SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by stevedillard on Sept 11, 2019 9:50:42 GMT -5
I am going off the assumption that the luxury tax penalty for draft picks ($40 million over the cap) will not kick in next year, and also that the Sox don't sign a free agent that would cost the pick. With those provisos, and the season going downward, the tankathon order as of last night has us at 18th overall, with a realistic downside cap of 15th, and a potential top of 21.
2020 MLB Draft Order PICK TEAM RECORD WIN% GB STREAK L10 1 Detroit 43-100 .301 -- Won 1 4-6 2 Baltimore 46-98 .319 2.5 Lost 6 1-9 3 Miami 51-93 .354 7.5 Lost 2 3-7 4 Kansas City 53-92 .366 9.0 Lost 2 6-4 5 Toronto 56-89 .386 12.0 Won 1 2-8 6 Seattle 59-86 .407 15.0 Won 1 2-8 7 Colorado 61-84 .421 17.0 Won 1 2-8 8 Pittsburgh 63-82 .434 19.0 Lost 1 5-5 9 CHI White Sox 64-80 .444 20.5 Won 2 4-6 10 LA Angels 67-79 .459 22.5 Lost 3 3-7 11 Cincinnati 67-78 .462 23.0 Lost 1 4-6 12 San Diego 67-77 .465 23.5 Won 1 5-5 13 San Francisco 70-75 .483 26.0 Won 1 4-6 14 Texas 72-74 .493 27.5 Lost 1 6-4 15 NY Mets 74-70 .514 30.5 Won 2 6-4 16 Arizona 75-70 .517 31.0 Lost 3 6-4 17 Philadelphia 75-69 .521 31.5 Won 1 6-4 18 Boston 76-69 .524 32.0 Lost 4 3-7 19 Milwaukee 76-68 .528 32.5 Won 5 8-2 20 CHI Cubs 77-67 .535 33.5 Lost 1 4-6 21 Washington 79-64 .552 36.0 Lost 1 4-6 22 St. Louis 81-63 .562 37.5 Lost 1 6-4 23 Cleveland 85-61 .582 40.5 Won 3 6-4 24 Oakland 85-60 .586 41.0 Won 1 6-4 25 Tampa Bay 87-59 .596 42.5 Won 6 9-1 26 Atlanta 90-56 .616 45.5 Lost 1 8-2 27 Minnesota 89-55 .618 45.5 Won 1 6-4 28 LA Dodgers 94-52 .644 49.5 Won 2 6-4 29 NY Yankees 95-51 .651 50.5 Lost 1 7-3 30 Houston 95-51 .651 50.5 Lost 1 7-3
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 11, 2019 10:07:22 GMT -5
I believe they would forfeit a #2 and #5 if they sign a free agent who got a qualifying offer under the new CBA, rather than their #1.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 11, 2019 13:55:12 GMT -5
I believe they would forfeit a #2 and #5 if they sign a free agent who got a qualifying offer under the new CBA, rather than their #1. 2nd and 5th highest selections and $1M from IFA bonus pool if you paid CBT. 3rd highest if you received revenue sharing 2nd highest and $500k from IFA pool if you don't fall into either bucket.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 11, 2019 14:05:51 GMT -5
I believe they would forfeit a #2 and #5 if they sign a free agent who got a qualifying offer under the new CBA, rather than their #1. 2nd and 5th highest selections and $1M from IFA bonus pool if you paid CBT. 3rd highest if you received revenue sharing 2nd highest and $500k from IFA pool if you don't fall into either bucket. All of this crap should be dropped in the next CBA before they even start arguing about the CBA.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 11, 2019 14:09:41 GMT -5
Either get rid of draft pick compensation, or unbundle pick position from pool money. Or both. Preferably both.
