PDA

View Full Version : BA: Draft Order



New Fever
12-04-2006, 12:38 PM
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/askba/262950.html

The Reds have the 15th, 36th, 62nd and 67th picks right now. They also explain the new supplemental process.

New Fever
12-04-2006, 12:51 PM
Also if Scott Schoeneweis signs elsewhere the lowest that pick would be 54th.

edabbs44
12-04-2006, 01:01 PM
If they cheap out I will die.

lollipopcurve
12-04-2006, 01:10 PM
If they cheap out I will die.

They won't -- but if they use 1 of the extra picks for what they consider to be the best available college senior, it won't be the end of the world. I mean, this is an embarrassment of riches for the Reds -- when was the last time they got a compensatory pick? Schramek?

Shaknb8k
12-04-2006, 01:21 PM
How is this draft class supposed to be? I havent really looked into it

edabbs44
12-04-2006, 01:23 PM
They won't -- but if they use 1 of the extra picks for what they consider to be the best available college senior, it won't be the end of the world. I mean, this is an embarrassment of riches for the Reds -- when was the last time they got a compensatory pick? Schramek?

Agreed, but they can mop up here. This NEVER happens to Cincy and I am sure RZ will need added bandwith for that day. If they overdraft I will be disappointed.

lollipopcurve
12-04-2006, 01:48 PM
they can mop up here


The extra picks will be fun. Not sure I consider it an opportunity for "mopping up," though. Below is the list of the 7 picks Oakland had in 2002, all before the 2nd round. Note that they're all college kids, yet it looks like 4 of the 7 will either fail to reach the majors or will be marginal at best. Still, Swisher, Blanton and Teahen are an excellent haul, in my opinion. The way I see it, by having 5 picks in the top 100 instead of two, the Reds give themselves a decent chance of coming away with a couple of solid major leaguers (as opposed to that being the absolute best-case scenario). Be prepared for some of those top 100 picks to never make it. It's the nature of the draft.


1. Nick Swisher, 1b-of, Ohio State U. (Choice from Red Sox--16th--as compensation for Type A free agent Johnny Damon).
1. Joseph Blanton, rhp, U. of Kentucky (Choice from Yankees--24th--as compensation for Type A free agent Jason Giambi).
1. John McCurdy, ss, U. of Maryland.
1. Ben Fritz, rhp, Fresno State U. (Choice from Cardinals--30th--as compensation for Type A free agent Jason Isringhausen).
1. Jeremy Brown, c, U. of Alabama (Supplemental pick--35th--for loss of Giambi).
1. Steve Obenchain, rhp, U. of Evansville (Supplemental pick--37th--for loss of Isringhausen).
1. Mark Teahen, 3b, St. Mary's (Calif.) College (Supplemental pick--39th--for loss of Damon).

edabbs44
12-04-2006, 02:07 PM
Beane also overdrafted a few of those guys, which lessened his chances for hitting it big. This is why I am upset about how much they have been spending on some of these FAs. Come draft day, we'll see a few of these picks as being reaches b/c of monetary concerns.

He signed J Brown for $350k while the next pick got $1.05 million. Also got Teahen under slot ($725k when pick before went for $875k) and Stanley way under slot ($200k when next pick got $567k).

Obviously the draft is a crapshoot and obviously I don't think Cincy is going to strike gold with in 2007, but I'd rather see them draft the best player available and pay them than someone who will be an easy sign.

lollipopcurve
12-04-2006, 02:20 PM
but I'd rather see them draft the best player available and pay them than someone who will be an easy sign.

So would I.

IslandRed
12-04-2006, 03:09 PM
If they cheap out I will die.

Really no reason for any team to cheap out, with the changes in the draft rules.

Falls City Beer
12-04-2006, 03:39 PM
Really no reason for any team to cheap out, with the changes in the draft rules.

If there's a way, the Reds will find it.

redsupport
12-04-2006, 04:03 PM
yes but they signed weathers, rejoice, I am sure they edged many suitors for Weathers . Perhaps Weathers resembled Penelope and the Reds were Odysseus

Falls City Beer
12-04-2006, 09:29 PM
yes but they signed weathers, rejoice, I am sure they edged many suitors for Weathers . Perhaps Weathers resembled Penelope and the Reds were Odysseus

Like Penelope, the Reds keep weaving and unweaving the same ball of yarn in their attempt to delay contention.

redsupport
12-04-2006, 10:44 PM
A true bag of wind is needed

cincyinco
12-05-2006, 02:16 AM
How is this draft class supposed to be? I havent really looked into it

Initial reports I've read say its the strongest draft class in years.. lots of depth and good talent.

Joseph
12-05-2006, 01:21 PM
Initial reports I've read say its the strongest draft class in years.. lots of depth and good talent.

Let's hope thats true and we net another good pick from Schoenweis.

