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 ramireja on Jun 16, 2017 16:36:41 GMT -5
Updated list: I think it makes sense to Tanner Houck at the top spot since we picked him over Carlson with presumably no concerns regarding signability. Signability was likely a bigger factor starting in Round 2 with Enlow who is apparently agreeing to a deal worth ~2 mill.
1 (24). Sam Carlson (15) – RHP – Burnsville HS, Committed to Florida.....or.....Tanner Houck (20) - RHP - U. Missouri 2 (63). Blayne Enlow (29) – RHP – St. Amant HS, Committed to LSU 3 (101). Tanner Burns (39) – RHP – Decatur HS, Committed to Auburn 4 (131). Evan Skoug (48) – C – TCU (Junior) 5 (161). Alex Scherff (52) – RHP – Colleyville Heritage HS, Committed to Texas A&M 6 (191). Tristan Beck (53) – RHP – Stanford (Sophomore) 7 (221). Garrett Mitchell (54) – CF – Orange Lutheran HS, Committed to UCLA 8 (251). Daniel Cabrera (55) – CF – Parkview Baptist School, Committed to LSU 9 (281). Blaine Knight (58) – RHP – Arkansas (Sophomore) 10 (311). Jake Eder (66) – LHP – Calvary Christian Academy, Committed to Vanderbilt 11 (341). Bryce Bonnin (74) – RHP – Barbers Hill HS, Committed to Arkansas 12 (371). Brady McConnell (75) – SS – Merritt Island HS, Committed to Florida 13 (401). Kyle Hurt (78) – RHP – Torrey Pines HS, Committed to USC 14 (431). Shane Drohan (80) – LHP – Cardinal Newman HS, Committed to Florida State 15 (461). Greg Jones (84) – SS – Cary HS, Committed to UNC-Wilmington 16 (491). Chris McMahon (100) – RHP – West Chester Rustin HS, Committed to Miami 17 (521). Jake Mangum (102) – CF – Mississippi State (Sophomore) 18 (551). Jackson Rutledge (111) – RHP – Rockwood Summit HS, Committed to Arkansas 19 (581). Kyle Jacobsen (117) – CF – Allatoona HS, Committed to South Carolina 20 (611). Jordan Anderson (118) – CF – James Clemens HS, Committed to Mississippi State
Looking at the positions, the problem of roster management becomes more apparent. If we could sign all 20, we'd need to find a home for 12 starting pitchers and 5 CF. If a team were to realistically try and pull this off, you'd probably adjust your board for some positional balance.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 16, 2017 16:37:20 GMT -5
How? That chart made it very clear. One guy at 15% vs. 15 guys at 5 to 7%. I think you look at Ockimey and Betts the wrong way. I think the Red Sox just had them rated a lot higher than other people did. Your theory would make sense if they were cheap, but they weren't. They could have bought a ton of high school players for that much money. It's not just about whether it's worth giving up the two first-rounders. It's also about whether it's worth paying the extra signing bonuses and 100% tax. You're continuing to not take into account the latter. We have spent that much on Castillo and Craig to be the highest paid minor league players in league. So if it greatly increases your chances, it's money well spent. I just don't see the money as an issue. From a team building point of view it's peanuts. It's badically the cost of Sandoval. I would rather overpay some draft picks than a free agent. If everything works out you could have an epic draft. Think 2011, but better.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jun 16, 2017 16:45:49 GMT -5
This is a really interesting thread. Kudos umassgrad2005. When I first read the initial post, I said no way, total bs. And I'm still not 100% convinced, but now I can't stop thinking about it. I still think you're overpaying for somewhat marginal talent in the latter rounds. But I acknowledge and appreciate the points you have made throughout. And there might be something to it.
Ps thanks ramireja for all that hard work. It really helped!
