Should we end the draft?
by Spidey on Apr 12, 2010 12:25 PM EDT
Email
PrintJust a thought that has been in the back of my mind that I want to throw out there.
As the only major league in the US without revenue sharing or a salary cap, is it time to reflect on the inequity that the amateur draft brings? Wouldn't it be fair to teams and players to allow all amateurs to be free agents? This post by Diatriber got me to thinking about it...
Later in post is review of 2003 draft
Speaking of Laffey, did anyone know that Laffey remains the only player from the 2003 Draft that remains on the Indians’ roster or even in the organization? That year, Laffey was a 16th round pick and this week alone has shown that even the players that now find themselves outside of the organization from that draft have underwhelmed.
With 2003 1st Round Pick (11th overall) Michael Aubrey being outrighted off of the Orioles’ 40-man roster and clearing waivers and Ryan Garko (2003 3rd round pick) being outrighted out of Seattle to be a waiver claim for the Rangers, this has not been a particularly good two weeks for the 2003 Indians’ draftees.
The only player, besides Laffey, from that draft who finds himself in a meaningful MLB role entering the 2010 season is Kevin Kouzmanoff (2003 6th round pick), who is now the starting 3B for the Oakland Athletics. As we all know, K2 was traded to for Josh Barfield who finds himself going into the 2010 season as the now 27-year-old 2B for the…wait for it…Portland Beavers of the Pacific Coast League, after not making the Padres (they of the $37M payroll) out of Spring Training.
Seeing as how Aubrey and Barfield were DFA’d by the team and how no other 2003 draftee still finds themselves in the organization, the players that the Indians have to show for the 2003 draft are minor-league pitcher Scott Barnes (acquired for Garko) and one Aaron Laffey.
It seems that:
1. If the large market teams are simply going to pluck the creme de la creme from small market teams, these large market teams should not have equal rights to the amateurs
2. If players are interested in achieving a max-contract wouldn't they prefer to play for a small/mid-market team to make a name for themselves before signing with the big market teams?
3. At least this would give the players some control over the team where they develop - it hardly seems right that one of the only ways for many high-level talent to break into the big leagues is by being traded.
4. MLB has contract slotting (unwritten) rules for the amateur draft - that just seems wrong if teams are trying to gather the best group of young players to grow their team.
I just can't stand the fact that the big market teams have control over salaries in the draft, too. So what if the Yankees or Red Sox are able to get a Strasburg every year. At least he would be able to hold out for a substantially higher contract, and the rest of the league can pay fair market prices for the available talent.
200 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Something you might have forgot was that Miller and Snyder were 1st round compensation picks for lost free agents. The MLB draft is by far a crapshoot more than any other professional sports draft. The Jeremy Guthrie situation is not that common. He was thought to be the most major league ready SP in that draft and we picked him 20 something because of contract demands. I believe we had to sign to a major league contract. How did that work out?
For every Strasburg theres a David Clyde, Mark Prior, and Brien Taylor.
Baseball fans are junkies, and their heroin is the statistic. - Robert S. Wieder
How do we know Strasburg’s name isn’t going to end up on that list?
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Yeah, a pitching injury derailing what was becoming a high caliber Major League career is a lot different than high end prospect ruining his shoulder while whiffing on a punch in a trailer park fight.
by The Grimace on Apr 12, 2010 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s kind of funny how we misremember history, sometimes. Mark Prior gave the Cubs 657 innings with an ERA+ of 124. And if weren’t for Bartman, he may have very well helped them to their first World Series in forever.
Is it reasonable to expect Strasburg to give the Nats more than that?
This is a pet peeve of mine. The Cubs not making the World Series has absolutely nothing to do with Steve Bartman, who’s a die-hard Cubs fan who had his heart broken. It seriously makes me mad when people use Bartman.
by Gradyforpresident on Apr 13, 2010 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
No. I refuse to go along with this. The ball was in the stands, and there’s absolutely no guarantee Alou would have caught it.
by Gradyforpresident on Apr 14, 2010 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m on the opposite side of this. It was a rare chance for a fan to influence the play, and he f’d up. Of course, it was just one small part. Of course, Alex Gonzalez or whoever the SS was deserves a bigger pile of the blame.