Gallen5862
12-30-2006, 03:30 PM
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/askba/263050.html

In the last two weeks, three more compensation free agents have changed teams. Ryan Klesko (Type B) went from the Padres to Giants, Jeff Suppan (Type A) from the Cardinals to Brewers and Barry Zito (Type A) from the Athletics to the Giants. Zito got $126 million over seven years, and I'll reiterate what I've said before: I'd rather have Daisuke Matsuzaka for six years and $103 million.

Below is the updated draft order for 2007. The supplemental first round currently stands at a whopping 32 picks, and it could swell to 38 if the remaining compensation free agents all change addresses.

First-Round Picks
1. Devil Rays
2. Royals
3. Cubs
4. Pirates
5. Orioles
6. Nationals
7. Brewers
8. Rockies
9. Diamondbacks
10. Giants
11. Mariners
12. Marlins
13. Indians
14. Braves
15. Reds
16. Blue Jays (Frank Catalanotto, A, to Tex)
17. Rangers (Carlos Lee, A, to Hou)
18. Cardinals
19. Phillies
20. Dodgers (Julio Lugo, A, to Bos)
21. Blue Jays
22. Giants (Jason Schmidt, A, to LAD)
23. Padres
24. Rangers (Gary Matthews Jr., A, to LAA)
25. White Sox
26. Athletics
27. Tigers
28. Twins
29. Giants (Moises Alou, A, to NYM)
30. Yankees
Supplemental First-Round Picks
31. Cubs (Juan Pierre, B, to LAD)
32. Nationals (Alfonso Soriano, A, to ChC)
33. Diamondbacks (Craig Counsell, B, to Mil)
34. Giants (Alou)
35. Mariners (Gil Meche, B, to KC)
36. Braves (Danys Baez, A, to Bal)
37. Reds (Rich Aurilia, A, to SF)
38. Rangers (Lee)
39. Cardinals (Jeff Suppan, A, to Mil)
40. Phillies (David Dellucci, A, to Cle)
41. Red Sox (Alex Gonzalez, B, to Cin)
42. Blue Jays (Justin Speier, A, to LAA)
43. Dodgers (Lugo)
44. Padres (Woody Williams, A, to Hou)
45. Angels (Adam Kennedy, B, to StL)
46. Athletics (Barry Zito, A, to SF)
47. Tigers (Jamie Walker, B, to Bal)
48. Mets (Roberto Hernandez, A, to Cle)
49. Nationals (Jose Guillen, B, to Sea)
50. Diamondbacks (Miguel Batista, B, to Sea)
51. Giants (Schmidt)
52. Rangers (Matthews)
53. Blue Jays (Catalanotto)
54. Padres (Dave Roberts, A, to SF)
55. Athletics (Frank Thomas, B, to Tor)
56. Mets (Chad Bradford, A, to Bal)
57. Giants (Mike Stanton, B, to Cin)
58. Rangers (Mark DeRosa, B, to ChC)
59. Blue Jays (Ted Lilly, B, to ChC)
60. Padres (Alan Embree, B, to Oak)
61. Padres (Ryan Klesko, B, to SF)
62. Diamondbacks (have yet to sign 2006 first-rounder Max Scherzer)
Second-Round Changes
65. Nationals (Soriano to ChC)
67. Braves (Baez to Bal)
69. Cardinals (Suppan to Mil)
72. Athletics (Zito to SF)
75. Mets (Hernandez to Cle)
79. Padres (Williams to Hou)
86. Blue Jays (Speier to LAA)
Third-Round Changes
97. Mets (Bradford to Bal)
102. Reds (Aurilia to SF)
105. Phillies (Dellucci to Cle)
Fourth-Round Changes
132. Padres (Roberts to SF)
Remaining Compensation Free Agents
Bos: Keith Foulke (B).
Cin: Scott Schoeneweis (B).
NYY: Ron Villone (B).
StL: Mark Mulder (B).
SD: Chan Ho Park (B), David Wells (B).

Redmachine2003
12-30-2006, 06:28 PM
This is the problem with the draft comp. The Giants sign several A free agents and still get 6 picks in the top 60. They sign the Reds A free agents and the Reds have to wait for the Giants to pick 4 times before the Reds receive the sandwhich for it and then another 3 picks by the Giants before they get there suppose to be 1st round comp pick.

Topcat
12-31-2006, 08:10 AM
All I care about is they draft Pitchers! Unless its an obvious shy away by other teams because of $$$ concerns on a phenomenal positional talent. Pitching more pitching and extra gravy with pitching! Simple reason is that pitching can get you any other talent in a trade.

dougdirt
12-31-2006, 12:58 PM
So can good hitting topcat. Pitching can also flame out 10 times faster than hitting. Injuries hardly ever ruin a hitting career....injuries quite often can ruin a pitching career.

Topcat
01-02-2007, 06:32 AM
So can good hitting topcat. Pitching can also flame out 10 times faster than hitting. Injuries hardly ever ruin a hitting career....injuries quite often can ruin a pitching career.