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 16, 2017 16:52:33 GMT -5
I don't have anything to add other than great work on this guys. My thoughts echo JBJjrjr - I initially wrote this off. Not sure how pratical it really would be, but it's fascinating to consider. I wonder if other teams would catch on to this and start drafting some of those highly rated guys (esp. after round 10 when they won't be losing slot $$) and try to block their strategy. It would have to be pretty obvious at some point, right? Could other teams react fast enough? Day 2 is rounds 3-10. They might not be able to react that day, but my guess is they'd be talking about options that night for Day 3. Do they just let them do what they're gonna do?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 16, 2017 17:31:33 GMT -5
Updated list: I think it makes sense to Tanner Houck at the top spot since we picked him over Carlson with presumably no concerns regarding signability. Signability was likely a bigger factor starting in Round 2 with Enlow who is apparently agreeing to a deal worth ~2 mill. 1 (24). Sam Carlson (15) – RHP – Burnsville HS, Committed to Florida.....or.....Tanner Houck (20) - RHP - U. Missouri 2 (63). Blayne Enlow (29) – RHP – St. Amant HS, Committed to LSU 3 (101). Tanner Burns (39) – RHP – Decatur HS, Committed to Auburn 4 (131). Evan Skoug (48) – C – TCU (Junior) 5 (161). Alex Scherff (52) – RHP – Colleyville Heritage HS, Committed to Texas A&M 6 (191). Tristan Beck (53) – RHP – Stanford (Sophomore) 7 (221). Garrett Mitchell (54) – CF – Orange Lutheran HS, Committed to UCLA 8 (251). Daniel Cabrera (55) – CF – Parkview Baptist School, Committed to LSU 9 (281). Blaine Knight (58) – RHP – Arkansas (Sophomore) 10 (311). Jake Eder (66) – LHP – Calvary Christian Academy, Committed to Vanderbilt 11 (341). Bryce Bonnin (74) – RHP – Barbers Hill HS, Committed to Arkansas 12 (371). Brady McConnell (75) – SS – Merritt Island HS, Committed to Florida 13 (401). Kyle Hurt (78) – RHP – Torrey Pines HS, Committed to USC 14 (431). Shane Drohan (80) – LHP – Cardinal Newman HS, Committed to Florida State 15 (461). Greg Jones (84) – SS – Cary HS, Committed to UNC-Wilmington 16 (491). Chris McMahon (100) – RHP – West Chester Rustin HS, Committed to Miami 17 (521). Jake Mangum (102) – CF – Mississippi State (Sophomore) 18 (551). Jackson Rutledge (111) – RHP – Rockwood Summit HS, Committed to Arkansas 19 (581). Kyle Jacobsen (117) – CF – Allatoona HS, Committed to South Carolina 20 (611). Jordan Anderson (118) – CF – James Clemens HS, Committed to Mississippi State Looking at the positions, the problem of roster management becomes more apparent. If we could sign all 20, we'd need to find a home for 12 starting pitchers and 5 CF. If a team were to realistically try and pull this off, you'd probably adjust your board for some positional balance. Interesting. The obvious thing that stands out here, and something that we haven't discussed but probably should, is that there's WAY too many high school guys here versus college guys. Plus there's insane overlap - consider that you don't have the innings to give all of the high school arms you'd have just drafted if they're all on the same team. You've also drafted four high school center fielders. You can rotate two or MAYBE three guys on the same team, but at some point you're going to focus on other positions too. I wonder, if you did this, if it would force you to have either an Appy League team or a second GCL team just to have the flexibility you'd probably want? You don't want to take a stab at a more "realistic" draft, would ya?
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 16, 2017 18:12:52 GMT -5
Ha, I mean I'd probably enjoy putting a together a draft with greater positional balance, but sadly I haven't the time. Its especially hard to do with the MLB rankings where the vast majority of ranked HS players in the Top 200 (the guys who drop) are up-the-middle players.
Although these guys are listed as CF, perhaps you could just spread them out across the OF early on. The pitchers would be even more problematic. You've got 10 rotation spots between Lowell and the GCL, although I guess you could consider piggybacking within those levels and sending the most advanced arms straight to Greenville.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jun 16, 2017 18:38:56 GMT -5
There have been a few drafts in recent years where 1st round talent was taken by the Sox in earlier drafts. I think it was 2015 that something like 3 former picks went in the first round. Now if they actually deployed this strategy they could take less senior signs, and sign a lot more signability guys. If they did do it you'd think you mine as well go crazy and legit take bpa every pick. I know no one has done it before, but they say that about a lot of things before someone does it.
