PDA

View Full Version : Keith Law


dickallen15
01-27-2010, 12:11 PM
Keith Law has rated the White Sox farm system, based on its current inventory of players, (which DQ's Beckham) the worst in baseball. Of course you must take it with a little grain of salt as Mr. Law usually has nothing nice to say about anything related to the White Sox.

Craig Grebeck
01-27-2010, 12:18 PM
Keith Law has rated the White Sox farm system, based on its current inventory of players, (which DQ's Beckham) the worst in baseball. Of course you must take it with a little grain of salt as Mr. Law usually has nothing nice to say about anything related to the White Sox.
A pretty tiny grain of salt, though. The Astros have made enough progress to pass us.

DirtySox
01-27-2010, 12:20 PM
An accurate assessment. It's terrible.

Domeshot17
01-27-2010, 12:34 PM
I like Keith Law, and he is probably right. Our Farm is incredibly thin, but it should be, we cleared out almost 99% of our pitching depth to get Peavy. And we would all do it again.

cws05champ
01-27-2010, 12:37 PM
I don't think you can complain too much when we have graduated Beckham, Getz, Richard in the past year and have Hudson who looks like a very good pitching prospect. Would you rather have Poreda, Carter, Russell, Richard in the system or Peavy on the ML roster?

I don't think we have any depth in the system at all but our top 10-15 is not that bad. We don't have any real impact players (possibly Dayan, Mitchell if they develop further) though and that's really what they base these lists on. It's possible to rebuild a farm system in a couple years if they make scouting and development a priority. The Rangers went from 27th ranked in 2007 to 1st in 2009 (according to BA). With the rotation the Sox have they seem to be set up for the next few years to compete.

DirtySox
01-27-2010, 12:41 PM
The Peavy trade is fine and dandy, but the top 15 is nowhere close to solid. It's horrendous. After Hudson, Flowers, and Mitchell, the system falls off a cliff.

DirtySox
01-27-2010, 12:51 PM
An aside, this is why the Sox need(ed) to sign a competent DH this year. Trading off top prospects for a bat mid-season will not be pretty.

hdog1017
01-27-2010, 01:19 PM
KW's job is to field a team to win the World Series, not to field a team to win the Double AA championship. KW seems to use his higher ranked prospects as trade bait.

I'd rather trade prospects to get studs like Peavy than hoping a prospect hits his ceiling rather than his floor.

dickallen15
01-27-2010, 01:27 PM
KW's job is to field a team to win the World Series, not to field a team to win the Double AA championship. KW seems to use his higher ranked prospects as trade bait.

I'd rather trade prospects to get studs like Peavy than hoping a prospect hits his ceiling rather than his floor.

That's right, however, the better prospects you have the easier fielding contending teams become. For one, you can trade better prospects for better players. Another is you can pay them peanuts and spend the saved money on big parts.

I think, and I take what Law says with a grain of salt, what his rankings say, is guys like Jordan Danks, Mitchell and Viciedo aren't very highly thought of throughout the scouting community, at least they aren't considered potential stars like a lot of fan message boards believe them to be. I do know Law likes Flowers.

oeo
01-27-2010, 02:06 PM
I like Keith Law, and he is probably right. Our Farm is incredibly thin, but it should be, we cleared out almost 99% of our pitching depth to get Peavy. And we would all do it again.

Law didn't like the system before that. IIRC, he ranked it in the bottom 5 last year, while most people were ranking it in the 10-15 range.

He just doesn't like the way the Sox operate. Oh well, funny that we have nothing down there, yet every year some other team wants pieces from it. Darn you Keith Law, we have everyone fooled but you!

tm1119
01-27-2010, 02:17 PM
I don't think you can complain too much when we have graduated Beckham, Getz, Richard in the past year and have Hudson who looks like a very good pitching prospect. Would you rather have Poreda, Carter, Russell, Richard in the system or Peavy on the ML roster?

I don't think we have any depth in the system at all but our top 10-15 is not that bad. We don't have any real impact players (possibly Dayan, Mitchell if they develop further) though and that's really what they base these lists on. It's possible to rebuild a farm system in a couple years if they make scouting and development a priority. The Rangers went from 27th ranked in 2007 to 1st in 2009 (according to BA). With the rotation the Sox have they seem to be set up for the next few years to compete.