But Alou’s reaction made it clear that he thought he had a good shot at it. Alou later said he might not have been able to get it, and then changed his mind again (we went over this).
He was baseball nerd, like us, and he should have known better. It was a very very understandable mistake/impulse, but he still screwed up.
so did the ten other people sitting around him that reached for the ball. its completely unfair to lay it on him. if he hadn’t done it, one of those other fans would have interfered.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Apr 14, 2010 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions
This is all hypotheticals though. What we know is that Steve Bartman and no one else interfered with a ball that might have been catchable. We can come up with reasons and excuses, but he did it and it might have changed the outcome of the inning. How much blame to assign him is up for debate. I would only give him a small amount of blame.
If you’ve watched the tape, then you know it wasn’t a hypothetical. The idea that none of the dozen fans touches that ball is fairly far-fetched.
I guess I worded it wrong. My point was he was the one of dozens that did touch it and he deserves some blame. It could have been someone else and they would have gotten their rightful share.
It is pretty rare though that you see fans purposely try to interfere and/or have influence on a foul ball that might be playable. Even when it may be greatly advantageous to their team to stay away from it or get in the way. They just see a ball coming their way and make a decision to duck or try to catch it. How many times do you see a fan trying to hold back other fans so that a ball going into the stands can be caught? Or someone purposefully slapping at a players glove to attempt disrupting a catch? I don’t believe most fans are that cognizant of everything playing out in front of them.
I'm emotional about my glove...
Manning didn’t condemn the fan, which I found interesting—he said basically what you just did, that the guy was reacting without thinking. I’m wondering how the Cub players responded to Bartman after that game?
Fans reaching over the rail and leaning onto the field to get a hand (…or glove) on the ball is an entirely different thing. There are announcements made, it’s in the fan guides and the backs of tickets; don’t interfere with anything happening beyond the rail, wall, whatever…
MLB is partially to blame because they persistently let fans lay out over the barriers (even falling over onto the field) to grab foul balls and very rarely warn, let alone eject, them for doing so. It’s typically only when the ball is fair or a player is near the stands that ejections occur.
I'm emotional about my glove...
From Hoynes (and consider the source):
In most cases of fan interference, Indians officials relocate the fan to another seat.In NYC or Seattle, you are relocated to the parking lot.
I’m just saying that they need to be more demonstrative of the policy when it’s not interference if they want fans to gain a greater awareness that it is not OK to lean halfway out of the stands to grab at a ball. Doesn’t matter if it is a foul ball, dead, rolling slowly along the base of the stands. The ball boy/girl, a player, ump, coach, or security person will pick it up and make it a souvenir.
I'm emotional about my glove...
And we had another ass reaching over and grabbing the ball in the game tonight.
by dgcambridge on Apr 14, 2010 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions
A bigger ass, given that the ball last night was still in the field of play. That [expletive] should have been ejected. Or punched in the throat. Maybe both. Instead, his [expletive] friends were smacking him in the back, congratulating him for his fine display of Pedroiaism.
by FredOx on Apr 15, 2010 9:19 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
agreed. total crapshoot…sadly, even in a crapshoot, the indians seem to very rarely hit.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
That’s cuz our point is always four.
I don’t understand what you mean.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
yeah, rolling dice is such an art form, and some are better than others.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Apr 14, 2010 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I find it either amusing or annoying that you made a reference that you didn’t even come close to understanding.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
i would guess 75% of the people that use “crapshoot” don’t know what it means.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Apr 14, 2010 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions
It has to do with shooting a toilet with a shotgun. It’s either going to be awesome or end very badly.
by VA tribe fan on Apr 14, 2010 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions
thats true. it has become a very overused phrase in american Jargon…
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
and whether it’s used right is kind of a crapshoot.
by Logodaedalus on Apr 15, 2010 2:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Godwin’s Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I think you misused that. There was an analogy to Nazism, it was Nazi was verb(?). Like a grammar Nazi. Doesn’t count.