I know low draft picks don't turn out big WAR, but how many highly regarded guys get picked late and don't sign only to see there stock rise in 2-3 years? Think of it this way, the 902th pick doesn't usually amount to much, but the #2 overall often does (Alex Bergman)
I also want to add that I don't full heartedly believe in this but think of it more as me playing devils advocate. Also, I am no one. I know nothing....literally nothing.
|
|
|
Post by ikonos on Jun 17, 2017 9:44:27 GMT -5
Interesting thread and I am not a believer in the viability of this plan for various reasons and I think they can spend the money in other ways with out risking the wrath of the league. 1) Redsox has an issue for not being able to develop draft picks well. Could the money be spent on addressing those by getting better coaches and methods? Why dont they get the top coaches? Could it be economics? Could it be more difficult than we believe? 2) Teams like Houston went from floor to the top not just by picking at the top of the draft. They probably had a better scouting operation and better talent evaluaters or better decision makers at the helm. They could spend that money there and do it the right way. Why dont every team do this? 3) Draft picks picked in first round flame routinely because there is much more to why they become a productive player in MLB than just talent. 4) MLB is a group of 30 rich guys (certain level of ego comes with being rich) collectively agree on a group of people to run the league. Some of those owners have varying degrees of interest/influence on the league management. Assuming they will look away when one of them is trying to get a leg up by exploiting the rules is not reasonable. They can find ways (unpublished in the rule book) to punish the offending team with out recourse or just blackball the team.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jun 17, 2017 10:19:42 GMT -5
Not trying to side track everyone's interesting discussion here. I'd like to remind everyone that 2001 and earlier teams could do that before the stiff penalties were enacted and more emphasis was put towards the draft and some teams didn't even spend on the draft that had money as large markets, being the NYY and LAD. Teams that were small markets Pittsburgh and KC did use it to their advantage and Tampa in 2011 had believe it was 11 of the top 100 choices and came away with really terrible choices overall in what then looked like going for people who would sign instead of people who were "hits".
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 17, 2017 11:13:48 GMT -5
Interesting thread and I am not a believer in the viability of this plan for various reasons and I think they can spend the money in other ways with out risking the wrath of the league. 1) Redsox has an issue for not being able to develop draft picks well. Could the money be spent on addressing those by getting better coaches and methods? Why dont they get the top coaches? Could it be economics? Could it be more difficult than we believe? 2) Teams like Houston went from floor to the top not just by picking at the top of the draft. They probably had a better scouting operation and better talent evaluaters or better decision makers at the helm. They could spend that money there and do it the right way. Why dont every team do this? 3) Draft picks picked in first round flame routinely because there is much more to why they become a productive player in MLB than just talent. 4) MLB is a group of 30 rich guys (certain level of ego comes with being rich) collectively agree on a group of people to run the league. Some of those owners have varying degrees of interest/influence on the league management. Assuming they will look away when one of them is trying to get a leg up by exploiting the rules is not reasonable. They can find ways (unpublished in the rule book) to punish the offending team with out recourse or just blackball the team. There will be no wrath of the league, it's 100% within the rules. You wouldn't be breaking any rules. Not a single one. It's no different than what we did for Moncada. What happend there? The rules got changed to a hard cap. We did have to deal with the wrath of the league. Come on Houston absolutely is where they are now due to a crap load of high picks. Where do you think there top players came from? The tanked for years to get top pick after top pick. How is the Red Sox scouting bad? Or us developing players? Or our coaches? Have you looked at the major league team and all the top prospects we dealt? Sure seems to me we are good at scouting, coaching and developing our young players. Remember this we didn't have like 5 years of top 5 picks either like Houston did. What the Red Sox have done is far more impressive than what Houston did.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 17, 2017 13:13:41 GMT -5