Dirt I agree with what you are saying. I respect the knowledge you bring to this forum. I just want to add that it is a mixed bag of things that the draft adds to a team. I just honestly feel that excess of pitching prospects brings a team far better returns in deals.

dougdirt
01-02-2007, 12:30 PM
Topcat, the problem is with the baseball draft, it is such a crapshoot that at least in my opinion, you have to take the best guy available.

edabbs44
01-02-2007, 01:09 PM
Topcat, the problem is with the baseball draft, it is such a crapshoot that at least in my opinion, you have to take the best guy available.

In this era I think you have to do that, but to a point. If there are 2 players on the board who are worthy of the pick and player A is a college starter and player B is a bat, I would lean towards the pitcher. Sure injuries are a concern, but I think it has been proven that college arms are safer than HS arms.

I think hitting is easier to find than pitching in the FA market, and cheaper. So I'd rather be rich in pitching than hitting.

Think Meche vs Aurilia.

Or look at it this way...right now, the A's might get one of the top hitting prospects in baseball for Joe Blanton, he of the 2006 4.82 ERA. So if you bring up some young pitching prospects and they don't do that well, you can always trade them for a top minor league OF. :D

dougdirt
01-02-2007, 03:22 PM
Who might the A's get for Joe Blanton thats a top hitting prospect?

edabbs44
01-02-2007, 03:41 PM
Who might the A's get for Joe Blanton thats a top hitting prospect?

Milledge

jojo
01-02-2007, 06:21 PM
In this era I think you have to do that, but to a point. If there are 2 players on the board who are worthy of the pick and player A is a college starter and player B is a bat, I would lean towards the pitcher. Sure injuries are a concern, but I think it has been proven that college arms are safer than HS arms.

I think hitting is easier to find than pitching in the FA market, and cheaper. So I'd rather be rich in pitching than hitting.

Think Meche vs Aurilia.

Or look at it this way...right now, the A's might get one of the top hitting prospects in baseball for Joe Blanton, he of the 2006 4.82 ERA. So if you bring up some young pitching prospects and they don't do that well, you can always trade them for a top minor league OF. :D


Here's what I'd do and why:

Draft the best available college guy with the position player getting the nod when its a toss up between pitcher and position guy...

The Reds are basically just getting A ball in order with a dramatic void existing between the majors and A ball with the exception of Homer and Votto (who has a lot left to prove his one good year notwithstanding). They've adopted a small market payroll philosophy so they basically have to build from within on the young and cheap or trade for need with the bites at the free agent apple kept to a minimum. The quickest way to both get in house talent flowing and rebuild the farm is through drafting college guys both because they are more experienced and because they have less risk than HS/Latin youngsters (because you can better evaluate what your getting through a bigger sample size against tougher competition). All things being equal, the position guy gets the nod because there is less chance of injury causing the position guy to flame out as Doug said.....

So by minimizing risk, there's a greater chance of getting the farm pipeline humming...

BTW, Omar trades Milledge for Blanton only if he's desperate and a bit drunk...

edabbs44
01-02-2007, 07:00 PM
Here's what I'd do and why:

Draft the best available college guy with the position player getting the nod when its a toss up between pitcher and position guy...

The Reds are basically just getting A ball in order with a dramatic void existing between the majors and A ball with the exception of Homer and Votto (who has a lot left to prove his one good year notwithstanding). They've adopted a small market payroll philosophy so they basically have to build from within on the young and cheap or trade for need with the bites at the free agent apple kept to a minimum. The quickest way to both get in house talent flowing and rebuild the farm is through drafting college guys both because they are more experienced and because they have less risk than HS/Latin youngsters (because you can better evaluate what your getting through a bigger sample size against tougher competition). All things being equal, the position guy gets the nod because there is less chance of injury causing the position guy to flame out as Doug said.....

So by minimizing risk, there's a greater chance of getting the farm pipeline humming...

BTW, Omar trades Milledge for Blanton only if he's desperate and a bit drunk...

And then the team resembles the 2005-2006 Cincinnati Reds, with a lot of hitting and a lot of crying about pitching prices.

Draft hitters, cry about pitching, repeat.

jojo
01-02-2007, 09:45 PM
And then the team resembles the 2005-2006 Cincinnati Reds, with a lot of hitting and a lot of crying about pitching prices.

Draft hitters, cry about pitching, repeat.

Not necesarily...if the best available guy is clearly a pitcher, you take him. To minimize risk, I would simply set the bar higher for taking a pitcher. He has to be a college player and he has to clearly be better than the next guy on your board. I'd suggest such an approach would actually increase your chances of having true pitching prospects over time.