"Spring Training wins are good for the soul."
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1
are you saying grammar nazi is using nazi as a verb? because it isn’t. nazi is the noun and grammar is the adjective. using nazi in another way, actually making a direct analogy to nazism is also using it as a noun. i don’t get the whole verb thing.
While it doesn’t explicitly mention the term “grammar nazi” in there it IS a comparison to Nazis. you are making an analogy that someone is to grammar as nazis were to germany when you call someone a grammar nazi.
if you look up pages on the term grammar nazi and the theory of it, they do mention it as an invocation of godwin’s law
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Grammar_Nazi
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/grammar-nazi
(the 2nd is actually how I found out about godwin’s law)
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Despite this, I agree with USSChoo’s view. “Grammar nazi” (and other forms of x-nazi) has become such a common term that it can’t really be considered an literal comparison to Hitler anymore. It is, at most, a blatantly tongue-in-cheek comparison.
“It’s, ‘We shall crush whomever does not follow ze Party!’ Whomever! Akkusativ!”
by Logodaedalus on Apr 17, 2010 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree it might not be a direct literal comparison to hitler anymore. however, many people on the internet say it is an invocation of Godwin’s law when they talk about it.
personally, I think it is a little ambiguous if it is an invocation or not.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
the point (tying in how I see it as ambiguous) is that Godwin’s law is short and somewhat vague and is left a lot up to interpretation.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Awesome. I think we’ve been trying to discuss a reasonable interpretation. I think we all would agree that unreasonable interpretations are also available, in more or less limitless variations.
In addition, USSChoo was calling himself a Nazi, which isn’t a situation where Godwin’s Law is typically invoked.
just because something is not typical or “normal” does not make it wrong. Godwin’s law is one of those things where a lot of it is up to the person to interpret it.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Yeah, dude, this whole line of discussion is beyond stupid. We all know that people are free to choose any old dumb interpretation of any old dumb thing they choose. This is what’s known as “stupidity.” It’s commonplace and legal, and still stupidity.
I wouldn’t call the interpretation I mentioned flat out “stupid”. I myself do not really agree with it, however I would not classify it as stupid b/c I see the thought behind it. Although I do not agree with the conclusion, the thought process i see I would not classify as stupid…but thats just me and you are free to interpret it as being stupid just like they are free to have their idea.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
What is stupid is this: The fact that a lot of people say something on the Internet, proposed as evidence of … anything.
I agree. I do not claim that every viewpoint is equally valid, however I give every view point equal opportunity to point its validity to me.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I’m giving this viewpoint no validity.
Is this the whale section?
by sarcasmdave on Apr 20, 2010 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Okay, then I was being a capitalization Wahhabist.
Blake: Thanks to you, I am damaged beyond repair!!
I have to elaborate on this. It really bugs me. I can’t think of another common malaprop that so many relatively literate people seem to commit all the time. It’s actually in a voiceover dialogue bit near the end of Malcolm X. I’m just sitting there thinking, really, Spike? Really, Denzel? “Tenants?” Nobody caught this, none of the actors, writers, script supervisors, producers, editors? Nobody? I mean, it’s not like it would have required a re-shoot, it was a voiceover!
Hah. The wiktionary page for the word “tenets” contains a single four-word definition (“plural form of ‘tenet’”), and then the above Lebowski quote. That’s it. Awesome.
by Logodaedalus on Apr 19, 2010 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions
That, plus how to spell “lose”, although those people may be less literate than those using tenants for tenets.
Ugh, yeah that one seems less forgivable. “Lose” is common enough that if you spent any time reading you’d know how its spelled. “Tenets” much less so.
by Logodaedalus on Apr 20, 2010 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions
it’s not that you don’t know how to spell lose, it’s just that for some reason it gets typed that way when you’re not paying attention. not quite a typo, closer to typing ‘teh’. presumably, people know how to spell ‘the’ as well.