1. Flowers
2. Hudson
3. Mitchell
4. Danks
5. Dayan
6. Morel
7. .....?

Our system goes 6 deep and then falls off, not a cliff, but a mountain. Not sure where youre getting 10-15 from. Law had every right to rank us dead last.

oeo
01-27-2010, 02:24 PM
1. Flowers
2. Hudson
3. Mitchell
4. Danks
5. Dayan
6. Morel
7. .....?

Our system goes 6 deep and then falls off, not a cliff, but a mountain. Not sure where youre getting 10-15 from. Law had every right to rank us dead last.

You only have the right to say that if you know about the other 29 teams.

BTW, it's usually only about 5 guys that make or break these rankings anyway.

khan
01-27-2010, 02:49 PM
An aside, this is why the Sox need(ed) to sign a competent DH this year. Trading off top prospects for a bat mid-season will not be pretty.
I can agree to this.

And, as we've seen in recent years, when the SOX start the season with a relatively-complete team [2005/2008], they tend to compete. When they have huge gaping holes [as in 2007, 2009, and possibly 2010] the results have not been as good.

What's more is that I don't recall a midseason pickup being crucial to turning the SOX's fortunes in recent years. Griffey, Jr. was not the reason why the SOX won the division in 2008, for example. Similarly, neither Rios nor Peavy were able to turn the tide for the 2009 White Sox.

Craig Grebeck
01-27-2010, 03:00 PM
Law didn't like the system before that. IIRC, he ranked it in the bottom 5 last year, while most people were ranking it in the 10-15 range.

He just doesn't like the way the Sox operate. Oh well, funny that we have nothing down there, yet every year some other team wants pieces from it. Darn you Keith Law, we have everyone fooled but you!
Uh...[citation needed]

oeo
01-27-2010, 03:23 PM
Uh...[citation needed]

Jim Callis had it ranked at 14. I honestly can't find any of the other rankings without paying money.

mzh
01-27-2010, 03:25 PM
What's more is that I don't recall a midseason pickup being crucial to turning the SOX's fortunes in recent years. Griffey, Jr. was not the reason why the SOX won the division in 2008, for example. Similarly, neither Rios nor Peavy were able to turn the tide for the 2009 White Sox.

In all fairness Geoff Blum ended up being pretty important...

I guess there was the Charles Johnson trade in 2000, and from what I remember he was on fire down the stretch. Other than that I must say your right. Carl Everett couldn't win us the division in 2003 or 2004, and dealing Ray Durham and Kenny Lofton got us nowhere is 2002. The lone exception is 2006, when we did start out fielding a solid team (defending champs of course), but 90 wins just wasn't enough.

Sargeant79
01-27-2010, 04:21 PM
In all fairness Geoff Blum ended up being pretty important...

I guess there was the Charles Johnson trade in 2000, and from what I remember he was on fire down the stretch. Other than that I must say your right. Carl Everett couldn't win us the division in 2003 or 2004, and dealing Ray Durham and Kenny Lofton got us nowhere is 2002. The lone exception is 2006, when we did start out fielding a solid team (defending champs of course), but 90 wins just wasn't enough.


Your point is right, but don't forget that Carl Everett may not have had a lot to do with 2003 or 2004, but he sure played a big part in 2005.

rdivaldi
01-27-2010, 09:37 PM
Oh look it's the annual Keith Law is a (genius/idiot) thread. It must be close to ST!

BadBobbyJenks
01-27-2010, 10:34 PM
Oh look it's the annual Keith Law is a (genius/idiot) thread. It must be close to ST!

Lol, exactly what I was thinking before I even opened the thread.

Tragg
01-27-2010, 11:26 PM
Because Williams uses his farm players, I think a measure of our "system" based on the quality of current talent will inherently understate the quality of our "system."

DirtySox
01-28-2010, 11:22 AM
Law's top 100 is up.

58. Tyler Flowers
95. Jared Mitchell

Hudson not making the list is rather curious. I understand he doesn't have the highest ceiling, but I think he's a safe bet to end up a mid-rotation starter. He should be in the top 60 imo. I have him in front of Flowers personally.

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/columns/story?columnist=law_keith&id=4856310&action=upsell&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2***b %2finsider%2fcolumns%2fstory%3fcolumnist%3dlaw_kei th%26id%3d4856310

asindc
01-28-2010, 11:26 AM
Law's top 100 is up.

