PDA

View Full Version : This makes me sick



Benihana
06-07-2007, 10:46 AM
and is what is wrong with this organization. From yesterday's Keith Law chat:


Joe (Cincinnati): So am I right in saying that if Weiters is available at 15 there is zero chance the Reds will select him due to signability, even though there isnt a decent catcher in the entire organization (including MLB)

Keith Law: I think you're right.

Zach (Cincinnati): Any way the Reds end up with porcello?

Keith Law: None at all.

camisadelgolf
06-07-2007, 10:49 AM
I'd rather have a Ryan Wagner situation over a Jeremy Sowers situation.

Benihana
06-07-2007, 11:02 AM
I'd rather have a Ryan Wagner situation over a Jeremy Sowers situation.

Maybe, but I'd rather have Jeremy Sowers and David Espinosa in the organization and be $4 million poorer, even with a 50% success rate.

Point is, draft the best player available and sign him. Thats what you must do if you are a "player development" organization and struggling big time at the big league level. Why pay $5MM to a guy like Mike Stanton that will never help your team more than a 50% chance that a Weiters or Porcello turns into the player they're projected to be? We took Gruler over Kazmir because of signability concerns, and that worked out great :rolleyes:

TOBTTReds
06-07-2007, 12:14 PM
The Porcello thing may have been a NO because he will absolutely be picked before 15.

LoganBuck
06-07-2007, 12:22 PM
Porcello scares the crap out of me.

1. Boras client
2. HS Arm that throws HARD (supposedly 100) that is alot of stress on such a young arm
3. He got roughed up in his last game.

edabbs44
06-07-2007, 12:24 PM
Porcello scares the crap out of me.

1. Boras client
2. HS Arm that throws HARD (supposedly 100) that is alot of stress on such a young arm
3. He got roughed up in his last game.

Don Bosco, baby!

camisadelgolf
06-07-2007, 12:58 PM
The Porcello thing may have been a NO because he will absolutely be picked before 15.

That's how I would've interpreted it.

Benihana
06-07-2007, 01:00 PM
No, in this same chat Law said he envisions Porcello falling to the Rangers at 24. He said no based off the signability concerns.

NorrisHopper30
06-07-2007, 01:02 PM
A blog on MLB.com says that KC will pick Porcello at #2.

As for the Reds, I really hope we take Weiters if he's available.

ochoa30
06-07-2007, 01:04 PM
A blog on MLB.com says that KC will pick Porcello at #2.

As for the Reds, I really hope we take Weiters if he's available.

Hope is all we reds fans have. Because we all know they would never spend the money. We will get stuck with borbon or someone like him. Makes me sick.

BRM
06-07-2007, 01:04 PM
Doug mentioned on ORG last night that Wayne had a comment along the lines of "I believe in taking the BPA in the draft, but signability plays a role". Same old Reds.

NorrisHopper30
06-07-2007, 01:07 PM
Just finished watching one of ESPN's draft coverage videos and Weiters was shown in it, he looks like Joe Mauer with more power and he is a switch hitter. He sure does have a cannon for an arm too, he is his teams closer also and hits 94mph.

TOBTTReds
06-07-2007, 01:10 PM
Well, Porcello does want about $8 mil right? That's pretty ridiculous. We might have to trade Dunn to sign a high schooler.:rolleyes:

ochoa30
06-07-2007, 01:10 PM
Just finished watching one of ESPN's draft coverage videos and Weiters was shown in it, he looks like Joe Mauer with more power and he is a switch hitter. He sure does have a cannon for an arm too, he is his teams closer also and hits 94mph.

I've been dreaming about this guy for a long time, but the reds are not gonna shell out 10 mil and a major league contract for him. They would rather have mike stanton, unfortunatly.

Superdude
06-07-2007, 01:12 PM
This is truly Castellini's time to shine. I'll almost give him credit for not dumping money into the FA market right now, but this is an entirely different story. It sounds likely that a top 5 talent is going to drop to us. Taking a Weathers or Ahrens over a Porcello or Wieters deserves nothing short of an apology considering where he set the expectations last year.

chicoruiz
06-07-2007, 01:14 PM
I keep hearing Wieters goes #6 to Washington...they have the $$$ and want to make a splash.

dsmith421
06-07-2007, 01:46 PM
This is truly Castellini's time to shine. I'll almost give him credit for not dumping money into the FA market right now, but this is an entirely different story. It sounds likely that a top 5 talent is going to drop to us. Taking a Weathers or Ahrens over a Porcello or Wieters deserves nothing short of an apology considering where he set the expectations last year.