Going a step further... if you're going to have a pool, you don't need a draft, right? Like, if everyone has a limited amount to spent, the whole "the Yankees will sign everyone" fear really isn't there.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,643
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 11, 2019 14:16:43 GMT -5
Either get rid of draft pick compensation, or unbundle pick position from pool money. Or both. Preferably both. Going a step further... if you're going to have a pool, you don't need a draft, right? Like, if everyone has a limited amount to spent, the whole "the Yankees will sign everyone" fear really isn't there. I'm sure there's a good reason why this never happened, but instead of both compensating a team for losing a free agent and taking away a draft choice for the acquiring team, why didn't they ever simply compensate a team losing a free agent and not penalize the acquiring team? I mean, I know that the original intent was to "punish" a team for signing another team's free agent. And eventually it grew into a system that Theo gamed when it was lose your draft pick and get two picks and only get penalized one pick for signing a free agent which is kind of how Theo let Orlando Cabrera go and signed Edgar Renteria (and also drafted Jacoby Ellsbury and Jed Lowrie). At this point I think it's unfair to punish a team for signing a free agent although I still think the team losing a player (more likely a small market team) should get something for losing a player, with the picking slot being commensurate with the quality of the player being lost.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 11, 2019 14:52:17 GMT -5
Initially it was to punish teams (primarily large market ones) for signing other teams' players, yes. But when they realized it had the ancillary value of keeping salaries down the teams, rich and poor, just decided to keep it. Meanwhile the players union hired an ex-player instead of a labor lawyer to lead them and they fought for, like, changes to the rehab schedule. Surely, they thought, the owners will negotiate in good faith, and Tony Clark being more likable than Don Fehr will help our standing in the public eye.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,643
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 11, 2019 15:21:41 GMT -5
Initially it was to punish teams (primarily large market ones) for signing other teams' players, yes. But when they realized it had the ancillary value of keeping salaries down the teams, rich and poor, just decided to keep it. Meanwhile the players union hired an ex-player instead of a labor lawyer to lead them and they fought for, like, changes to the rehab schedule. Surely, they thought, the owners will negotiate in good faith, and Tony Clark being more likable than Don Fehr will help our standing in the public eye. Yup...and that's why I believe we are headed for a strike season that will rival 1994 and 1981 (more 1994 than 1981 though). We will get players vs owners, owners vs owners, and who knows, maybe minor leaguers won't be happy with being forgotten among the spoils that the major leaguers have gotten. I think baseball will look a lot different in 2023 when the smoke clears than it does now. The game will see some changes too, I would think, so that baseball doesn't resemble slow pitch softball/HR derby where it's all about the three true outcomes and nothing else, which can be quite boring at times.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by mobaz on Sept 11, 2019 15:40:57 GMT -5
Initially it was to punish teams (primarily large market ones) for signing other teams' players, yes. But when they realized it had the ancillary value of keeping salaries down the teams, rich and poor, just decided to keep it. Meanwhile the players union hired an ex-player instead of a labor lawyer to lead them and they fought for, like, changes to the rehab schedule. Surely, they thought, the owners will negotiate in good faith, and Tony Clark being more likable than Don Fehr will help our standing in the public eye. Yup...and that's why I believe we are headed for a strike season that will rival 1994 and 1981 (more 1994 than 1981 though). We will get players vs owners, owners vs owners, and who knows, maybe minor leaguers won't be happy with being forgotten among the spoils that the major leaguers have gotten. I think baseball will look a lot different in 2023 when the smoke clears than it does now. The game will see some changes too, I would think, so that baseball doesn't resemble slow pitch softball/HR derby where it's all about the three true outcomes and nothing else, which can be quite boring at times. Pace of play, tanking, cratering attendance. Not gonna be pretty.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 11, 2019 18:02:08 GMT -5
Tanking is really a side effect of other issues, though. The bonus allocation pool has made it a big mistake to improve from being a 62-win team to a 68-win team in a way that wasn't ten years ago. And attendance issues are largely an offshoot of that, as competitive teams are drawing well.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 11, 2019 21:01:19 GMT -5
If we finish with the 14th or 15th pick in the first round, we might have a shot at the pitcher from auburn. That would help take some of the sourness of this season away.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Sept 12, 2019 0:10:21 GMT -5
If we finish with the 14th or 15th pick in the first round, we might have a shot at the pitcher from auburn. That would help take some of the sourness of this season away. Since he didn't mention the name of the prospect and he's someone that's never been mentioned on the board before, I feel obligated to say that "the pitcher from auburn" is Tanner Burns.
|
|
|
Post by kjkramer on Sept 12, 2019 10:13:48 GMT -5