58. Tyler Flowers
95. Jared Mitchell

Hudson not making the list is rather curious. I understand he doesn't have the highest ceiling, but I think he's a safe bet to end up a mid-rotation starter. He should be in the top 60 imo. I have him in front of Flowers personally.

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/columns/story?columnist=law_keith&id=4856310&action=upsell&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2***b %2finsider%2fcolumns%2fstory%3fcolumnist%3dlaw_kei th%26id%3d4856310

Maybe he is including Hudson on the MLB roster from the start of the season and thus does not consider him a minor leaguer.

DirtySox
01-28-2010, 11:27 AM
I've made one adjustment in my ranking philosophy, favoring higher-upside prospects over lower-ceiling prospects who are closer to the majors.

That might explain it, but he should still crack a top 100 even with that philosophy.

asindc
01-28-2010, 11:30 AM
Because Williams uses his farm players, I think a measure of our "system" based on the quality of current talent will inherently understate the quality of our "system."

I continue to be astonished by how often KW trades for a proven MLB veteran with our minor leaguers. You would think by now other GMs would have caught on. This is by no means a defense of how poorly our scouting/drafting/development system has been under KW, but just a statement on how he gets max value in most minor leaguers-for-major leaguer trades.

DirtySox
01-28-2010, 11:32 AM
I continue to be astonished by how often KW trades for a proven MLB veteran with our minor leaguers. You would think by now other GMs would have caught on. This is by no means a defense of how poorly our scouting/drafting/development system has been under KW, but just a statement on how he gets max value in most minor leaguers-for-major leaguer trades.

I don't mind all the trading, but I don't like how empty the ammo box gets. A team can still trade prospects and have a somewhat fruitful system. I really hope Kenny takes a prolonged reloading phase to better find a balance.

Spending more on the draft would be nice too...

asindc
01-28-2010, 11:35 AM
I don't mind all the trading, but I don't like how empty the ammo box gets. A team can still trade prospects and have a somewhat fruitful system. I really hope Kenny takes a prolonged reloading phase to better find a balance.

Spending more on the draft would be nice too...

I definitely agree. It is the one major criticism I have about KW.

thedudeabides
01-28-2010, 11:39 AM
That might explain it, but he should still crack a top 100 even with that philosophy.

Nope, he's eligibale according to his guidelines. He just left him off. He also said Viciedo is not even a prospect.

You really shouldn't take Law all that seriously. He did spend some time in the Toronto front office, but was not very well respected there, in fact a lot of the people he worked with had some pretty disparaging comments about him.

From what I have heard, the odds of him getting back into a baseball front office are about as good as Steve Phillips.

Also, these lists shouldn't be taken all that seriously from anyone. It is impossible for any person to get a good take on all 30 minor league systems, and especially be able to effectively scout hundreds of players and rank them with any accuracy.

The funny thing is, I saw him on TV the other day, and he said the Sox are the clear favorites in the Central this year.

DirtySox
01-28-2010, 11:44 AM
Nope, he's eligibale according to his guidelines. He just left him off. He also said Viciedo is not even a prospect.

You really shouldn't take Law all that seriously. He did spend some time in the Toronto front office, but was not very well respected there, in fact a lot of the people he worked with had some pretty disparaging comments about him.

From what I have heard, the odds of him getting back into a baseball front office are about as good as Steve Phillips.

Also, these lists shouldn't be taken all that seriously from anyone. It is impossible for any person to get a good take on all 30 minor league systems, and especially be able to effectively scout hundreds of players and rank them with any accuracy.

Right.

I don't take Law and lists all too seriously, but I am a big Sickels fan and also like BA and BP. I just enjoy talking/reading/analyzing prospects and lists spur such discussion.

oeo
01-28-2010, 12:21 PM
I don't mind all the trading, but I don't like how empty the ammo box gets. A team can still trade prospects and have a somewhat fruitful system. I really hope Kenny takes a prolonged reloading phase to better find a balance.

Spending more on the draft would be nice too...

Name a team that's as aggressive as the Sox in the trade market and has a 'fruitful system.' The teams that have good systems year in and year out don't trade their prospects. It's really not possible, you have to reload every year. One big trade will drain a good portion of your Top 5, which just absolutely kills you in these rankings.

As soon as the Sox start to reload, like last year, they just trade again. They've needed to draft and develop better, and it appears they've started to do a bit better, but we need to accept that Kenny and Co. have a different philosophy on this stuff. They have their guys that are untouchable, but the rest can go if it means bettering the big league club today.