Exactly. If there's a big talent still on the board at 15 and the Reds spit the bit for signability then it's a pretty good sign that Castellini is basically Lindner with better public relations.

MikeS21
06-07-2007, 02:01 PM
Maybe, but I'd rather have Jeremy Sowers and David Espinosa in the organization and be $4 million poorer, even with a 50% success rate.
So would I, but I also think there's a huge difference between paying Jeremy Sowers "fair" market money, and paying Sowers "stupid" money - which was what he was asking for. It makes no sense to overpay a guy just to get him to sign. All that accomplishes is to over-inflate what everybody pays.

Sowers was was in effect telling the Reds, "You give me the moon and I'll skip college." And, Sowers was well within his rights as a high school senior. I do not fault Jeremy Sowers for trying.

There was a large contingent of RedsZone posters at the time who felt the Reds knew this before they took him and was simply punting the pick -knowing he'd never sign for mere market value. Perhaps, but regrdless, it still doesn't justify dishing out "stupid" money.


Point is, draft the best player available and sign him. Thats what you must do if you are a "player development" organization and struggling big time at the big league level. Why pay $5MM to a guy like Mike Stanton that will never help your team more than a 50% chance that a Weiters or Porcello turns into the player they're projected to be? We took Gruler over Kazmir because of signability concerns, and that worked out great :rolleyes:
Two points about Gruler:

It's true that signability was the main issue between Gruler and Kazmir. But, in looking at Baseball America's final Pre-Draft rankings of players, Kazmir was ranked #3, and Gruler was ranked #5 among ALL players-both college and high school. The thing that always gets overlooked is that Chris Gruler was not a bad pick. He was ranked #5 in spite of the fact that he was from a small baseball program and a weak high school league.

Of course we moan and complain now because of the injury to Gruler, but at the time, it wasn't a bad pick. What made it such a controversial pick was the Reds discovered that they could get Gruler at fair market value, and that Kazmir was going to ask for stupid money. Evidently, almost half of the other teams agreed with the Reds because they all passed on him for the SAME reason: signability.

The second point to consider is that right about that same time, Jim Bowden had bought into the fad where everyone in baseball wanted to pick up prototypical right handed starters similar to the Atlanta Braves model. Bowden - and about half the GM's in baseball at the time - was looking for a tall lanky right handed pitcher who threw mid-90's fastballs and had a decent curveball. The Braves had quite a few of these guys in their system: Jason Marquis, Adam Wainwright, Matt McClendon, Matt Belisle, Billy Sylvester, Scott Sobkowiak, etc. Gruler fit the profile. Kazmir didn't.

Benihana
06-07-2007, 02:13 PM
stupid money?

So you admit in hindsight Kazmir was NOT in fact, asking for "stupid" money.

Nor was Prior
Nor was Teixeira
Nor was Jared Weaver
Nor was Stephen Drew
Nor was JD Drew

Just sayin...

Steve4192
06-07-2007, 02:15 PM
stupid money?

So you admit in hindsight Kazmir was NOT in fact, asking for "stupid" money.

Nor was Prior
Nor was Teixeira
Nor was Jared Weaver
Nor was Stephen Drew
Nor was JD Drew

Just sayin...

Nor was Matt Harrington
Nor was Todd Van Poppell

Ummmmm,

Nevermind

IslandRed
06-07-2007, 02:21 PM
At some point, rationality has to play into it. It's one thing if we're talking about splitting hairs over, say, $2.5 million versus $2 million; it's another if a ballplayer that's objectively worth a $3 million bonus is asking for $8 million. If I'm a GM, I'm not giving a guy $8 million unless he's ready to crack my starting lineup TODAY. If he's not that much of a given, he has no business asking to be paid as if he is.

Steve4192
06-07-2007, 02:21 PM
and is what is wrong with this organization. From yesterday's Keith Law chat:

Correct me if I am wrong, but Keith Law is not a member of the Reds front office. I love the Baseball Prospectus folks, but they aren't infallible, nor do they know the hearts/minds of Krivsky and Reynolds.

Law is making an educated guess about what he believes the Reds will do. He may be right, but he also might be wrong.

Benihana
06-07-2007, 02:22 PM
Nor was Matt Harrington
Nor was Todd Van Poppell

Ummmmm,

Nevermind


that's the point. Add Espinosa and Sardinha to that mix as well. There are definitely failures, but there's still a higher success rate amongst guys that demand a lot of money. Figure out who you like, and if you think they're that good, pay em.