Also, the development of bona fide position playing prospects, even if theyre blocked, means you have more trade bait to address needs on the roster. The key is to develop as many true prospects as you can. Simply going from drafting 2 guys a year that will make a major league roster to 3 guys a year would be a huge thing over the course of five years. That would be a clear competitive advantage for a small market team and it could all start with better risk management during the draft.

dougdirt
01-02-2007, 10:10 PM
Milledge

Milledge isnt a top bat. The guy has no pop whatever in his bat...
I wouldnt call him a top hitting prospect.... When I think of those guys, Bruce, Young, Gordon, Tulowitzki, Wood, Butler and Braun come to mind. Milledge hasnt hit more than 8 HR in a minor league season since A Ball

edabbs44
01-02-2007, 10:52 PM
Milledge isnt a top bat. The guy has no pop whatever in his bat...
I wouldnt call him a top hitting prospect.... When I think of those guys, Bruce, Young, Gordon, Tulowitzki, Wood, Butler and Braun come to mind. Milledge hasnt hit more than 8 HR in a minor league season since A Ball

I get confused about which stats people pay attention to on here, but I'll give this a shot.

1) Someone wrote that PECOTA projects him to be pretty solid over the next 5 years. I know there's a lot of PECOTA fans out here, so take that for whatever it's worth.

2) Bruce (age 19) Low A: 444 ABs, 16 HR, .291/.355/.516
Milledge (age 19) Low A: 261 ABs, 13 HR, .337/.399/.579

3) Milledge (age 20) AA: 193 ABs, 4 HR, .337/.392/.487
Bruce: ?

Milledge had a pretty impressive Low A campaign at age 19. More impressive than Bruce and showing more power. Also looked pretty good after his promotion to AA at age 20. Bruce's age 20 season is yet to be seen.

When I referred to Milledge as a top "bat", I meant top position player vs pitching prospect. But he still looks pretty good as a hitter. Calling Bruce a top "bat" might be a little aggressive but he's on his way. This season will be big for him.

dougdirt
01-02-2007, 11:14 PM
Milledge has seen all of his power leave after his 19 year old season....I dont know why that is, or how it happened, but I think after his 19 year old season his stock dropped. He then turned into a high average, low power guy who has good plate discipline.

edabbs44
01-02-2007, 11:42 PM
Milledge has seen all of his power leave after his 19 year old season....I dont know why that is, or how it happened, but I think after his 19 year old season his stock dropped. He then turned into a high average, low power guy who has good plate discipline.

Power can come back. He's still young and has shown talent. Add in his speed and he's worthy of top prospect status.

jojo
01-03-2007, 11:09 AM
Milledge has seen all of his power leave after his 19 year old season....I dont know why that is, or how it happened, but I think after his 19 year old season his stock dropped. He then turned into a high average, low power guy who has good plate discipline.

Milledge for his minor league career has posted: .303/.384/.473 OPS: 857.

While its true his HR total has been lower than the season he spent in the SAL, you have to remember he has played in some pretty brutal home parks since then. Case in point-last season he was stuck in Norfolk. Norfolk is an absolute disaster for hitters essentially killing everyone's power numbers (well maybe not babe ruth).

Here's Milledge's splits from Norfolk:
home: 0.261/0.385/0.325 OPS: 0.710
away: 0.293/0.391/0.560 OPS: 0.951

Here's what Pecota projects for Milledge at Shea stadium (a pitcher's park):

2007 .284/.356/.457
2008 .287/.361/.467
2009 .288/.365/.472
2010 .290/.371/.480
2011 .287/.368/.477

Now consider Milledge is only 21 and already major league ready (Bill James says the great ones make to the majors at a young age). He also is good enough defensively to play centerfield....imagine those offensive numbers from your above average defensive centerfielder. Also, i'd just throw this out there.... raw power hitters rarely develop into good hitters but good hitters often develop substantial power. This kid has all of the tools, gets on base and SLGs....the homers will probably come.

He would look awesome in the outfield at GABP. I think he has to be considered one of the better hitting prospects around right now...

There is no way I'd trade him for 180 innings of Blanton.

dougdirt
01-03-2007, 01:52 PM
Jojo, I know all about Milledge...he is a good hitter. I cant argue that, but my whole thing is that he isnt a top hitting prospect....he is in that second tier in my mind, becuase of his lack of power (sure his home parks have been bad, but the guy hit 0 HR at home, in 157 at bats you would think he would have had 1 if he had real power and not Sean Casey type power where it gets 5 feet over the fence).

jojo
01-03-2007, 04:29 PM
Jojo, I know all about Milledge...he is a good hitter. I cant argue that, but my whole thing is that he isnt a top hitting prospect....he is in that second tier in my mind, becuase of his lack of power (sure his home parks have been bad, but the guy hit 0 HR at home, in 157 at bats you would think he would have had 1 if he had real power and not Sean Casey type power where it gets 5 feet over the fence).

There is way more to being a top hitting prospect than simple raw power. Good hitters develop power.

Here's another way to frame the argument that Milledge is one of the top hitting prospects around....