DirtySox
01-28-2010, 12:29 PM
Name a team that's as aggressive as the Sox in the trade market and has a 'fruitful system.' The teams that have good systems year in and year out don't trade their prospects. It's really not possible, you have to reload every year. One big trade will drain a good portion of your Top 5, which just absolutely kills you in these rankings.

Boston

oeo
01-28-2010, 12:34 PM
Boston

They're aggressive when it comes to trading prospects? Not at all. Maybe in years past, but not in awhile. Remember when Theo wanted to rip the Sox off for Buehrle just a few years ago? Just one in a long list of many.

southsideirish71
01-28-2010, 01:29 PM
Here is his comment about Hudson in the chat today. Maybe someone should let him know that he pitched beyond Class A last year.


(1:12 PM)
With average stuff at best. And I'm sorry, what a D1 college product did in A-ball - especially low-A - is just not that exciting. Unless he stunk, in which case, he's got one food in the discard pile.

DirtySox
01-28-2010, 01:33 PM
Yea. I saw the Hudson comments as well. He said his ceiling is a 4 or 5. Do not agree.

thedudeabides
01-28-2010, 01:33 PM
Here is his comment about Hudson in the chat today. Maybe someone should let him know that he pitched beyond Class A last year.

This is exactly why you can't take him seriously. Much of the time, he really has no idea what he is talking about. I'm willing to bet he couldn't tell you with confidence which hand Hudson throws with.

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 01:42 PM
Yeah, there's a reason Sickels is so much more highly regarded. Hell, I like KG more and all he does is act as a soundboard for scouts.

asindc
01-28-2010, 01:44 PM
Here is his comment about Hudson in the chat today. Maybe someone should let him know that he pitched beyond Class A last year.

The telling thing about that statement is that any one of us could have researched Hudson's stats from last year in less than 10 minutes. That he actually got paid to write that article is also telling. I expect to read that kind of comment on a 'non-Sox' fan message board, not from a "baseball expert" employed by the most prominent media outlet for baseball in the country.

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 01:46 PM
I probably would have accepted some analysis that included reservations about Hudson's performance/progression at the higher levels and his third pitch, but man, what horse****.

oeo
01-28-2010, 01:46 PM
The telling thing about that statement is that any one of us could have researched Hudson's stats from last year in less than 10 minutes. That he actually got paid to write that article is also telling. I expect those to read that kind of comment on a 'non-Sox' fan message board, not from a "baseball expert" employed by the most prominent media outlet for baseball in the country.

Even the question includes that he played at every level.

thedudeabides
01-28-2010, 01:48 PM
Yeah, there's a reason Sickels is so much more highly regarded. Hell, I like KG more and all he does is act as a soundboard for scouts.

Agreed. At the very least, they seem to put the research in.

asindc
01-28-2010, 01:52 PM
Boston

I think Boston comes closest in terms of trading top flight prospects for proven MLB players (i.e., Hanley for Beckett) while maintaining a strong farm system, but even they are left thin in certain areas after major trades. They are still trying to solve their SS concerns four years after trading Hanley, a la the Sox and our CF issues after trading Rowand. Also, with the question marks surrounding Dice-K, their pitching depth does not appear to be as strong as once thought, even with the addition of Lackey.

Lip Man 1
01-28-2010, 03:16 PM
Keith Law for years has bashed anything to do with the White Sox in part, because they subscribe to the belief that minor league players are basically there for one reason and one reason only, to be used in trades for established major league performers. That doesn't suit his personal philosophy.

I have no issues with the Sox philosophy given the odds of any minor league player spending even one day in the big leagues let alone become an impact player.

Gordon Beckham is a once in a generation player, the others may or probably won't even take one pitch in the big leagues.

I'd trade the entire farm system every day and twice on Sunday to get guys who have actually established themselves and accomplished something in the hardest league in the world.

Lip

Tragg
01-28-2010, 03:26 PM
Boston
How Boston got 2 high draft choices out of Wagner is just incredible. That's one way to help build a system....assemble multiple choices.

munchman33
01-28-2010, 10:59 PM
Here is his comment about Hudson in the chat today. Maybe someone should let him know that he pitched beyond Class A last year.