MikeS21
06-07-2007, 09:33 PM
stupid money?

So you admit in hindsight Kazmir was NOT in fact, asking for "stupid" money.

Nor was Prior
Nor was Teixeira
Nor was Jared Weaver
Nor was Stephen Drew
Nor was JD Drew

Just sayin...
I admit to no such thing. Half of the teams in baseball felt there was going to signability issues with Kazmir. That's why he fell all the way to the Mets.

If you watched the draft today the one word they kept using over and over was the word "signability." Look how far Porcello fell today. Teams were laying off the #1 high school stud pitcher because of signability. And Scott Boras clients - of which Kazmir was - usually have signability issues because they usually ask for stupid money.

The Reds are not the only team worried about signability. If you spend money scouting all over the country and even out of the country, you want to make sure that when you call a guy's name on draft day, that you can get him signed and on the field. And I'm not going to offer any player $5 million when everyone else is signing for $2.5 - $3 million.

Benihana
06-07-2007, 09:39 PM
I admit to no such thing. Half of the teams in baseball felt there was going to signability issues with Kazmir. That's why he fell all the way to the Mets.

If you watched the draft today the one word they kept using over and over was the word "signability." Look how far Porcello fell today. Teams were laying off the #1 high school stud pitcher because of signability. And Scott Boras clients - of which Kazmir was - usually have signability issues because they usually ask for stupid money.

The Reds are not the only team worried about signability. If you spend money scouting all over the country and even out of the country, you want to make sure that when you call a guy's name on draft day, that you can get him signed and on the field. And I'm not going to offer any player $5 million when everyone else is signing for $2.5 - $3 million.


Well then you may never get the best player available, period.

Kazmir signed for a lot less than some teams were expecting. If I were the Reds, I may have passed on Porcello, but I wouldn't have passed on Weiters.

Aronchis
06-07-2007, 09:42 PM
Well then you may never get the best player available, period.

Kazmir signed for a lot less than some teams were expecting. If I were the Reds, I may have passed on Porcello, but I wouldn't have passed on Weiters.

The Reds didn't take Kazmir because about the entire scouting staff was in love with Gruler, I mean outside a few people(including Bowden interestly), they REALLY loved Gruler.

That was a time Jimbo should have listened to his heart. Adam Dunn knew Kazmir personally which would have helped with the signing and he wasn't going to college which gave the Reds leverage for a November signing if need be.

Of course, lucky we weren't the team that traded Kazmir for junk, just think if the Mets had hung on to him?

It was simply a bad mistake, but typical for the era.

MikeS21
06-08-2007, 10:22 AM
Well then you may never get the best player available, period.

Kazmir signed for a lot less than some teams were expecting. If I were the Reds, I may have passed on Porcello, but I wouldn't have passed on Weiters.
It is true that Kazmir signed for less. But perception is what rules the day when it come to signability. Half the teams in baseball heard Boras posturing before the draft and they backed off. The Mets, coming from a huge market, and backed by money that could afford to take a risk, took a flyer on Kazmir. Teams before the Mets had decided that the risk was too great. The Mets took the risk and it paid off. However, more often than not, the risk doesn't pay off - hence teams pass on players like they did Porcello.

I'm not sure I follow you on Weiters. Matt Weiters was off the board ten picks before the Reds got to pick. Perhaps you meant Andy Brackman - in which case, I'd agree. He may have been a Boras client, but he was also a Moeller grad and the Reds probably could have gotten a home town discount.

But I disagree that you may never get the best player available. The "best player" on Draft Day isn't always the "best player" five or six years in the future. Albert Pujols certainly wasn't considered the best player in the 1999 draft. But arguably, he has turned out to be. In fact, on Draft Day 1999, none other than Josh Hamilton was was the consensus best player available in the draft. Hamilton went #1 overall. Josh Beckett went #2 overall, and I'm not convinced that right now- eight years later -that there aren't other pitchers out of the 1999 draft who have been just as effective as Beckett (Jake Peavy - 15th Round, Aaron Harang - 6th Round).

It's easy to sit here today and whine because the Reds didn't draft one of the "flashy" names in this draft and blame it on an unwillingness to spend money. But eight years from now, many of the guys slipping to the 6th, 7th, 8th rounds in the draft, may be the players in 2013 who are Cy Young winners and All-Stars.

