013 13:01:43 GMT -5
"Interesting to know if Bane caused this change in draft philosophy though." -- I don't know what this means. What change in draft philosophy? And who is Bane?
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jun 9, 2013 13:11:20 GMT -5
Yes, I know that it is early and with the financial constraints all MLB teams have and the fact that we may only be able to sign a fraction no matter the machinations we go thru, FWIW are there any commentaries out there from the pundits like Mayo, Law, Olney etc. on how we drafted.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jun 9, 2013 13:19:30 GMT -5
Yes, I know that it is early and with the financial constraints all MLB teams have and the fact that we may only be able to sign a fraction no matter the machinations we go thru, FWIW are there any commentaries out there from the pundits like Mayo, Law, Olney etc. on how we drafted. Its probably easier to "grade" how a team drafted in the first 10 rounds. As for rounds 11 through 40 you can draft all the best remaining players but it doesn't make it a better draft because all that matters there is who signs. Seems you want to draft enough talent that dropped to use up all the extra budget from round 1 to 10 plus 5% and then the best $100,000 guys you can get to sign.
|
|
|
Post by ikonos on Jun 9, 2013 13:19:39 GMT -5
"Interesting to know if Bane caused this change in draft philosophy though." -- I don't know what this means. What change in draft philosophy? And who is Bane? Bane is the newly hired special assistant to Cherington. I was talking about drafting more than usual tough signs.
|
|
|