Milledge's park-adjusted season totals in context with the park-adjusted league averages in '06:
milledge: .296/.410/.464 OPS: .874
IL ave: .259/.326/.390 OPS: .716

Considering that comparison, he's clearly a top hitting prospect-he was head and shoulders above most everyone else in a pitchers league...

Now consider this comparison:

Milledge's park adjusted IL '06:
.296/.410/.464

major league positional average:
'06 LF: .276/.348/.456
'06 CF: .267/.332/.425
'06 RF: .277/.345/.458

Since 1 pt of OBP is worth roughly 3 pts of SLG, you can see how valuable a hitter that Milledge has the potential to be.... Heck, as shown in a previous post, Pecota projects him to be better than league average offensively in the majors at any outfield position while playing in a pitchers park in '07....at the tender age of 22. The pool of minor leaguers with that distinction is not very big.

Anyway, thats just my humble opinion on Milledge...

Superdude
01-03-2007, 05:49 PM
Milledge's park-adjusted season totals in context with the park-adjusted league averages in '06:
milledge: .296/.410/.464 OPS: .874
IL ave: .259/.326/.390 OPS: .716

Where'd you find park adjusted numbers? Nice. I see what you're saying though. Milledge had a .409 extra base hit percentage and 1.77 doubles and triples per homerun during his low A season. His next two seasons in high A and AA, his XBP dropped to around .300 and hit around 4 doubles and triples per homerun. If the parks were bad, I could see the decrease in homerun power, but there's really no explanation for that kind of drop in XBP. In AAA last year, he was still more of a doubles hitter, but his XBP got back up to a respectable .377. If these parks are as bad as people say they are, a promotion may turn some of those doubles into homeruns and his isoP may get back to where people thought it would be. He's still only like 21, and the tools are definitely there.


Since 1 pt of OBP is worth roughly 3 pts of SLG, you can see how valuable a hitter that Milledge has the potential to be

It's like 1.8 according to The Hardball Times.

jojo
01-03-2007, 08:17 PM
Where'd you find park adjusted numbers? Nice. I see what you're saying though.

minorleaguesplits.com It wont be long before these guys start charging, I bet.


It's like 1.8 according to The Hardball Times.

Thanks for the correction..... Paul Depodesta's quote from moneyball is melded ito my brain ;)

Superdude
01-03-2007, 08:34 PM
Paul Depodesta's quote from moneyball is melded ito my brain

I remember that. DePodesta's the man! Hee Sop Choi baby. :cool:

Javy Pornstache
01-10-2007, 04:32 PM
Also if Scott Schoeneweis signs elsewhere the lowest that pick would be 54th.

Just bumping this up to note that a report is out today stating Schoeneweis is close to signing with the Mets, reportedly for three years. Figured this could use a bump when talking about draft order.

Gallen5862
01-13-2007, 12:12 AM
15. Reds
37. Reds (Rich Aurilia, A, to SF)
52. Reds (Scott Schoeneweis, B, to NYM)
104. Reds (Aurilia to SF)
Those are the Reds first round pick and Supplemental picks.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/askba/263133.html

Type B free agent Scott Schoeneweis has reached a deal with the Mets, which increases the numbers of first-round compensation picks to 33. Another potential compensation choice went by the wayside when Type B Mark Mulder re-upped with the Cardinals. The updated draft order is below.

First-Round Picks
1. Devil Rays
2. Royals
3. Cubs
4. Pirates
5. Orioles
6. Nationals
7. Brewers
8. Rockies
9. Diamondbacks
10. Giants
11. Mariners
12. Marlins
13. Indians
14. Braves
15. Reds
16. Blue Jays (Frank Catalanotto, A, to Tex)
17. Rangers (Carlos Lee, A, to Hou)
18. Cardinals
19. Phillies
20. Dodgers (Julio Lugo, A, to Bos)
21. Blue Jays
22. Giants (Jason Schmidt, A, to LAD)
23. Padres
24. Rangers (Gary Matthews Jr., A, to LAA)
25. White Sox
26. Athletics
27. Tigers
28. Twins
29. Giants (Moises Alou, A, to NYM)
30. Yankees
Supplemental First-Round Picks
31. Cubs (Juan Pierre, B, to LAD)
32. Nationals (Alfonso Soriano, A, to ChC)
33. Diamondbacks (Craig Counsell, B, to Mil)
34. Giants (Alou)
35. Mariners (Gil Meche, B, to KC)
36. Braves (Danys Baez, A, to Bal)
37. Reds (Rich Aurilia, A, to SF)
38. Rangers (Lee)
39. Cardinals (Jeff Suppan, A, to Mil)
40. Phillies (David Dellucci, A, to Cle)
41. Red Sox (Alex Gonzalez, B, to Cin)
42. Blue Jays (Justin Speier, A, to LAA)
43. Dodgers (Lugo)
44. Padres (Woody Williams, A, to Hou)
45. Angels (Adam Kennedy, B, to StL)
46. Athletics (Barry Zito, A, to SF)
47. Tigers (Jamie Walker, B, to Bal)
48. Mets (Roberto Hernandez, A, to Cle)
49. Nationals (Jose Guillen, B, to Sea)
50. Diamondbacks (Miguel Batista, B, to Sea)
51. Giants (Schmidt)
52. Reds (Scott Schoeneweis, B, to NYM)
53. Rangers (Matthews)
54. Red Sox (Keith Foulke, B, to Cle)
55. Blue Jays (Catalanotto)
56. Padres (Dave Roberts, A, to SF)
57. Athletics (Frank Thomas, B, to Tor)
58. Mets (Chad Bradford, A, to Bal)
59. Giants (Mike Stanton, B, to Cin)
60. Rangers (Mark DeRosa, B, to ChC)
61. Blue Jays (Ted Lilly, B, to ChC)
62. Padres (Alan Embree, B, to Oak)
63. Padres (Ryan Klesko, B, to SF)
64. Diamondbacks (have yet to sign 2006 first-rounder Max Scherzer)
Second-Round Changes
67. Nationals (Soriano to ChC)
69. Braves (Baez to Bal)
71. Cardinals (Suppan to Mil)
74. Athletics (Zito to SF)
77. Mets (Hernandez to Cle)
81. Padres (Williams to Hou)
88. Blue Jays (Speier to LAA)
Third-Round Changes
99. Mets (Bradford to Bal)
104. Reds (Aurilia to SF)
107. Phillies (Dellucci to Cle)
Fourth-Round Changes
134. Padres (Roberts to SF)
Remaining Compensation Free Agents
NYY: Ron Villone (B).
SD: Chan Ho Park (B), David Wells (B).

