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.
Battle for top 11 (protected) draft picks in 2015 draft
|
Post by raftsox on Aug 26, 2014 11:58:09 GMT -5
On the other hand, I actually don't think the protected pick is that important this year for the Sox. Hard to imagine them wanting to give out the kind of contract for a free agent that would require a draft pick from this year's crop. Certainly nice to not have it be as big a consideration, though. I could easily see them signing Lester and Shields and thereby losing their second round pick for Shields (or a potential QO pick).
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Aug 26, 2014 12:52:40 GMT -5
[/quote]I'd love to move up a spot or two but think this is where we end up picking. Maybe they can shut Papi down for teh season as a precaution? [/quote] He's not the only one. They should rest anyone that is having ANY kind of physical issues (which could be just about everyone). Guys like Pedroia, Koji and Papi need to sit as much as possible, especially Koji if he decides to accept the QO. Not sure anyone will be willing to give him more than one year at a QO price. There's zero need for him to pitch back to back games the rest of the season. I'll be happy with a top 10 pick but ecstatic with a top 5.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Aug 26, 2014 13:30:37 GMT -5
With Soler set to be called up, maybe the Cubs get hot and give Boston some breathing room.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Aug 26, 2014 14:02:28 GMT -5
They're already hot, sweeping the fist place O's by a combined 13 - 4 scores.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Aug 26, 2014 16:09:57 GMT -5
Now let me ask a hypothetical question.
Let's say for a moment the Sox REALLY tank and end up with the #3 pick, whose slot value will likely be upwards of $6 million. One poster commented that, if there is no real separation at that position between multiple players in the organization's opinion, pick one that can be signed for the lowest amount, to save, say $500K.
But isn't there another strategy? Pick someone like Forrest Allday at #3, sign him for $10K, and have upwards of $6M to spread out over several hard-to-signs later in the draft. Which is better, having whatever level of stud is at the top of the 2015 draft and at best saving a minor amount of money, or essentially throwing that pick away and signing half a dozen tough-to-signs that you might not otherwise be able to get off the savings from that pick alone, later in the draft? It seems as though not only does the potential savings get more enticing to try that as you get closer to the top, the fact that you are picking close to the beginning of each round means you can beat other teams to the best hard-to-signs left before each round.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Aug 26, 2014 16:18:33 GMT -5
Now let me ask a hypothetical question. Let's say for a moment the Sox REALLY tank and end up with the #3 pick, whose slot value will likely be upwards of $6 million. One poster commented that, if there is no real separation at that position between multiple players in the organization's opinion, pick one that can be signed for the lowest amount, to save, say $500K. But isn't there another strategy? Pick someone like Forrest Allday at #3, sign him for $10K, and have upwards of $6M to spread out over several hard-to-signs later in the draft. Which is better, having whatever level of stud is at the top of the 2015 draft and at best saving a minor amount of money, or essentially throwing that pick away and signing half a dozen tough-to-signs that you might not otherwise be able to get off the savings from that pick alone, later in the draft? It seems as though not only does the potential savings get more enticing to try that as you get closer to the top, the fact that you are picking close to the beginning of each round means you can beat other teams to the best hard-to-signs left before each round. The way the draft has played out with the new rules, there just aren't enough premium prospects that fall to make that strategy worth it. The guys that fall are usually Ranked in the 50 to 100 range, and it takes a lot of those types to be even close to as valuable as a top 5 guy.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Aug 26, 2014 16:28:19 GMT -5
Now let me ask a hypothetical question. Let's say for a moment the Sox REALLY tank and end up with the #3 pick, whose slot value will likely be upwards of $6 million. One poster commented that, if there is no real separation at that position between multiple players in the organization's opinion, pick one that can be signed for the lowest amount, to save, say $500K. But isn't there another strategy? Pick someone like Forrest Allday at #3, sign him for $10K, and have upwards of $6M to spread out over several hard-to-signs later in the draft. Which is better, having whatever level of stud is at the top of the 2015 draft and at best saving a minor amount of money, or essentially throwing that pick away and signing half a dozen tough-to-signs that you might not otherwise be able to get off the savings from that pick alone, later in the draft? It seems as though not only does the potential savings get more enticing to try that as you get closer to the top, the fact that you are picking close to the beginning of each round means you can beat other teams to the best hard-to-signs left before each round. Pretty rare that top 5 talent falls into the 11th round or later. If you can get that talent early, you take that opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 26, 2014 16:35:30 GMT -5
But isn't there another strategy? Pick someone like Forrest Allday at #3, sign him for $10K, and have upwards of $6M to spread out over several hard-to-signs later in the draft. Which is better, having whatever level of stud is at the top of the 2015 draft and at best saving a minor amount of money, or essentially throwing that pick away and signing half a dozen tough-to-signs that you might not otherwise be able to get off the savings from that pick alone, later in the draft? It seems as though not only does the potential savings get more enticing to try that as you get closer to the top, the fact that you are picking close to the beginning of each round means you can beat other teams to the best hard-to-signs left before each round. The level of difference between getting a top-5 guy and a top-50 guy is enormous. Especially in a deep organization which needs talent more than volume, I would want the high-ceiling pick. Even if you assume that the #3 pick in next year's draft is equal to the #7 pick in last year's draft, it is still a far cry from the #50 pick. Typically, the "tough-to-signs" are players who have misinterpreted their value, rather than a true high-ceiling, Gerrit Cole-type. Bottom line, if I had the #3 pick in a two-elite prospect draft, I'm looking to cut a deal with someone on the next tier to save money to make some overslot picks later but I'm not looking to go down to the Allday-tier. And while there may not be an elite prospect in next year's draft (although it is way, way too early to say that), I'd rather be taking high-ceiling talent in the top ten, than relying on the presence of signability guys later.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Aug 26, 2014 17:07:51 GMT -5
