Originally Posted by traderumor
I'm sure the research is out there, but it seems like if any pick for any team in the draft ought to be closest to a sure thing , considering the bonus money at stake, it ought to be that 1st round pick. I wonder what the Reds % of 1st round picks to make it to the majors is over some time frame is compared to other teams? Also, it seems the 1st round picks are based just as much on peer pressure (that person doesn't have "1st round talent") than it does on wisely spending bonus money. There seems to be some wisdom to perhaps overdrafting someone and perhaps adjusting the bonus accordingly (wasn't that the premise in the Moneyball draft?) than to draft some toolsy wonder or some HS whiz arm that throws 95. Who cares if the rest of the industry laughs at your picks if you get the most bang for your buck?
Well, when you are talking about Tomko as being one of your most successful 1st round picks since 1992 (with Larson also in the discussion) then the recent history kind of makes you nauseous.