cincyinco
01-14-2007, 12:24 AM
Thanks for the update. Good to have a nice amount of picks in such a "heralded" draft class. I hope we don't skimp on signing some top talent - as I honestly believe this the fundamental way the Reds will right the ship - and I think ownership knows that as well.

The "twins" model of doing things... build the farm up. Well WK, here's your opportunity... don't let us Reds faithful down.

DoogMinAmo
01-14-2007, 03:24 PM
This draft will be a huge test for the new regime. Plenty of talent to fill the coiffers, plenty of picks to showcase an ability to find and develop talent, and an opportunity to show the diehard fans (because banana phoners don't care about the draft) the new ownership will put its money where its mouth is. I will be very happy if this draft turns out as well, relative to the talent level, as last year's.

Gallen5862
01-14-2007, 10:43 PM
Is this draft suppose to be more of a pitchers draft or position players? I would love for the Reds to load up on great pitching prospects this draft and get some good bats as well.

Shaknb8k
02-01-2007, 11:55 AM
I just picked up the Baseball America Prospect Handbook and in the back of the book it list the signing bonus' for the '06 and '05 drafts for the top 100 picks. That got me thinking about how much we are looking at for the '07 draft in signing bonus'.

Right now the Reds have picks 15, 37, 52, 104. In 2006 the signing bonus for around those four picks are right around 3.6 million and in 2005 it was right around 3.5 so in '07 its going to be right around that much to sign those top 4 draft picks.

It also list the budgets for the last 4 drafts: 2003-3.1 million, 2004-4.7 million, 2005-3.8 million, and 2006-3.9 million.

So pretty much the Reds are going to have to up the budget for the draft this year or go cheap. Do teams typically set the budget around the draft picks or do they set a budget and then draft players that fit into that?

Kc61
02-01-2007, 12:01 PM
I just picked up the Baseball America Prospect Handbook and in the back of the book it list the signing bonus' for the '06 and '05 drafts for the top 100 picks. That got me thinking about how much we are looking at for the '07 draft in signing bonus'.

Right now the Reds have picks 15, 37, 52, 104.


So pretty much the Reds are going to have to up the budget for the draft this year or go cheap. Do teams typically set the budget around the draft picks or do they set a budget and then draft players that fit into that?

Perhaps I am mistaken, but the Reds should also have their regular second round pick, which should be around number 78. The publications list the additional or changed picks, but don't always list the regular picks after the first round.

So I think the Reds have 5 picks through number 103 (which is the third round choice).

If they spend the money to sign these five selections and use them wisely, it should be a big boost to the system. I hope they do.

Shaknb8k
02-01-2007, 12:13 PM
Perhaps I am mistaken, but the Reds should also have their regular second round pick, which should be around number 78. The publications list the additional or changed picks, but don't always list the regular picks after the first round.

So I think the Reds have 5 picks through number 103 (which is the third round choice).

If they spend the money to sign these five selections and use them wisely, it should be a big boost to the system. I hope they do.

You know i was thinking they had a pick between that 50 and 100 picks but i just wasnt sure how it all worked. But anyways.... that makes it even better. Thanks for letting me know.

edabbs44
02-01-2007, 12:25 PM
I just picked up the Baseball America Prospect Handbook and in the back of the book it list the signing bonus' for the '06 and '05 drafts for the top 100 picks. That got me thinking about how much we are looking at for the '07 draft in signing bonus'.