Now let me ask a hypothetical question. Let's say for a moment the Sox REALLY tank and end up with the #3 pick, whose slot value will likely be upwards of $6 million. One poster commented that, if there is no real separation at that position between multiple players in the organization's opinion, pick one that can be signed for the lowest amount, to save, say $500K. But isn't there another strategy? Pick someone like Forrest Allday at #3, sign him for $10K, and have upwards of $6M to spread out over several hard-to-signs later in the draft. Which is better, having whatever level of stud is at the top of the 2015 draft and at best saving a minor amount of money, or essentially throwing that pick away and signing half a dozen tough-to-signs that you might not otherwise be able to get off the savings from that pick alone, later in the draft? It seems as though not only does the potential savings get more enticing to try that as you get closer to the top, the fact that you are picking close to the beginning of each round means you can beat other teams to the best hard-to-signs left before each round. We generally don't pick this high so we'd want highest upside possible from one pick as opposed to bunch of players with the ceiling of what's usually available where we pick. ADD. In the IFA market spreading out your money like you suggest could pay better dividends but the IFA market is an even bigger crap shoot than the rule 4 draft.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 26, 2014 17:11:39 GMT -5
Now let me ask a hypothetical question. Let's say for a moment the Sox REALLY tank and end up with the #3 pick, whose slot value will likely be upwards of $6 million. One poster commented that, if there is no real separation at that position between multiple players in the organization's opinion, pick one that can be signed for the lowest amount, to save, say $500K. But isn't there another strategy? Pick someone like Forrest Allday at #3, sign him for $10K, and have upwards of $6M to spread out over several hard-to-signs later in the draft. Which is better, having whatever level of stud is at the top of the 2015 draft and at best saving a minor amount of money, or essentially throwing that pick away and signing half a dozen tough-to-signs that you might not otherwise be able to get off the savings from that pick alone, later in the draft? It seems as though not only does the potential savings get more enticing to try that as you get closer to the top, the fact that you are picking close to the beginning of each round means you can beat other teams to the best hard-to-signs left before each round. That would only make sense if the Red Sox believed it was a super deep draft with very lacking top talent with not much separating the #3 from the #30. And even then, there's too much uncertainty that you can even sign hard signs and you end up with several million left unspent. The "advisors" know how much you have to sign and it probably just drives prices up on everyone else. They'd probably wind up spending $1.7 million on a kid ranked #98. It's way too risky IMO.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 26, 2014 22:27:43 GMT -5
They're already hot, sweeping the fist place O's by a combined 13 - 4 scores. Go cubbies! We still got a shot at the fourth overall pick.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Aug 26, 2014 23:23:21 GMT -5
Sox sure are doing their best to blow this thing lately, aren't they?
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Aug 27, 2014 6:30:38 GMT -5
Another possible reason to go for the quality-over-quantity argument: I just looked at the projected rosters for 2015 and the mid minors -- Salem/Greenville/Lowell -- are already full!! Usually there are spaces to fill in Lowell at least. OTOH, there are a lot of empty spots on the GCL roster.
The Sox have signed a lot of players the last couple of years. Maybe next draft they are more selective, and their draft will be high-school-heavy?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 27, 2014 11:40:13 GMT -5
Another possible reason to go for the quality-over-quantity argument: I just looked at the projected rosters for 2015 and the mid minors -- Salem/Greenville/Lowell -- are already full!! Usually there are spaces to fill in Lowell at least. OTOH, there are a lot of empty spots on the GCL roster. The Sox have signed a lot of players the last couple of years. Maybe next draft they are more selective, and their draft will be high-school-heavy? They haven't really signed any more players than typical. Players signed each year, including undrafted free agents: 2014: 31 (probably not insignificant to note that they didn't sign a single UDFA) 2013: 29 (includes 3 UDFAs, including Jervenski Johnson) (note: excluding Jeff Driskel from this count, since he'll never play) 2012: 28 (includes 2 UDFAs) (also including Shaq Thompson and Brandon Magee, so maybe it's functionally 26?) -------- (draft cut from 50 rounds to 40) 2011: 34 (5 UDFAs, which include Robby Scott) 2010: 28 (5 UDFAs) 2009: 32 (5 UDFAs, which include Dan Butler) 2008: 32 (2 UDFAs) So it probably just seems like they're signing more guys, likely because they're drafting 10 fewer players and thus it's a higher percentage of the draft pool. Plus there are fewer UDFAs getting signed, which may have to do with a better yield from international scouting that I don't care to research right now and thus may not actually exist. ------------------ As for the "full rosters" in the mid-minors, what will probably happen is that there will be attrition we're not counting on. Looking at this past offseason, David Renfroe, Kolbrin Vitek, Greg Larson, Nick Natoli, Matt Spaulding, Drew Turocy, and Keaton Briscoe retired, Cody Koback turned out to be a psychopath, and Nathan Minnich got cut, and then Aaron King was cut less than a month into the season. Those are ten guys we'd have had in our projections (a few were probably listed as fighting for roster spots, but definitely not all of them). There will be attrition we're not expecting. Don't worry.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Aug 27, 2014 12:15:39 GMT -5
"Cody Koback turned out to be a psychopath"
Googling as we speak.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Aug 27, 2014 13:32:24 GMT -5
"Cody Koback turned out to be a psychopath" Googling as we speak. ooh, i'm making dinner reservations on Open Table right now. What's everyone else up to?