I’m not convinced that’s true about lose.
by Logodaedalus on Apr 20, 2010 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I mean, I’m sure it’s true when you do it, but I’m not sure it’s true for most people who misspell it.
by Logodaedalus on Apr 20, 2010 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Spidey, I think you’re looking at this wrong. If all the amateurs were free agents, the big-market teams would sign all the best amateurs, too. The Indians wouldn’t get anybody.
by Chemo on Apr 12, 2010 2:02 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I’m not so sure about that. I look at what happens in college football and college basketball and see players going to different programs. Sure, the big market teams will overspend for a few players but they don’t have the pockets to pay everyone. And any amateur with dreams of making it to the big leagues will question signing with the big-market teams since the big market team will always be at threat to sign a proven free agent or trade them for another proven big leaguer.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
I think it’s a little different when, realistically, even the top prospects usually are 3-4 years away from the majors — if all goes well — and trades and injuries can change needs at the big-league level in far less time than that. In short, it makes no sense for either the teams or the amateurs to worry about present-day big-league needs when considering an amateur signing.
Your college reasoning is flawed for a couple of reasons:
1) College teams don’t pay players (make a John Calipari joke here if you like).
2) Even so, good players always go to the same schools. The same two or three schools have the best recruiting classes every year. USC and Florida in football are just like the Yankees and Red Sox. They’re awesome every season. In a college basketball analogy, the Indians would be like Northern Iowa — if we pulled off an upset and won a playoff round every 50 years, it would be considered a miracle, because no good players would come here.
You know, there was a time before the draft, and the Yankees won all the time. The draft was instituted because amateurs were getting bushels of money and teams couldn’t afford it. You think that would be a good environment for the Indians to compete in?
While I would like to see slotting have hard limits, to avoid small-market teams passing on talent they can’t afford, I think the amateur draft actual results in much fairer access to talent than what you’re suggesting would. Just to cherry-pick an example, the Yankees or Red Sox didn’t end up with Strasburg, the Nationals did. Sure, teams with deeper pockets influence the salaries at the top of the draft, but if all teams had been free to offer him contracts, I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have ended up in Washington.
Yeah, but I think Strasburg is very much an exception rather than an example. The Nationals HAD to draft him, and they HAD to sign him. They didn’t have a choice.
A better example is in the 2007 draft. The reigning AL champions were in the middle of giving out what hindsight has shown to be some very unwise contracts, their owner was pouring money into the team, and they got the best high school arm in several years, Rick Porcello, with the twenty-seventh pick because Boras was his advisor and teams were afraid of his demands. Interestingly, Boras is not Porcello’s agent now.
Which is an example of why I think the amateur draft desperately needs strict slot contract limits. But I think that what we have is already far superior to simply allowing all amateur players to be free agents. And to be fair, I used Strasburg as an example because he did in his original post.
by VA tribe fan on Apr 12, 2010 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Because by draft day there was pressure, pressure, etc. Strasburg was, to steal a quote by the Nats’ other big pick last year, Drew Storen, “LeBron James.” For the Nats to use their first overall pick to choose someone else in a draft where Starsburg was available was basically impossible.
But I get that you’re teasing me for my semantics. I’m just not in a very qualified mood right now.
In practice, though, it kind of is. No decision in baseball is made in a vacuum. The Nats choosing Strasburg was a foregone conclusion as soon as it became apparent they would have the first pick. The fact Strasburg is a starting pitcher is also important; teams always need those. That’s why it will be defensible for them to not pick Harper this year and perhaps pick Taillon or Pomeranz instead. You can make a case for not picking the arguable best player when he’s a position player. It’s harder when it’s a pitcher, because you need as many of those as you can collect, with TINSTAAP and all.
Actually, from an analytical point of view, it’s totally the opposite of what you said. The elite, amateur position player is significantly more valuable than a (purely hypothetical) equally talented pitcher, because of the attrition rates.
In practice, though, it kind of is.
Okay, I’ll modify. They are only synonymous if the decision-maker is an idiot.
The media frenzy or lack thereof isn’t going to help your team win games over the next five years. Making the right move for your club is what you need to do.
The Nats didn’t have to draft Strasburg any more than the Twins had to draft Prior. Which they didn’t.