Mr. Law has received some pretty angry emails from me about this. I don't mind when experts don't know tons about every prospect (it's nearly impossible), but it's simply outlandish to make things up when you obviously have no idea what the guy's been doing.

munchman33
01-28-2010, 11:01 PM
Keith Law for years has bashed anything to do with the White Sox in part, because they subscribe to the belief that minor league players are basically there for one reason and one reason only, to be used in trades for established major league performers. That doesn't suit his personal philosophy.

I have no issues with the Sox philosophy given the odds of any minor league player spending even one day in the big leagues let alone become an impact player.

Gordon Beckham is a once in a generation player, the others may or probably won't even take one pitch in the big leagues.

I'd trade the entire farm system every day and twice on Sunday to get guys who have actually established themselves and accomplished something in the hardest league in the world.

Lip

Gordon Beckham is a once in a generation player because of the way we run our team. Plenty of other squads bring stars and ROY candidates to the majors quite often. Two of those teams finished ahead of us in the division last year.

I don't subscribe to the all prospect philosophy of Keith Law, but the opposite end of the spectrum is just as nuts.

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 11:09 PM
Gordon Beckham is a once in a generation player because of the way we run our team. Plenty of other squads bring stars and ROY candidates to the majors quite often. Two of those teams finished ahead of us in the division last year.

I don't subscribe to the all prospect philosophy of Keith Law, but the opposite end of the spectrum is just as nuts.
Yeah, if Beckham is once in a generation then Aaron Hill is a hall of famer. I love Gordon, and his ceiling is unimaginable, but let's not make that bust yet.

asindc
01-28-2010, 11:31 PM
Gordon Beckham is a once in a generation player because of the way we run our team. Plenty of other squads bring stars and ROY candidates to the majors quite often. Two of those teams finished ahead of us in the division last year.

I don't subscribe to the all prospect philosophy of Keith Law, but the opposite end of the spectrum is just as nuts.

I agree with this as well. A well run farm system should produce a player of Beckham's caliber about every 3-4 years. He seems like a once in a generation player because, sadly, that has been the rate at which our farm system has produced such players in the past 15 years or so.

EMachine10
01-29-2010, 10:33 AM
I'm not a Law fan at all. Baseball America is a MUCH better read for all things baseball (But more so for prospects).

TheVulture
01-29-2010, 01:21 PM
As Phil Rogers pointed out yesterday, the Sox system's .546 winning percentage last year says otherwise. Birmingham had one of the most stacked lineups in baseball last year, but now the Sox have the worst minor league system in baseball? It don't add up.

chunk
01-29-2010, 02:32 PM
As Phil Rogers pointed out yesterday, the Sox system's .546 winning percentage last year says otherwise. Birmingham had one of the most stacked lineups in baseball last year, but now the Sox have the worst minor league system in baseball? It don't add up.

Trades and graduation can do that to you.

tm1119
01-29-2010, 08:33 PM
As Phil Rogers pointed out yesterday, the Sox system's .546 winning percentage last year says otherwise. Birmingham had one of the most stacked lineups in baseball last year, but now the Sox have the worst minor league system in baseball? It don't add up.

Minor league stats/wins do not really equate to MLB success. Its all about potential and talent. The reality is is that we've traded somewhere around 10 good prospects away in the past few years that has pretty much depleted our system. Whether or not we are dead last or 25th doesnt really matter, we have only a hand full of prospects that have a good future in the MLB. The positive thing is that we have been drafting very well as of late and it could only take a couple of years and good coaching/progression to vault us up to the top of that list.

RichH55
02-21-2010, 01:28 PM
As Phil Rogers pointed out yesterday, the Sox system's .546 winning percentage last year says otherwise. Birmingham had one of the most stacked lineups in baseball last year, but now the Sox have the worst minor league system in baseball? It don't add up.



This is a very poor way to look at minor league rankings.

Age to level is important..etc.

I could put together a Triple A team that was dominate that didn't have anything better than a potential bench MLB bench player on it.

RichH55
02-21-2010, 01:29 PM
I agree with this as well. A well run farm system should produce a player of Beckham's caliber about every 3-4 years. He seems like a once in a generation player because, sadly, that has been the rate at which our farm system has produced such players in the past 15 years or so.


Are there any well run systems out there then? Or have you set the bar a bit high?

RichH55
02-21-2010, 01:30 PM
Aside from Boston nabbing picks from the Wagner thing.