Interesting thread and I am not a believer in the viability of this plan for various reasons and I think they can spend the money in other ways with out risking the wrath of the league. 1) Redsox has an issue for not being able to develop draft picks well. Could the money be spent on addressing those by getting better coaches and methods? Why dont they get the top coaches? Could it be economics? Could it be more difficult than we believe? 2) Teams like Houston went from floor to the top not just by picking at the top of the draft. They probably had a better scouting operation and better talent evaluaters or better decision makers at the helm. They could spend that money there and do it the right way. Why dont every team do this? 3) Draft picks picked in first round flame routinely because there is much more to why they become a productive player in MLB than just talent. 4) MLB is a group of 30 rich guys (certain level of ego comes with being rich) collectively agree on a group of people to run the league. Some of those owners have varying degrees of interest/influence on the league management. Assuming they will look away when one of them is trying to get a leg up by exploiting the rules is not reasonable. They can find ways (unpublished in the rule book) to punish the offending team with out recourse or just blackball the team. There will be no wrath of the league, it's 100% within the rules. You wouldn't be breaking any rules. Not a single one. It's no different than what we did for Moncada. What happend there? The rules got changed to a hard cap. We did have to deal with the wrath of the league. Come on Houston absolutely is where they are now due to a crap load of high picks. Where do you think there top players came from? The tanked for years to get top pick after top pick. How is the Red Sox scouting bad? Or us developing players? Or our coaches? Have you looked at the major league team and all the top prospects we dealt? Sure seems to me we are good at scouting, coaching and developing our young players. Remember this we didn't have like 5 years of top 5 picks either like Houston did. What the Red Sox have done is far more impressive than what Houston did. Yeah, at the risk of running off on a tangent, I'll second the questioning of the "Red Sox don't draft and develop players" point. Correa-Springer-Bregman-Altuve-Keuchel isn't too far ahead of Betts-Bogaerts-Benintendi-Bradley-Pedroia as a homegrown core, although I'll spot you that it probably is a little bit.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 17, 2017 13:45:14 GMT -5
There are 30 teams in the league and not a single one of them ever thought this was a good idea in any year. Yeah, that's an appeal to authority argument, but on well. It's not like no one ever thought about this. We literally have this same conversation every year.
I imagine there's something to not wanting to really piss off the other 29 teams by raising signing prices for every high school draft pick, especially if it gets insane because of the prices you'd have to pay for some high school kids who really want a college experience. Briefcases of cash still isn't enough for some people. And then if you start contacting every high school player with insane offers telling everyone that they're blowing past the cap and have an unlimited amount of money to sign everyone, no other team would be able to draft and sign them unless they called their bluff and dealt with that drama. Every team would be furious about this. That has to come back at some point. If a few teams did this every year, the draft would be pretty much ruined for all the other teams.
I also believe this would be a one time thing before the league stopped it if they even allowed it the first time. Because it's just ridiculous in every way. It's basically a way to just bypass every restriction for keeping signing bonuses reasonable and predictable for all teams, which I believe is a good thing for baseball.
|
|
|
Post by soxpatsceltics on Jun 17, 2017 13:56:43 GMT -5
I just wanted to chime in regarding the 2 1st round pick penalties... losing 1st rounders then makes it easier to stomach signing qualifying FAs because then they only lose a 2nd rounder.
As for the strategy... it makes sense for a team that's completely barren in the farm but not so bad that they will get top 10 picks like the LA Angels or the Marlins. Basically, they can completely replenish the farm for the cost of 2 future 1sts and the bonus money of a premium IFA prospect or mid-tier FA.