It is pretty crazy how hyped Strasburg is though. My friend, who doesn’t know what ERA is, asked me if “that was the guy who is the LBJ of baseball.” I guarantee you he has never heard of Mauer or Prior.
LGT's resident moderate Yankee hating fan.
So you don’t think that Shapiro was influenced by the media/fans when he signed Hafner and Westbrook?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Nope. After the Colon deal, how can anyone doubt his resolve to ignore the passions of fans and make the best, most coldblooded choice, as he sees it?
Kind of like the situation when Reggie Bush was coming out in the NFL, but the Texans passed on him for the DE. It was a move that went against the “pressure, pressure, et c.” of the moment and was almost universally panned, but it’s working out pretty well for them now.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Better yet is the Twins passing on Prior for some local kid named Mauer. The press were all over the Twins for going the “cheap” route.
by The Grimace on Apr 12, 2010 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Could’ve dropped a clutch “ENTIRELY INCORRECT!” right there.
by fleerdon on Apr 13, 2010 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t remember that at all, I just remember watching ESPN and them being shocked that the Twins went with Mauer over Prior.
by The Grimace on Apr 13, 2010 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions
because Boras was his advisor
perfect example of one of the things that creates these scenarios that makes it seem unfair…scott boras. he was the agent of Jeremy Guthrie too…you see what is causing some of the problems?
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
It’s not Boras’ fault that Guthrie underperformed while in the Indians system. Shapiro thought he was worth Boras’ asking price, so he drafted and signed him.
its not boras’ fault guthrie underperformed but I saw on here multiple times, people talking about guys dropping in the draft b/c he is their agent and teams don’t want to touch them.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
and that I very much agree with. Guthrie’s performance has nothing to do with boras. and I do not put all reasoning of why he dropped on boras. boras is working for his client and he is able to do what he does b/c of how the system is.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Are you saying that Shapiro somehow affected Guthrie’s performance? I feel like I must be reading this wrong.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
All the folks who worked on Guthrie’s development in the Indians organization were under Shapiro’s employ, and also under (direct or indirect) supervision. That’s what we’re talking about here.
So to whatever extent the fault lies with anyone other than Guthrie, it ultimately lies with Shapiro.
By that logic, doesn’t it ultimately lie with whoever employed/supervised Shapiro at the time, making him another ascending link in the chain that would include Guthrie’s pitching coaches and such?
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Yes, but Shapiro is the head of baseball ops. Above him, it’s all business folk, so he is a logical stopping point along the way.
I don’t know that we have a true “head coach” of the minor leagues, and maybe we should. We have a director of player personnel and a director of player development, but are they in charge of coaching? We have minor league hitting and pitching coordinators, but I don’t know if the individual minor league coaches and managers ultimately report to them. Maybe they should.
Sure it is, but I still like the draft and signing. The decision to waive him was also probably the right one.
I agree. The guy is a big-league starter, no question, which makes it a good draft and sign, and worth the money. Having said that, given what we knew at the time he was DFA’ed, and given our other roster options, it was pretty clearly the right call. He simply never responded to anything until he left this organization.
Honestly, I don’t see what the problem is with agents like Boras. If the MLB is going to allow a system where a few teams can afford to spend much more than others, with little to no downward pressure on those teams’ total salaries, why shouldn’t agents try to get as much of that big, delicious money pie as possible for their clients? The agent’s job is not to act in the team’s best interest, it’s to act in the player’s. If the player values getting the maximum compensation for their services possible over being a part of a winning small-market team (which, certainly, they have the right to do. Be honest, you would probably move to New York if a company there offered you substantially more than whoever you work for now too), then the agent’s job is to either get the team to fork over more than they want to, or find a team that’s willing to pay what the player wants. Boras comes off as a tool, but isn’t he really just a guy taking advantage of a broken system who happens to be either better at it or more honest about it than the others?
by VA tribe fan on Apr 13, 2010 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I understand where you are coming from. I guess the boras isn’t a bad guy probably throws people off. I do not believe he is evil, but I do not have a ton of respect for the man…but at the same time, baseball and its system allows him to operate like that…he is to blame, but so is baseball in its own way…personally the agent I respect the most is tom condon (football…represents guys like drew brees, peyton manning, etc…respectable guys without ridiculous contracts)
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Well, he does have a choice to not push to be especially exploitative of the inequities of the system that is in place.
baseball and its system allows him to operate like that…he is to blame, but so is baseball in its own way…
Isn’t this the argument every Yankees ass uses to justify the notion that they have a great organization and team?