One more thing: If you want irony, the Reds DID get the "best player" in the 1999 draft.

Benihana
06-08-2007, 10:39 AM
It is true that Kazmir signed for less. But perception is what rules the day when it come to signability. Half the teams in baseball heard Boras posturing before the draft and they backed off. The Mets, coming from a huge market, and backed by money that could afford to take a risk, took a flyer on Kazmir. Teams before the Mets had decided that the risk was too great. The Mets took the risk and it paid off. However, more often than not, the risk doesn't pay off - hence teams pass on players like they did Porcello.

I'm not sure I follow you on Weiters. Matt Weiters was off the board ten picks before the Reds got to pick. Perhaps you meant Andy Brackman - in which case, I'd agree. He may have been a Boras client, but he was also a Moeller grad and the Reds probably could have gotten a home town discount.

But I disagree that you may never get the best player available. The "best player" on Draft Day isn't always the "best player" five or six years in the future. Albert Pujols certainly wasn't considered the best player in the 1999 draft. But arguably, he has turned out to be. In fact, on Draft Day 1999, none other than Josh Hamilton was was the consensus best player available in the draft. Hamilton went #1 overall. Josh Beckett went #2 overall, and I'm not convinced that right now- eight years later -that there aren't other pitchers out of the 1999 draft who have been just as effective as Beckett (Jake Peavy - 15th Round, Aaron Harang - 6th Round).

It's easy to sit here today and whine because the Reds didn't draft one of the "flashy" names in this draft and blame it on an unwillingness to spend money. But eight years from now, many of the guys slipping to the 6th, 7th, 8th rounds in the draft, may be the players in 2013 who are Cy Young winners and All-Stars.

One more thing: If you want irony, the Reds DID get the "best player" in the 1999 draft.

Hence I said "may". Obviously the highest price player isn't always the best talent. But often times, he may be.

This thread was spawned before the draft, and was started mainly because one of the draft gurus said if Weiters was on the board, the Reds still wouldn't consider taking him. Obviously as it played out, Weiters was off the board, so its kind of a moot point. And as far as Brackman vs. Porcello, I'd much rather have Porcello, as would probably every other team in MLB- hence despite his outrageous demands, Porcello went before Brackman.

bucksfan2
06-08-2007, 10:56 AM
Here is the thing that gets me. The MLB draft is supposed to help the worst team in baseball improve themselves. It is not a quick fix but in the end it is one of the most important factors in developing a quality organization. However Bud Selig failes to stand up to Boras and allows the rich to get richer and poor to get poorer. If the comissioner's office sets a play range for each draft pick Selig should make the teams stick to that. The way I understood it was that if a team wanted to exceed the pay range then they had to go to Selig and ask permission. Why doesn't Selig just say NO. Its time for Selig to grow a backbone and stand up to the Boras' of the world. One year of not allowing teams to pay significantly above the pay slot would significantly hurt Boras and probably allow the worst team to get the best pick.

MikeS21
06-08-2007, 11:23 AM
Hence I said "may". Obviously the highest price player isn't always the best talent. But often times, he may be.

This thread was spawned before the draft, and was started mainly because one of the draft gurus said if Weiters was on the board, the Reds still wouldn't consider taking him. Obviously as it played out, Weiters was off the board, so its kind of a moot point. And as far as Brackman vs. Porcello, I'd much rather have Porcello, as would probably every other team in MLB- hence despite his outrageous demands, Porcello went before Brackman.
OK, fair enough. I forgot the context from which you were speaking, and I apologize.

I have to admit that when the Reds' pick came up at #15 and Porcello was still on the board, I felt that Krivisky would bite - if for no other reason than this being Homer Bailey's week, to say that he drafted his own "Homer Bailey." Which, you gotta admit, five years from now, a 1-2-3 punch of Porcello, Bailey, and Cueto in the rotation wouldn't have looked half bad.


Here is the thing that gets me. The MLB draft is supposed to help the worst team in baseball improve themselves. It is not a quick fix but in the end it is one of the most important factors in developing a quality organization. However Bud Selig failes to stand up to Boras and allows the rich to get richer and poor to get poorer. If the comissioner's office sets a play range for each draft pick Selig should make the teams stick to that. The way I understood it was that if a team wanted to exceed the pay range then they had to go to Selig and ask permission. Why doesn't Selig just say NO. Its time for Selig to grow a backbone and stand up to the Boras' of the world. One year of not allowing teams to pay significantly above the pay slot would significantly hurt Boras and probably allow the worst team to get the best pick.
I agree, but the way the rules are set up, the commissioner's hands are tied in many cases. The MLB draft does not have the same rules as say, the NFL draft. In the NFL, if a player holds out, the team that drafted him retains his rights. In baseball, this year they have until August 15th to sign a drafted player - otherwise they no longer have his rights.