The Sox could qualify for this strategy soon... outside of Devers and Groome, they really don't have any prospect above 45 FV.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 17, 2017 21:15:26 GMT -5
Updated list: I think it makes sense to Tanner Houck at the top spot since we picked him over Carlson with presumably no concerns regarding signability. Signability was likely a bigger factor starting in Round 2 with Enlow who is apparently agreeing to a deal worth ~2 mill. 1 (24). Sam Carlson (15) – RHP – Burnsville HS, Committed to Florida.....or.....Tanner Houck (20) - RHP - U. Missouri 2 (63). Blayne Enlow (29) – RHP – St. Amant HS, Committed to LSU 3 (101). Tanner Burns (39) – RHP – Decatur HS, Committed to Auburn 4 (131). Evan Skoug (48) – C – TCU (Junior) 5 (161). Alex Scherff (52) – RHP – Colleyville Heritage HS, Committed to Texas A&M 6 (191). Tristan Beck (53) – RHP – Stanford (Sophomore) 7 (221). Garrett Mitchell (54) – CF – Orange Lutheran HS, Committed to UCLA 8 (251). Daniel Cabrera (55) – CF – Parkview Baptist School, Committed to LSU 9 (281). Blaine Knight (58) – RHP – Arkansas (Sophomore) 10 (311). Jake Eder (66) – LHP – Calvary Christian Academy, Committed to Vanderbilt 11 (341). Bryce Bonnin (74) – RHP – Barbers Hill HS, Committed to Arkansas 12 (371). Brady McConnell (75) – SS – Merritt Island HS, Committed to Florida 13 (401). Kyle Hurt (78) – RHP – Torrey Pines HS, Committed to USC 14 (431). Shane Drohan (80) – LHP – Cardinal Newman HS, Committed to Florida State 15 (461). Greg Jones (84) – SS – Cary HS, Committed to UNC-Wilmington 16 (491). Chris McMahon (100) – RHP – West Chester Rustin HS, Committed to Miami 17 (521). Jake Mangum (102) – CF – Mississippi State (Sophomore) 18 (551). Jackson Rutledge (111) – RHP – Rockwood Summit HS, Committed to Arkansas 19 (581). Kyle Jacobsen (117) – CF – Allatoona HS, Committed to South Carolina 20 (611). Jordan Anderson (118) – CF – James Clemens HS, Committed to Mississippi State Looking at the positions, the problem of roster management becomes more apparent. If we could sign all 20, we'd need to find a home for 12 starting pitchers and 5 CF. If a team were to realistically try and pull this off, you'd probably adjust your board for some positional balance. Would anyone here trade Andrew Benintendi, Jason Groome, and something like $90 million for that group of players? Because if the Red Sox had taken this strategy in 2014, a season in which they were coming off a World Series, that's what it'd have been.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Jun 17, 2017 22:08:49 GMT -5
One question I have is if the Red Sox did this in theory, Lets say the same year they lose a couple of free agents with compensation how would that be addressed? Would they only lose there first rounder.
|
|
|
Post by ikonos on Jun 17, 2017 22:42:36 GMT -5
Interesting thread and I am not a believer in the viability of this plan for various reasons and I think they can spend the money in other ways with out risking the wrath of the league. 1) Redsox has an issue for not being able to develop draft picks well. Could the money be spent on addressing those by getting better coaches and methods? Why dont they get the top coaches? Could it be economics? Could it be more difficult than we believe? 2) Teams like Houston went from floor to the top not just by picking at the top of the draft. They probably had a better scouting operation and better talent evaluaters or better decision makers at the helm. They could spend that money there and do it the right way. Why dont every team do this? 3) Draft picks picked in first round flame routinely because there is much more to why they become a productive player in MLB than just talent. 4) MLB is a group of 30 rich guys (certain level of ego comes with being rich) collectively agree on a group of people to run the league. Some of those owners have varying degrees of interest/influence on the league management. Assuming they will look away when one of them is trying to get a leg up by exploiting the rules is not reasonable. They can find ways (unpublished in the rule book) to punish the offending team with out recourse or just blackball the team. There will be no wrath of the league, it's 100% within the rules. You wouldn't be breaking any rules. Not a single one. It's no different than what we did for Moncada. What happend there? The rules got changed to a hard cap. We did have to deal with the wrath of the league. Come on Houston absolutely is where they are now due to a crap load of high picks. Where do you think there top players came from? The tanked for years to get top pick after top pick. How is the Red Sox scouting bad? Or us developing players? Or