I'm emotional about my glove...
but yet they exploit it still.
Like I said in this comment (or some other comment here). Boras is not completely to blame, nor is he blameless. he shares the blame with the system in place.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Can’t count the last three years trailing though. So it’s more like, 15 drafts, 2 hits (one small, one huge). Didn’t we not have a first round pick one year too?
Nothing to write home about. How many hits should* we have had? 4? The draft sucks, but it has brought us the Chiz.
Either way, I like some of what the organization has been able to do with later picks (like Thome in the 13th, Colon as an amateur FA).
I did go and look back to see where manny was drafted and he was drafted in the first a year before shuey. i didn’t look back far enough.
I do like many of the things shapiro has done in trades (including bringing in former first round picks like laporta and Perez)
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Sure. I could be in favor of ending the draft.
Neftali Feliz pitch speeds (mph) to Michael Brantley, 04/12/10:
99, 102, 101, 100, 98, 100
Let’s find a bunch of guys who can throw like this, wherever they may be.
With our player evaluation people, I’m not sure that’s possible.
Blake: Thanks to you, I am damaged beyond repair!!
Let’s just say we have done a middling job the past decade or so, especially in the draft.
Blake: Thanks to you, I am damaged beyond repair!!
I looked it up. the only player we drafted in the first round (or with supplamental picks) that is on the major league roster is Huff. I dunno if crowe is on the 40 man, but he is the only other person I can think of off the top of my head. most guys with “first round talent” (drafted that high at some point) on our team we got from other organizations. Sowers was a first rounder, but we got him elsewhere…same with laporta.
the last draft pick we have taken that I can say with confidence panned out for us (from the first round picks) was CC in 1998…before that, Paul Shuey in 1992. in 18 years, 2 hits…
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
This is a topic that’s been pretty much run into the ground around here, and yet it never stops being frustrating.
by VA tribe fan on Apr 13, 2010 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions
In fairness, though, we generally had poor drafting position over those 18 years.
Yes, the yield has been poor anyway, I agree.
that is true for many of the years. It is always easy to look back in hindsight and criticize but it is painful to see such misses and then pass on a great player (getting wright who wasn’t bad granted but we passed on Konerko and Nomar, Corey smith over Adam Wainwright). It is hard to see something as being a good draft decision in the draft when 3 All Stars are drafted consecutively almost after you draft…
Granted, its all in hindsight so its easier to do…but the yield should have been better IMO.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Looking at all the teams first round picks from 1990 to 2006 shows that the Indians are average in regards to viable major league output from the first round. The biggest problem with the Indians 1st round history is the failure of the 2000-2003 drafts. 12 picks that only produced one starting major league player, Guthrie. While a majority of these picks were supplemental there has to be something to show for it.
I know Corey Smith was no prize, but you’re really going to hold Adam Wainwright up as an example?
-Erik
I didn’t even know corey smith existed. at least wainwright has made an impact in the majors…and its always easy to look back in hindsight…but I would hope for once the indians didn’t pass on a great player to take a guy that took like 5 years to make the majors.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Adam Wainwright took…wait for it…5 years to reach the majors.
Folks, as a PSA, this board is not an echo chamber for misinformation. Look things up if you don’t know what you’re talking about.
by afh4 on Apr 15, 2010 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions 6 recs
Piggybacking on this, Paul Konerko, 5 years and his third organization. And he was initially drafted as a C.
Football and physics and rock stars on twitter,
Angie’s List listing the best babysitter,
Why people go to watch Jay Leno’s show,
These are a few of the things I don’t know.
Why birthin’ babies comes from chemotaxis,
Who played the bass on Santana’s Abraxas,
Interface configs of laminar flow,
These are a few of the things I don’t know.