Sox have moved from the 18th pick to the 17th pick the last 2 days. I think they have a real good shot to pick as high as 14?
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 12, 2019 20:19:20 GMT -5
If we finish with the 14th or 15th pick in the first round, we might have a shot at the pitcher from auburn. That would help take some of the sourness of this season away. Since he didn't mention the name of the prospect and he's someone that's never been mentioned on the board before, I feel obligated to say that "the pitcher from auburn" is Tanner Burns. Thanks, I forgot his name. I have watched him pitch at auburn the last two years and I think he has the stuff to eventually be a major league starter.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 14, 2019 17:41:44 GMT -5
Either get rid of draft pick compensation, or unbundle pick position from pool money. Or both. Preferably both. Going a step further... if you're going to have a pool, you don't need a draft, right? Like, if everyone has a limited amount to spent, the whole "the Yankees will sign everyone" fear really isn't there. It's kind of funny really. The Yankees never really spent the bucks on the Rule 4 draft in the 1st place. Georgie and all the millions he threw around was a tight wad come draft time for the most part and nothing changed up until CBA time.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Sept 19, 2019 9:16:58 GMT -5
In the mix for 15
2020 MLB Draft Order PICK TEAM RECORD WIN% GB STREAK L10 1 Detroit 45-106 .298 -- Lost 2 3-7 2 Baltimore 49-103 .322 3.5 Lost 3 3-7 3 Miami 53-99 .349 7.5 Lost 1 2-8 4 Kansas City 56-97 .366 10.0 Lost 2 3-7 5 Toronto 61-91 .401 15.5 Won 3 6-4 6 Seattle 64-88 .421 18.5 Won 4 6-4 7 Pittsburgh 65-87 .428 19.5 Lost 5 3-7 8 Colorado 66-87 .431 20.0 Lost 2 6-4 9 CHI White Sox 66-86 .434 20.5 Won 1 4-6 10 San Diego 69-83 .454 23.5 Won 1 3-7 11 LA Angels 69-83 .454 23.5 Won 1 3-7 12 Cincinnati 72-81 .471 26.0 Won 2 6-4 13 Texas 74-79 .484 28.0 Lost 5 4-6 14 San Francisco 74-78 .487 28.5 Won 3 5-5 15 Arizona 78-75 .510 32.0 Won 1 3-7 16 NY Mets 79-73 .520 33.5 Won 2 7-3 17 Philadelphia 78-72 .520 33.5 Won 2 6-4 18 Boston 79-72 .523 34.0 Lost 2 3-7 19 CHI Cubs 82-70 .539 36.5 Lost 2 6-4 20 Milwaukee 82-70 .539 36.5 Lost 1 8-2 21 Washington 83-68 .550 38.0 Lost 1 5-5 22 St. Louis 85-67 .559 39.5 Won 1 5-5 23 Cleveland 89-63 .586 43.5 Won 3 7-3 24 Tampa Bay 90-63 .588 44.0 Won 1 6-4 25 Oakland 92-61 .601 46.0 Won 2 8-2 26 Atlanta 93-60 .608 47.0 Lost 3 4-6 27 Minnesota 93-59 .612 47.5 Lost 1 5-5 28 LA Dodgers 98-55 .641 52.0 Lost 1 6-4 29 NY Yankees 99-54 .647 53.0 Lost 1 6-4 30 Houston 100-53 .654 54.0 Won 5 7-3
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Sept 23, 2019 11:17:05 GMT -5
With 7 games to go, looks like the Red Sox 2020 draft pick will be somewhere between 15 and 21.
15 Arizona 80-76 16 Philadelphia 79-75 17 NY Mets 81-74 18 Boston 81-74 19 CHI Cubs 82-74 20 Milwaukee 86-70 21 Washington 85-69
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,643
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 23, 2019 12:41:02 GMT -5
With 7 games to go, looks like the Red Sox 2020 draft pick will be somewhere between 15 and 21. 15 Arizona 80-76 16 Philadelphia 79-75 17 NY Mets 81-74 18 Boston 81-74
19 CHI Cubs 82-74 20 Milwaukee 86-70 21 Washington 85-69 They'll pick in the teens. Don't see them catching Milwaukee or Washington, which is quite fine. I think they'll wind up 18th. The way this season has gone, I'll say 84-78 winds up the final record and they wind up picking between the Mets and the Cubs.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Sept 24, 2019 9:10:51 GMT -5
Arizona, Philly and NYM all lost last night so no movement. The Sox are technically still in the running for picks 20 or 21, but it's looking more likely that it will be 15-19.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 24, 2019 9:53:34 GMT -5
Nick Gonzales really seems to satisfy the "draft the guy who can hit a ton, especially if being short gets him undervalued, and figure out the position later" approach. At .438/.537/.781 with 42 BB and 29 K... I'm just not super worried about him not being actually a shortstop.
EDIT: .351/.451/.630 for Cotuit in the Cape League as well.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Sept 24, 2019 10:15:41 GMT -5
Nick Gonzales really seems to satisfy the "draft the guy who can hit a ton, especially if being short gets him undervalued, and figure out the position later" approach. At .438/.537/.781 with 42 BB and 29 K... I'm just not super worried about him not being actually a shortstop. EDIT: .351/.451/.630 for Cotuit in the Cape League as well. I'm pretty sure New Mexico State plays in an extreme hitter friendly park, as every hitter on that team has insane stat lines. Nick Gonzales did get rave reviews on the Cape, so it'll be an interesting evaluation.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Sept 25, 2019 8:49:52 GMT -5
With 5 games to go, the Red Sox have the same record as the Mets and Cubs. I'm assuming that the 15th pick is probably out of reach now.
15 Philadelphia 79-78 16 Arizona 81-77 (only 4 games left) 17 NY Mets 82-75 18 Boston 82-75 19 CHI Cubs 82-75
|
|
|
Post by cotuitfan on Sept 25, 2019 12:06:00 GMT -5
As the name implies, I did get a chance to see Nick a ton this Summer. Really quick bat, got better each week in the field. And makeup is off the charts.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Sept 25, 2019 22:38:56 GMT -5
4 games to go:
16 Arizona 82-77 (only 3 games left) 17 CHI Cubs 82-76 18 NY Mets 83-75 19 Boston 83-75
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Sept 26, 2019 22:40:44 GMT -5
3 games to go:
16 Arizona 82-77 17 CHI Cubs 82-77 18 NY Mets 83-76 19 Boston 83-76
*note that the Red Sox lose all tiebreakers by virtue of having the best record in 2018. It's looking more likely that the Red Sox will pick 18 or 19.
|
|
|