our coaches? Have you looked at the major league team and all the top prospects we dealt? Sure seems to me we are good at scouting, coaching and developing our young players. Remember this we didn't have like 5 years of top 5 picks either like Houston did. What the Red Sox have done is far more impressive than what Houston did. I am not sure Moncada is a good example as he was open for any ones bidding and Redsox went for it. As far as I know, I dont think there are any limits or restrictions on his signing. Houston is not the first team that had top picks year after year and not all of them turned in to a world series contender few years later. If you look at Tampa, dont you think what turned them around is the hiring of Maddon? As for Red Sox, I always thought their scouting is good. But my point is the money can be spent to make it better. Regarding developing young players, my focus was on pitching as I dont remember many pitchers they developed over the last 15 years (since I have been following them) from the ametuer draft. Off the cuff I can only remember Lester, Papelbon, Masterson and I guess you can add Bard before he fizzled out.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 18, 2017 12:56:35 GMT -5
There will be no wrath of the league, it's 100% within the rules. You wouldn't be breaking any rules. Not a single one. It's no different than what we did for Moncada. What happend there? The rules got changed to a hard cap. We did have to deal with the wrath of the league. Come on Houston absolutely is where they are now due to a crap load of high picks. Where do you think there top players came from? The tanked for years to get top pick after top pick. How is the Red Sox scouting bad? Or us developing players? Or our coaches? Have you looked at the major league team and all the top prospects we dealt? Sure seems to me we are good at scouting, coaching and developing our young players. Remember this we didn't have like 5 years of top 5 picks either like Houston did. What the Red Sox have done is far more impressive than what Houston did. I am not sure Moncada is a good example as he was open for any ones bidding and Redsox went for it. As far as I know, I dont think there are any limits or restrictions on his signing. Houston is not the first team that had top picks year after year and not all of them turned in to a world series contender few years later. If you look at Tampa, dont you think what turned them around is the hiring of Maddon? As for Red Sox, I always thought their scouting is good. But my point is the money can be spent to make it better. Regarding developing young players, my focus was on pitching as I dont remember many pitchers they developed over the last 15 years (since I have been following them) from the ametuer draft. Off the cuff I can only remember Lester, Papelbon, Masterson and I guess you can add Bard before he fizzled out. You had a set amount of money for international players, just like the slot money in Draft. If you went by it, you were limited to signing guys for something like 100,000 max for two years. It's just like the penalties for going over on the draft. Instead of losing two first round picks, the amount you could give to players was limited for two years. Houston did a good job, but it's easier when you have all the top picks they did. Maddon helped, but it was not the turning point for them. They basically did what Houston did in getting a bunch of top picks and great talent. Thing is they couldn't sign them long-term and no team will just keep hitting on a crap load of picks year after year. You forget Sanchez who we traded for Beckett. You also are leaving out leaving out the recent guys like Espinoza, Kopech and Groome. In the draft you should be taking best player available. So sometimes that means you get a Groome or Kopech, other times it means getting players like Swihart, Bradley and Benintendi. You can't say a team is doing something wrong if they keep turning out elite prospects. This happens all the time. Some teams have a ton of hitters in system, some have a ton of arms. There is no the money can be spent to make it better. I guarantee you the Red Sox rank as one of the top spending teams on scouting, coaching and developing players. I mean that scouting added 3 premium arms, all top 100 prospects. Has another team added more in the last 3 years? Look at the arms they added this year. You seem to be thinking we can spend more money, when in reality it's more luck than anything. Luck that when you pick a top rated pitcher fell to you and not a hitter. Look at this year, if Kendall fell one more spot, we might have drafted a CF and not a pitcher, because he was best player available. If you really wanted to spend money and add talent, my idea about blowing up the draft is a better option.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 18, 2017 13:38:39 GMT -5