Sodium content in double down hot dogs,
What is the diet of Blue Poison Dart Frogs,
Who played the coach in The Last Picture Show,
These are a few of the things I don’t know.
When the research budget’s frugal,
When my brain goes numb,
I simply remember the key word is Google,
And then I don’t feel so dumb.
by YoDaddyWags on Apr 15, 2010 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions 7 recs
13 whole minutes to the first rec? Slow evening.
by Logodaedalus on Apr 15, 2010 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I had to explain it to my girlfriend today at the game. Too bad we didn’t have anything to trade to the Braves that year.
by The Grimace on Apr 12, 2010 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions
you mean the rangers getting him? yeah, they get 2 possible all stars for giving up 2 months of texiera.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
For the record, the Braves were getting 2 months and a full season of Texieria. They also got 2 months of Ron Mahay in exchange for Saltalamachia, Feliz, Andrus, Beau Jones and Matt Harrison.
Ignoring for the moment the supplemental and compensatory picks, your Nats draft #1, your Jackasses go #30, and thus through all the rounds. But as has been long pointed out, after that first pick, there’s no appreciable talent difference. Jackasses get 30, 60, 90, etc. Nats get 31, 61, 91, etc. Giving the bad teams a disproportionate number of picks of the top 100 might make the draft go some toward future talent leveling.
by YoDaddyWags on Apr 13, 2010 2:15 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Ooh, now there’s an idea I could get behind.
by VA tribe fan on Apr 13, 2010 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Can’t get behind this. “After that first pick,” you say, but that Top 10 pick is often more valuable than all the rest combined.
Jackasses get 60, 90, 120 while the Nats get 31, 61, 91. That is the only reasonable way to look at this, and I think scouting directors would tell you that the drafting position does make a difference well at least through the first eight or ten rounds.
I should clarify, I can’t get behind that way of looking at the sequencing, but I do think that weighting the draft more heavily is something that could be looked at. The problem is that signing bonus budgets might not change at all. I also have a problem with rewarding chronic incompetence.
The worst team in the league gets a pick that could be Joe Mauer or could be Delmon Young; I’d guess that the #1 draft spot has a peak value average of 4 or 5 WAR. After that, the best team picks right ahead of the worst team every single time. If the draft were to serve the purpose of being a counterweight to the revenue disparity within MLB, which is a big if, adding a 5-WAR player to a 63-win team isn’t going to shake the trees.
Allowing teams to trade their draft picks might be a way to counter the question of signability.
If chronic incompetence is defined as zero playoff appearances over the last 15 seasons, then the chronically incompetent teams are Toronto, Kansas City, Pittsburgh and Washington/Montreal. If defined as being within 10 games of first place fewer than a third of the time, it’s Baltimore, Tampa Bay, Detroit, KC, Washington and Pittsburgh. If it’s defined as being unable to win a championship, then the Tribe is right up there. From here, it seems the more money you have, the less chronically incompetent you are.
I would define club competence based on playoff appearances and near-misses. I think the marginal-win-per-marginal-dollar-spent metric is useful here as well.
You could some consideration for seasons over .500. The Blue Jays finished in 4th place in each of the last two seasons, once with 86 wins and once with 75 wins. Those obviously are not the same thing.
Nobody said the draft was supposed to be a tree-shaking corrective by itself. I believe it’s meant to be a small corrective.
Nope, nobody has said that. But, if MLB has gotten to the point where tree-shaking is needed—and gee, it’s nice to see Alex Rodriguez finally get that championship ring, but I’m not sure I wouldn’t prefer to see him grappling with crocodiles after fleeing from army ants, while unknowingly being parasitized by Candiru—I wonder if a major change in the Rule 4 draft would be a means to that end, and if so, an easier sell than the revenue sharing route.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Ask Alex: Can Jose Reyes repeat as NL batting champ?
- U.S. Cellular Field: Home of the Chicago Cubs?
- MLB Fan Cave candidate explains the stories behind his 30 MLB mascot tattoos
- Kate Upton’s new MLB 2K12 ad is really something
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise,’ featuring the Miami Marlins
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