The way the baseball draft is set up, folks like Scott Boras can treat his clients basically as free agents. Take the J.D. Drew fiasco a few years back. He gets drafted by a team he doesn't want to play for. He holds out, plays in an independent league for a season, and enters the next draft and gets drafted by an "acceptable" team who may be willing to cough up more money. Sounds like free agency to me.

Baseball needs to close the loopholes in the system, but that will take a change in the agreement between MLB and the Players Union. And the Players Union isn't going to let that happen anytime soon.

UC_Ken
06-08-2007, 11:35 AM
Here is the thing that gets me. The MLB draft is supposed to help the worst team in baseball improve themselves. It is not a quick fix but in the end it is one of the most important factors in developing a quality organization. However Bud Selig fails to stand up to Boras and allows the rich to get richer and poor to get poorer. If the commissioner's office sets a play range for each draft pick Selig should make the teams stick to that. The way I understood it was that if a team wanted to exceed the pay range then they had to go to Selig and ask permission. Why doesn't Selig just say NO. Its time for Selig to grow a backbone and stand up to the Boras' of the world. One year of not allowing teams to pay significantly above the pay slot would significantly hurt Boras and probably allow the worst team to get the best pick.

I didn't know that there was a set pay range. It's impossible to get teams to follow unless it's written into the rules. The best thing that could happen to help the small/mid market teams is to slot the prices for draft picks just like the NBA does. For example when Minnesota picked Mauer over Prior it was perceived to be because of price, as Prior was considered by many to be the best college pitcher ever to enter the draft. If you want those teams to improve give them the opportunity to pick the best player available regardless of price. It worked out well for Minnesota but you don't know if they may have made a different decision if money weren't a factor. But the union would never allow slotting of bonuses for draft picks.

If the union wouldn't allow a slotting of bonuses then they should at least allow teams to trade draft picks. Making the poorer teams choose lesser players simply because of contract demands is a huge advantage to the big market teams. In the Minnesota situation they could have had a bidding war for the rights to Mark Prior and gotten a lot of help for their franchise. As I said before everything worked out for them but if Prior had become what he looked like he was going to in 2003 then it would look different.

Steve4192
06-08-2007, 12:13 PM
But the union would never allow slotting of bonuses for draft picks.

I disagree.

IMO, The MLBPA would love nothing more than to allow the slotting of draft picks. That would leave more money for teams to spend on their major league rosters, which in turn would fatten the wallets of members of the MLBPA.

Problem is, the MLBPA has no right to bargain on the behalf of non-members. Amateur draftees are not members of the MLBPA.

MikeS21
06-08-2007, 01:07 PM
I disagree.

IMO, The MLBPA would love nothing more than to allow the slotting of draft picks. That would leave more money for teams to spend on their major league rosters, which in turn would fatten the wallets of members of the MLBPA.

Problem is, the MLBPA has no right to bargain on the behalf of non-members. Amateur draftees are not members of the MLBPA.
True, but they may also adopt the position that since every drafted player may not make it to the majors and cash in on the big contracts, that they should be allowed to get as much out of the signing bonus as possible. I believe the MLBPA has balked at many such changes in the draft - such as drafting international players, trading draft picks, etc.

And I agree that MLB players shouldn't be bargaining for amateur players - or for minor league players for that matter..

bucksfan2
06-08-2007, 03:05 PM
I didn't know that there was a set pay range. It's impossible to get teams to follow unless it's written into the rules. The best thing that could happen to help the small/mid market teams is to slot the prices for draft picks just like the NBA does. For example when Minnesota picked Mauer over Prior it was perceived to be because of price, as Prior was considered by many to be the best college pitcher ever to enter the draft. If you want those teams to improve give them the opportunity to pick the best player available regardless of price. It worked out well for Minnesota but you don't know if they may have made a different decision if money weren't a factor. But the union would never allow slotting of bonuses for draft picks.


In watching the draft coverage I thought they kept mentioning this. They basically said that each pick was sloted for a price range. However all a team had to do was go to the commish and say they were going to play X amount and ask if it were ok. I may be wrong but that is how I understood it.