I am not sure Moncada is a good example as he was open for any ones bidding and Redsox went for it. As far as I know, I dont think there are any limits or restrictions on his signing. Houston is not the first team that had top picks year after year and not all of them turned in to a world series contender few years later. If you look at Tampa, dont you think what turned them around is the hiring of Maddon? As for Red Sox, I always thought their scouting is good. But my point is the money can be spent to make it better. Regarding developing young players, my focus was on pitching as I dont remember many pitchers they developed over the last 15 years (since I have been following them) from the ametuer draft. Off the cuff I can only remember Lester, Papelbon, Masterson and I guess you can add Bard before he fizzled out. You had a set amount of money for international players, just like the slot money in Draft. If you went by it, you were limited to signing guys for something like 100,000 max for two years. It's just like the penalties for going over on the draft. Instead of losing two first round picks, the amount you could give to players was limited for two years. Houston did a good job, but it's easier when you have all the top picks they did. Maddon helped, but it was not the turning point for them. They basically did what Houston did in getting a bunch of top picks and great talent. Thing is they couldn't sign them long-term and no team will just keep hitting on a crap load of picks year after year. You forget Sanchez who we traded for Beckett. You also are leaving out leaving out the recent guys like Espinoza, Kopech and Groome. In the draft you should be taking best player available. So sometimes that means you get a Groome or Kopech, other times it means getting players like Swihart, Bradley and Benintendi. You can't say a team is doing something wrong if they keep turning out elite prospects. This happens all the time. Some teams have a ton of hitters in system, some have a ton of arms. There is no the money can be spent to make it better. I guarantee you the Red Sox rank as one of the top spending teams on scouting, coaching and developing players. I mean that scouting added 3 premium arms, all top 100 prospects. Has another team added more in the last 3 years? Look at the arms they added this year. You seem to be thinking we can spend more money, when in reality it's more luck than anything. Luck that when you pick a top rated pitcher fell to you and not a hitter. Look at this year, if Kendall fell one more spot, we might have drafted a CF and not a pitcher, because he was best player available. If you really wanted to spend money and add talent, my idea about blowing up the draft is a better option. The crucial difference is that in the international market, there is no draft to distribute talent evenly among clubs. You could sign the top 20 international free agents at once if you wanted - enough to offset your ability to do so for the following two years. In the draft, as we can see here, you're not going to come out with multiple first-round talents - at best you're getting two, and at least one is probably going to be a borderline first/second guy. That's a crucial difference and why some teams deemed it worth going all-in once every three years. For example, this year, the Red Sox couldn't just go and sign Greene and McKay and Wright. In the international market, you could do that, at least before.
|
|
|
Post by joshuacoffee on Jun 21, 2017 7:59:35 GMT -5
I've been lurking on the board for awhile and this post was intriguing enough to make me register. I think its worth considering, and maybe in a vacuum you could make the argument for this. Ultimately though, if you gave me the choice of spending 150M on the draft every 3 years, or spending 50M more in major league salaries every year, I'd take the latter every time. Sure, we've all seen that spending big money doesn't guarantee no bust, but it certainly lowers the risk, especially over a handful of 18 year old kids.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 21, 2017 8:18:44 GMT -5
I've been lurking on the board for awhile and this post was intriguing enough to make me register. I think its worth considering, and maybe in a vacuum you could make the argument for this. Ultimately though, if you gave me the choice of spending 150M on the draft every 3 years, or spending 50M more in major league salaries every year, I'd take the latter every time. Sure, we've all seen that spending big money doesn't guarantee no bust, but it certainly lowers the risk, especially over a handful of 18 year old kids. The thing with MLB salaries, though, is the luxury tax and all it's consequences under the new collective bargaining agreement