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Aug 27, 2014 15:13:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by geezergeek on Aug 27, 2014 17:09:10 GMT -5
Houston has gamed positioning for high draft picks the past 4 years. Giving them an extension to sign Aiken is just rewarding bad manners.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Aug 27, 2014 17:27:05 GMT -5
"Cody Koback turned out to be a psychopath" Googling as we speak. ooh, i'm making dinner reservations on Open Table right now. What's everyone else up to? Normally I don't pay attention to off the field stuff but when somebody throws the word "psychopath" I have to check it out.
|
|
|
Post by mjammz on Aug 27, 2014 18:53:15 GMT -5
Normally I'd be pissed with this extension for the Astros, but since it will move us up the draft order and increase out chances of a top 5 pick, I don't really mind.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Aug 27, 2014 19:27:56 GMT -5
Normally I'd be pissed with this extension for the Astros, but since it will move us up the draft order and increase out chances of a top 5 pick, I don't really mind. Can't think of his/their name(s) but if they force the astros to sign the picks they were gonna pay with the money they saved on Aiken it would put them over the 5% overage and cost them both picks ahead of us. That scenario had been discussed at one point.
|
|
Gwell55
Veteran
Posts: 616
Member is Online
|
Post by Gwell55 on Aug 27, 2014 20:39:15 GMT -5
Normally I'd be pissed with this extension for the Astros, but since it will move us up the draft order and increase out chances of a top 5 pick, I don't really mind. Can't think of his/their name(s) but if they force the astros to sign the picks they were gonna pay with the money they saved on Aiken it would put them over the 5% overage and cost them both picks ahead of us. That scenario had been discussed at one point. So now flunking a physical is a legal excuse to force a signing? Dang and so why didn't my Bro get sent to Vietnam as he flunked his physical too (flat feet) Actually, I doubt there is much they can do with Aiken. And if the Astros had stated they would sign him contingent on aiken signing then I doubt there is much happening there either.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Aug 27, 2014 20:54:16 GMT -5
Normally I'd be pissed with this extension for the Astros, but since it will move us up the draft order and increase out chances of a top 5 pick, I don't really mind. Can't think of his/their name(s) but if they force the astros to sign the picks they were gonna pay with the money they saved on Aiken it would put them over the 5% overage and cost them both picks ahead of us. That scenario had been discussed at one point. Yeah I believe that's correct. The players union filed a greivance on behalf of Jacob Nix (their 5th rounder) alleging that they had a deal in place and yada yada law stuff. Penalization would be their 2015 & 2016 1st rounders I believe, and that would be sweet.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Aug 27, 2014 21:15:36 GMT -5
Can't think of his/their name(s) but if they force the astros to sign the picks they were gonna pay with the money they saved on Aiken it would put them over the 5% overage and cost them both picks ahead of us. That scenario had been discussed at one point. So now flunking a physical is a legal excuse to force a signing? Dang and so why didn't my Bro get sent to Vietnam as he flunked his physical too (flat feet) Actually, I doubt there is much they can do with Aiken. And if the Astros had stated they would sign him contingent on aiken signing then I doubt there is much happening there either. There was a previous incident like this and after that they have all top prospects take a pre draft physical so he passed MLB's physical. Barret Loux I do believe.
|
|
Gwell55
Veteran
Posts: 616
Member is Online
|
Post by Gwell55 on Aug 27, 2014 21:35:43 GMT -5
So now flunking a physical is a legal excuse to force a signing? Dang and so why didn't my Bro get sent to Vietnam as he flunked his physical too (flat feet) Actually, I doubt there is much they can do with Aiken. And if the Astros had stated they would sign him contingent on aiken signing then I doubt there is much happening there either. There was a previous incident like this and after that they have all top prospects take a pre draft physical so he passed MLB's physical. Barret Loux I do believe. I don't think that is correct as to binding physical. While he (Aiken like Barret) might become a free agent the team physical is still the defining moment. It has been mentioned by some though.
|
|
|