Right now the Reds have picks 15, 37, 52, 104. In 2006 the signing bonus for around those four picks are right around 3.6 million and in 2005 it was right around 3.5 so in '07 its going to be right around that much to sign those top 4 draft picks.

It also list the budgets for the last 4 drafts: 2003-3.1 million, 2004-4.7 million, 2005-3.8 million, and 2006-3.9 million.

So pretty much the Reds are going to have to up the budget for the draft this year or go cheap. Do teams typically set the budget around the draft picks or do they set a budget and then draft players that fit into that?

This is the big question...whether or not they cheap out will tell a lot about the ownership, especially if some big name pitching falls due to $ concerns.

IslandRed
02-01-2007, 12:27 PM
So pretty much the Reds are going to have to up the budget for the draft this year or go cheap. Do teams typically set the budget around the draft picks or do they set a budget and then draft players that fit into that?

I expect they'll probably budget whatever they figure it'll take to sign the picks they have. They got their picks signed quickly last year without any obvious punts due to signability... Whatever dumb or cheap things prior owners or GMs have done, the current occupants haven't given me reason to believe they'll cut corners on the draft. For a small-market team, that's just shooting yourself in the foot.

IslandRed
02-01-2007, 12:31 PM
This is the big question...whether or not they cheap out will tell a lot about the ownership, especially if some big name pitching falls due to $ concerns.

I don't expect any really big names to fall very far due to the new comp rules. I think there are plenty of teams out there just waiting to challenge Boras now.

New Fever
02-01-2007, 04:03 PM
Pick 103 is actually the Giants pick that we got for Aurillia, and our own 3rd round pick is 108. So the Reds have six picks in the top 108.

M2
02-01-2007, 05:53 PM
Supposedly it's a good, deep draft coming up. The Reds should have lots of intriguing talent on the board for those first six picks. This should make up for the last time the Reds went into the draft holding a bunch of extra picks, 2000, which turned out to be the worst draft class in history.

New Fever
02-09-2007, 01:52 PM
The Reds pick at 37 was moved up to 34 because all of the Type A picks will be before Type B free agent picks. The Reds now have the 15th, 34th, 53rd, 2nd round pick, 103rd, 108.

Gallen5862
02-09-2007, 03:37 PM
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/askba/263316.html

The last two remaining compensation free agents still haven't signed. But there has been a reshuffling of the draft order, as Major League Baseball has announced a change in the sequence of supplemental first-round picks.

In the past, the supplemental first round mirrored the order of the other rounds, with no distinction made between the quality of free agents lost. Now all the compensation picks for Type A free agents (among the top 30 percent at their position) will come before those for Type B free agents (the best 31-50 percent). Choices for failure to sign a first-rounder from the previous draft will continue to come at the end of the first round.

The revised order:

First-Round Picks
1. Devil Rays
2. Royals
3. Cubs
4. Pirates
5. Orioles
6. Nationals
7. Brewers
8. Rockies
9. Diamondbacks
10. Giants
11. Mariners
12. Marlins
13. Indians
14. Braves
15. Reds
16. Blue Jays (Frank Catalanotto, A, to Tex)
17. Rangers (Carlos Lee, A, to Hou)
18. Cardinals
19. Phillies
20. Dodgers (Julio Lugo, A, to Bos)
21. Blue Jays
22. Giants (Jason Schmidt, A, to LAD)
23. Padres
24. Rangers (Gary Matthews Jr., A, to LAA)
25. White Sox
26. Athletics
27. Tigers
28. Twins
29. Giants (Moises Alou, A, to NYM)
30. Yankees
Supplemental First-Round Picks
31. Nationals (Alfonso Soriano, A, to ChC)
32. Giants (Alou)
33. Braves (Danys Baez, A, to Bal)
34. Reds (Rich Aurilia, A, to SF)
35. Rangers (Lee)
36. Cardinals (Jeff Suppan, A, to Mil)
37. Phillies (David Dellucci, A, to Cle)
38. Blue Jays (Justin Speier, A, to LAA)
39. Dodgers (Lugo)
40. Padres (Woody Williams, A, to Hou)
41. Athletics (Barry Zito, A, to SF)
42. Mets (Roberto Hernandez, A, to Cle)
43. Giants (Schmidt)
44. Rangers (Matthews)
45. Blue Jays (Catalanotto)
46. Padres (Dave Roberts, A, to SF)
47. Mets (Chad Bradford, A, to Bal)
48. Cubs (Juan Pierre, B, to LAD)
49. Nationals (Jose Guillen, B, to Sea)
50. Diamondbacks (Craig Counsell, B, to Mil)
51. Giants (Mike Stanton, B, to Cin)
52. Mariners (Gil Meche, B, to KC)
53. Reds (Scott Schoeneweis, B, to NYM)
54. Rangers (Mark DeRosa, B, to ChC)
55. Red Sox (Alex Gonzalez, B, to Cin)
56. Blue Jays (Ted Lilly, B, to ChC)
57. Padres (Alan Embree, B, to Oak)
58. Angels (Adam Kennedy, B, to StL)
59. Athletics (Frank Thomas, B, to Tor)
60. Tigers (Jamie Walker, B, to Bal)
61. Diamondbacks (Miguel Batista, B, to Sea)
62. Red Sox (Keith Foulke, B, to Cle)
63. Padres (Ryan Klesko, B, to SF)
64. Diamondbacks (have yet to sign 2006 first-rounder Max Scherzer)
Second-Round Changes
67. Nationals (Soriano to ChC)
69. Braves (Baez to Bal)
71. Cardinals (Suppan to Mil)
74. Athletics (Zito to SF)
77. Mets (Hernandez to Cle)
81. Padres (Williams to Hou)
88. Blue Jays (Speier to LAA)
Third-Round Changes
99. Mets (Bradford to Bal)
104. Reds (Aurilia to SF)
107. Phillies (Dellucci to Cle)
Fourth-Round Changes
134. Padres (Roberts to SF)
Remaining Compensation Free Agents
NYY: Ron Villone (B).
SD: Chan Ho Park (B).

