PDA

View Full Version : Draft Budget and 40-man Roster



D-Man
06-05-2007, 11:20 AM
Issue #1:

Anyone seen an estimate of the Reds' draft budget this year? If so, has the club budgeted properly for the extra supplemental picks? If the recent past is any indicator, the Reds have targeted "signability" picks in those years they have had the extra picks. I'm fearful we're headed for a few take-it-or-leave-it offers (a la Schramek), or a total punt of one of the picks (a la Sowers).

Issue #2:

According to Jax's web site, the Reds have 39 guys on the 40-man roster. Any chance of giving a polished and MLB-ready player (like Wieters) a major-league contract, if he drops to #15?

http://www.redsinsite.com/playerinfo/roster_chart.php

In general, I think the 40-man for draft picks is a bad idea (Sardinha and Espinosa prove why). But in those years with a vacant 40-man slot and a limited budget per each player drafted, and a polished player falls in your lap. . . Well, that might be a good resolution to the draft conundrum.

Is this why the Reds haven't filled the final 40-man slot--to give them flexibility in the draft?

Danny Serafini
06-05-2007, 11:21 AM
Homer Bailey will take the 40th slot when he gets called up Friday.

D-Man
06-05-2007, 11:25 AM
Homer Bailey will take the 40th slot when he gets called up Friday.

At this point, I believe it is an open question whether that is true or not. Wasn't this based on Fay's speculation, not an actual quote from the FO?

Danny Serafini
06-05-2007, 11:29 AM
The team has now made it official today.

D-Man
06-05-2007, 11:35 AM
The team has now made it official today.

OK thanks.

I'm not an expert on roster management, but I think there still may be some wiggle room in the 40-man roster. Bray or the Lizard could be moved to the 60-day injured roster. Weathers might be traded or Stanton might be released/traded.

So is this a wise path to head down again? Using a 40-man roster spot on a draft pick? That might scratch Boras' itch--guaranteed roster bonuses and the like. Plus, it minimizes the Reds' budget crunch. And all reports are that this Wieters guy is ready to go.

TOBTTReds
06-05-2007, 11:40 AM
Putting a draftee on the 40 is a huge mistake in my opinion. Just creates a major lack of flexibility. We've seen what flexibility can do for your team, just look at our pen (Burton and Stanton are stuck bc of their contracts essentially).

Also, judging by WK's approach, I can't see them giving anyone a ML deal. He works his players through the system very slowly, not that I disagree with it either.

D-Man
06-05-2007, 12:16 PM
Putting a draftee on the 40 is a huge mistake in my opinion. Just creates a major lack of flexibility. We've seen what flexibility can do for your team, just look at our pen (Burton and Stanton are stuck bc of their contracts essentially).

With a limited budget, you have to choose your poison. The downside of putting a draftee on the 40-man is far less than either the Sowers or Schramek approach to drafting. Sure, you might have to do the 40-man kabuki dance for a year or two, or trade a player you would prefer to keep (Espinosa), or pass a guy through waivers (Sardinha). But I would rather have the top-shelf talent the roster guarantee provides. The Reds' main problem is a lack of high impact talent in the system. There is a strong consensus that Wieters is an impact talent--the very best in the draft--and he's ready to play. So if I have to choose between cheaper, lower-quality talent, and top-shelf talent with roster management issues, I would choose the latter.

I suppose it is irrelevant because the club is probably headed in the direction of the former (i.e. Schramek).

Aside: the 40-man issue crops up for players who need time to develop their craft. All of the 40-man busts needed more development time: like Borchard and Samardjzia (football players), Brazelton (needed to develop a curveball), Espinosa (HS player), or Sardinha (those who couldn't hit good pitching). And I don't think Wieters falls into any of these categories.

Aronchis
06-05-2007, 04:43 PM
With a limited budget, you have to choose your poison. The downside of putting a draftee on the 40-man is far less than either the Sowers or Schramek approach to drafting. Sure, you might have to do the 40-man kabuki dance for a year or two, or trade a player you would prefer to keep (Espinosa), or pass a guy through waivers (Sardinha). But I would rather have the top-shelf talent the roster guarantee provides. The Reds' main problem is a lack of high impact talent in the system. There is a strong consensus that Wieters is an impact talent--the very best in the draft--and he's ready to play. So if I have to choose between cheaper, lower-quality talent, and top-shelf talent with roster management issues, I would choose the latter.

I suppose it is irrelevant because the club is probably headed in the direction of the former (i.e. Schramek).

Aside: the 40-man issue crops up for players who need time to develop their craft. All of the 40-man busts needed more development time: like Borchard and Samardjzia (football players), Brazelton (needed to develop a curveball), Espinosa (HS player), or Sardinha (those who couldn't hit good pitching). And I don't think Wieters falls into any of these categories.

No, with a limiteds budget you draft a cheap, wanting to sign, high upside HS bat(yes Mr. Dominguez) then signable college pitchers with your sups. Schramek signed for 90,000 or something like that. He wasn't even a pick.

Right now, that seems to be the way the Reds are heading this draft.

edabbs44
06-05-2007, 04:51 PM
No, with a limiteds budget you draft a cheap, wanting to sign, high upside HS bat(yes Mr. Dominguez) then signable college pitchers with your sups. Schramek signed for 90,000 or something like that. He wasn't even a pick.

Right now, that seems to be the way the Reds are heading this draft.

I will die if one or more Schramek-like picks are made. Knowing that they dropped millions on Stanton, Conine and Moeller will just turn my stomach. I will never trust or believe in this front office to turn this team around. Ever.