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 21, 2017 8:47:56 GMT -5
I've been lurking on the board for awhile and this post was intriguing enough to make me register. I think its worth considering, and maybe in a vacuum you could make the argument for this. Ultimately though, if you gave me the choice of spending 150M on the draft every 3 years, or spending 50M more in major league salaries every year, I'd take the latter every time. Sure, we've all seen that spending big money doesn't guarantee no bust, but it certainly lowers the risk, especially over a handful of 18 year old kids. The thing with MLB salaries, though, is the luxury tax and all it's consequences under the new collective bargaining agreement What are the consequences of the CBT that don't apply to the draft? If anything the draft penalties are worse.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 21, 2017 10:19:41 GMT -5
The thing with MLB salaries, though, is the luxury tax and all it's consequences under the new collective bargaining agreement What are the consequences of the CBT that don't apply to the draft? If anything the draft penalties are worse. Yeah, spaced on that this morning. They are both pretty draconian now
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 11, 2018 15:41:43 GMT -5
Sorry I don't mean to distract from other draft conversation, but if anyone here is curious as to what our draft would have looked like if we selected MLB's BPA at each of our picks in Rounds 1-20, I put that together:
1 (26). Shane McClanahan (14) – LHP – South Florida.....or.....Triston Casas (20) – 1B – American Heritage HS, Committed to Miami 2 (64). Cole Wilcox (19) – RHP – Heritage HS (GA), Committed to Georgia 3 (100). Kumar Rocker (23) – RHP – North Oconee HS (GA), Committed to Vanderbilt 4 (130). Nander De Sedas (55) – SS – Montverde Academy (FL), Committed to Florida St. 5 (160). Slade Cecconi (63) – RHP – Trinity Prep School (FLO) Committed to Miami 6 (190). Zach Watson (65) – CF – LSU (Sophomore) 7 (220). Jaden Hill (78) – RHP – Ashdown Sr HS (AR), Committed to LSU 8 (250). Nicholas Northcut (81) – 3B – William Mason HS (OH), Committed to Vanderbilt 9 (280). Zack Hess (91) – RHP – LSU (Sophomore) 10 (310). Brett Hansen (94) – LHP – Foothill HS (CA), Committed to Vanderbilt 11 (340). Austin Becker (95) – RHP – Big Walnut HS (OH), Committed to Vanderbilt 12 (370). Garrett McDaniels (96) – LHP – Pee Dee Academy (SC), Committed to Coastal Carolina 13 (400). Garrett Wade (100) – LHP – Hartselle HS (AL), Committed to Auburn 14 (430). Kameron Guangorena (104) – C – S. John Bosco HS (CA), Committed to Cal State Fullerton 15 (460). Isaiah Campbell (109) – RHP – Arkansas U. 16 (490). Landon Marceaux (117) – RHP – Destrehan HS (LA), Committed to LSU 17 (520). Owen Sharts (119) – RHP – Simi Valley HS (CA), Committed to Nevada 18 (550). Chander Champlain (120) – RHP – Santa Margarita HS (CA), Committed to USC 19 (580). Kerry Wright (121) – RHP – Monteverde Academy (FL), Committed to Louisville 20 (610). Ty Madden (122) – RHP – Cypress Ranch HS (TX), Committed to Texas
HS pitchers are the most likely prospects to drop in the draft (I'd imagine due to both signing demands and volatility), therefore you end up with a draft that is unreasonably skewed toward this demographic.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 1, 2019 14:49:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Jun 1, 2019 18:44:06 GMT -5
The Yankees and others already tried this on the July 2 side, with poor results bleacherreport.com/articles/2121003-how-yankees-international-spending-spree-could-impact-farm-futureFrom Kiley McDaniel, here's a list of players the Yankees have signed (with Emery added): Player Position Country BA Rank Signing Bonus Juan De Leon OF Dominican Republic 2 $2M Nelson Gomez 3B Dominican Republic 6 $2.25M Wilkerman Garcia SS Dominican Republic 7 $1.35M Dermis Garcia 3B Dominican Republic 9 $3M Miguel Flames C Venezuela 16 $1M Hyo-Joon Park SS South Korea 18 $1.1M Jonathan Amundaray RF Venezuela 22 $1.5M Bryan Emery OF Colombia 23 $500K Diego Castillo SS Venezuela 24 $750K Antonio Arias CF Dominican Republic 28 $800K Frederick Cuevas OF Dominican Republic N/A $300K Griffin Garabito SS Dominican Republic N/A $225K Servando Hernandez RHP Venezuela N/A $200K Now, 16 year old international players are different from 21 year olds college kids, but still, the price would be equally excessive. A big bet.
|
|
|