bucksfan2
02-09-2007, 04:21 PM
Can someone simply expalin to me how teams get extra picks?

M2
02-09-2007, 04:25 PM
Can someone simply expalin to me how teams get extra picks?

Some of their players get signed as free agents by other teams. If the player is good enough and the original team has offered that player arbitration, then they get a compensation pick dependent on his worth and the draft position of the team that signs him.

MegasAlexandros
02-19-2007, 12:43 PM
Given Foulke announcing his retirement prior to reporting to spring training, do the Sox lose #62 thereby moving the Reds spot to #102?

New Fever
02-22-2007, 03:46 PM
Interesting Notes about the draft order:

The Padres have 8 of the first 88 picks.

The Giants have 6 of the first 51 picks but don't have a second, third or fourth round pick.

The Reds have 6 of the first 110 picks.

The Astros first pick is 112. So the Reds have six picks before the Astros pick first.

The Indians pick at 13 and then don't pick again until 138.

The Yankees don't have any supplemental picks this year.

The Red Sox first pick is 55.

The Rangers have 6 of the first 111 picks.

The Cardinals also have 4 of the first 83

15fan
02-23-2007, 04:55 PM
I'm still trying to figure out the logic that not signing Scott Schoenweis entitles the Reds the #53 pick. Simply losing SS makes the Reds better. And they get a high pick as well?


This should make up for the last time the Reds went into the draft holding a bunch of extra picks, 2000, which turned out to be the worst draft class in history.

I'm not sure that putrid even begins to describe the 2000 draft.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/teams/draft/cincinnati-reds-2000.shtml

For as poorly as the Reds did drafting in 2000, they can hold their heads high. Matt Harrington was not only the biggest loser in the 2000 draft, but possibly the biggest loser in the history of the draft.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/draft/2000/round-1-1.shtml

dougdirt
02-23-2007, 06:12 PM
Matt Harrington may have had the worst advice ever in the history of baseball.....three or four different times.

flyer85
02-23-2007, 06:21 PM
Matt Harrington may have had the worst advice ever in the history of baseball.....three or four different times.sometimes when you make one bad decision you continuing making it to justify the first one.

He really got screwed over by his agent(Tanzer) and the Rockies. It become personal between the agent and the team and the kid ended up getting the shaft.

As far as I know he has pitched a little in the Indy leagues. I'm guessing the $3.5M or so is looking pretty good right now.

dougdirt
02-23-2007, 06:24 PM
Yeah, last I read he was pitching for the same team Luke Hochevar had been pitching for between the 2005 and 2006 drafts. Harrington apparently has lost a lot of velocity from his earlier days.... sitting in the high 80s now.

Outshined_One
02-24-2007, 04:27 AM
As far as I know he has pitched a little in the Indy leagues. I'm guessing the $3.5M or so is looking pretty good right now.

He ended up signing with the Cubs in the offseason. We'll see if he ever breaks into the bigs or washes out once and for all.

Jaycint
02-28-2007, 03:16 PM
I'm still trying to figure out the logic that not signing Scott Schoenweis entitles the Reds the #53 pick. Simply losing SS makes the Reds better. And they get a high pick as well?



I'm not sure that putrid even begins to describe the 2000 draft.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/teams/draft/cincinnati-reds-2000.shtml

For as poorly as the Reds did drafting in 2000, they can hold their heads high. Matt Harrington was not only the biggest loser in the 2000 draft, but possibly the biggest loser in the history of the draft.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/draft/2000/round-1-1.shtml

Hindsight of course being 20/20, it sure would have been nice to grab Adam Wainwright or even Aaron Heilman instead of Espinosa.