PDA

View Full Version : Draft budget



edabbs44
03-26-2007, 04:42 PM
Tidbit from Gammons's blog on espn.com:


This is the way big-market teams should operate: One NL front-office executive says the Red Sox spent $13.5 million in last June's draft, the Yankees spent $13 million and the next biggest spender was at $5 million.

This is why I get upset when I see money flushed down the Cormier. Guys like him will not bring a championship to Cincy and their money is better spent in this manner.

Does anyone think Cincy will go cheap in this draft? I might have to be committed if I see them overdraft a few guys a la Schramek.

bucksfan2
03-26-2007, 04:57 PM
I would hope that the reds do what is right for the club. It seems as if both Krivsky and Castillini know that a farm system is important to the club and should be willing to spend in such a way. I am not that knowledgable about the mlb draft but it seems like it is very risky to be throwing around as much money as the yankees and sox do for a guy who will not play at the big league level for a number of years.

IslandRed
03-26-2007, 05:51 PM
I don't really remember any instances from last summer's draft where genuine top-shelf talent fell way down due to signability concerns, to be easy pickings for the Red Sox and Yankees. I know the Red Sox had a sackful of high picks, that's how they ended up spending a bunch of money. Not sure where the figure for the Yankees came from.

Setting aside whether Drew Stubbs was the right guy to pick, I'm pretty sure that the $2 million he got would have been enough for anyone left on the board at that point.

edabbs44
03-26-2007, 06:04 PM
I don't really remember any instances from last summer's draft where genuine top-shelf talent fell way down due to signability concerns, to be easy pickings for the Red Sox and Yankees. I know the Red Sox had a sackful of high picks, that's how they ended up spending a bunch of money. Not sure where the figure for the Yankees came from.

Setting aside whether Drew Stubbs was the right guy to pick, I'm pretty sure that the $2 million he got would have been enough for anyone left on the board at that point.

Cue Daniel Bard and Lars Anderson for the Red Sox.

Cue Dellin Betances and Joba Chamberlain for the Yankees.

dougdirt
03-26-2007, 06:10 PM
I don't really remember any instances from last summer's draft where genuine top-shelf talent fell way down due to signability concerns, to be easy pickings for the Red Sox and Yankees. I know the Red Sox had a sackful of high picks, that's how they ended up spending a bunch of money. Not sure where the figure for the Yankees came from.

Setting aside whether Drew Stubbs was the right guy to pick, I'm pretty sure that the $2 million he got would have been enough for anyone left on the board at that point.

Dellin Betances was a top 2 round pick who the Yankees took in the late part of the 8th round then signed him for a million dollars. Now it has been rumored that he pulled the "I am only going to sign for the Yankees" crap, but I havent seen that confirmed anywhere. That is a record for the 8th round. For comparison sake, in 2005 we drafted Travis Wood in the second round and he got $660,000 I believe to sign. I dont know off the top of my head of any other examples, but when you pay 1,000,000 for your eighth round pick, something strange is up.

IslandRed
03-26-2007, 06:27 PM
Anderson and Betances, I'll give you.

Bard and Chamberlain signed for close to slot money, so most of the teams that passed on them could have afforded them if they'd wanted to.

Having said that, it's true that if a player is demanding $X when everyone thinks he's worth half that, you can land some extra talent by giving him X. I'm not sure it qualifies as "going cheap" to not do that, though.

edabbs44
03-26-2007, 08:45 PM
Anderson and Betances, I'll give you.

Bard and Chamberlain signed for close to slot money, so most of the teams that passed on them could have afforded them if they'd wanted to.

Having said that, it's true that if a player is demanding $X when everyone thinks he's worth half that, you can land some extra talent by giving him X. I'm not sure it qualifies as "going cheap" to not do that, though.

Bard at 28 got the same bonus as Drabek at 18.
Chamberlain at 41 got more than McCulloch at 29.
Ian Kennedy at 21 for the Yankees got more than Stubbs at 8.
Yankees pick in the 4th (Colin Curtis) got double what the guy in front of him got.

IslandRed
03-27-2007, 12:36 AM
Bard at 28 got the same bonus as Drabek at 18.
Chamberlain at 41 got more than McCulloch at 29.
Ian Kennedy at 21 for the Yankees got more than Stubbs at 8.
Yankees pick in the 4th (Colin Curtis) got double what the guy in front of him got.

... which means that the first 18 teams in the draft could have signed Bard for slot money but thought other players were better, and the next nine could have bumped up just above slot if they thought he was worth it, but didn't.

So it comes down to a simple question. A player, say Daniel Bard, demands more money than you think he's probably worth, but you can get him if you'll pay it because the other teams don't think he's worth it either. Is that smart or not? Danged if I know. It's an easy call for the Yanks and Sox, they'll overpay anyone and everyone because they can.

It'll be interesting to see if the dynamic changes with the new draft rules. Not many teams have been willing to play hardball, pardon the pun, when an unsigned high pick is a pure blown opportunity. Now it's just a deferred opportunity. Personally, I think several clubs will relish the opportunity to prove the point to the Borases of the world.

dougdirt
03-27-2007, 12:43 AM
... which means that the first 18 teams in the draft could have signed Bard for slot money but thought other players were better, and the next nine could have bumped up just above slot if they thought he was worth it, but didn't.

So it comes down to a simple question. A player, say Daniel Bard, demands more money than you think he's probably worth, but you can get him if you'll pay it because the other teams don't think he's worth it either. Is that smart or not? Danged if I know. It's an easy call for the Yanks and Sox, they'll overpay anyone and everyone because they can.

It'll be interesting to see if the dynamic changes with the new draft rules. Not many teams have been willing to play hardball, pardon the pun, when an unsigned high pick is a pure blown opportunity. Now it's just a deferred opportunity. Personally, I think several clubs will relish the opportunity to prove the point to the Borases of the world.

While we are on the subject of this all though.... I am not sure I completely like the new draft rules. If this were in place last season, knowing it was a weak draft and the next years draft is considered strong, someone would have purposely punted their pick to get two first rounders next year. It is one flaw I see with the new system.

IslandRed
03-27-2007, 01:25 AM
While we are on the subject of this all though.... I am not sure I completely like the new draft rules. If this were in place last season, knowing it was a weak draft and the next years draft is considered strong, someone would have purposely punted their pick to get two first rounders next year. It is one flaw I see with the new system.

That's always a possibility, but I think there a few reasons why this won't happen very often, intentionally:

1. The union is watching. If teams start using the extra leverage to try lowballing instead of slotting, this won't last long.

2. Having to wait a year to get that player is still a cost, albeit much preferable to losing the pick altogether.

3. The compensation pick will be diluted if other teams get comp picks in front of you.

BRM
03-27-2007, 02:50 PM
This is why I get upset when I see money flushed down the Cormier.

:laugh:

I'm sorry. I just find that line very funny.