They use their comparative advantage of cash as they often pay over slot for picks. The Royals have started doing this as well.

asindc
02-21-2010, 01:35 PM
Are there any well run systems out there then? Or have you set the bar a bit high?

Perhaps that is a bit high, but I do believe going 20 years between drafting and producing a potential perennial all-star hitter is not good enough.

RichH55
02-21-2010, 01:40 PM
Perhaps that is a bit high, but I do believe going 20 years between drafting and producing a potential perennial all-star hitter is not good enough.


Different argument then.


Does it count if they get that prospect in a trade? Flowers fits the catergory then too IMHO.

asindc
02-21-2010, 02:16 PM
Different argument then.


Does it count if they get that prospect in a trade? Flowers fits the catergory then too IMHO.

That does matter, but scouting, drafting, and developing your own players is the most efficient way to do it. KW has been damn-near masterful at parlaying our minor league talent into solid major league contributors or vice versa, but that is the more expensive way to do it.

Daver
02-21-2010, 02:36 PM
KW has been damn-near masterful at parlaying our minor league talent into solid major league contributors or vice versa, but that is the more expensive way to do it.

More expensive in what way?

asindc
02-21-2010, 02:41 PM
More expensive in what way?

Drafting Beckham, Big Frank, Black Jack, Buehrle, or any other top-flight player means you do not have to trade for him later and you get him at an arbitration-level salary for a few years before free agency.

cws05champ
02-21-2010, 07:38 PM
Part of the problem with the Sox philosophy is that they rarely give over slot $$ to later round draftees or take the chance on hard to sign players like Porcello/Kelly later in the 1st round(where they have been drafting for much of the last 15 years). If they took these chances they may have more talent in the system in order to deal them if needed. We just had too many drafts of Ring, Broadway,McColluch in the 1st round and then not followed up with over slot talent later in the draft.

I'm not saying throw money around in the draft loosy goosy, but to get clearly superior talent sometimes you need to pay the price.

Daver
02-21-2010, 07:57 PM
Part of the problem with the Sox philosophy is that they rarely give over slot $$ to later round draftees or take the chance on hard to sign players like Porcello/Kelly later in the 1st round(where they have been drafting for much of the last 15 years). If they took these chances they may have more talent in the system in order to deal them if needed. We just had too many drafts of Ring, Broadway,McColluch in the 1st round and then not followed up with over slot talent later in the draft.

I'm not saying throw money around in the draft loosy goosy, but to get clearly superior talent sometimes you need to pay the price.


If you can't develop talent why would you overpay to get it?

SoxNation05
02-21-2010, 11:23 PM
If you can't develop talent why would you overpay to get it?

What talent are you referring to? Of the three guys he mentioned, none of them had talent.

EDIT: Broadway could beat chicks up. That's talent.

DonnieDarko
02-21-2010, 11:26 PM
Can someone explain what "slot over paying" is? Or whatever the correct term is?

jabrch
02-22-2010, 12:02 AM
Can someone explain what "slot over paying" is? Or whatever the correct term is?


MLB has recommendations for what players who are drafted should be paid. But they can't enforce them. Some teams, Boston, NY, CHC and Detroit more than most, are willing to draft guys in later rounds and pay them like higher picks. They get 1st round talent in later rounds and pay them like first rounders.

Domeshot17
02-22-2010, 12:30 AM
MLB has recommendations for what players who are drafted should be paid. But they can't enforce them. Some teams, Boston, NY, CHC and Detroit more than most, are willing to draft guys in later rounds and pay them like higher picks. They get 1st round talent in later rounds and pay them like first rounders.

Good breakdown.

An example that is seen is Rick Porcello. Boras Client, was known to be a tough sign. He didn't go in the top 10 as projected. You would think that would mean he would go 11-12-13. But Boras told teams if you want him, you pay him like a top 10 pick.

So then you have a team like Detroit towards the bottom of round 1. They see players who are far lesser talents and will sign for the chance to play. They also see this kid who has the talent of one of the top 10 players in the draft but it will cost them a ton of money. It isn't like the NFL where players who fall tend to be forced to take less money.

Basically going over slot lets teams in the bottom of the draft draft like they are in the top 10.

jabrch
02-22-2010, 12:34 AM
Good breakdown.

An example that is seen is Rick Porcello. Boras Client, was known to be a tough sign. He didn't go in the top 10 as projected. You would think that would mean he would go 11-12-13. But Boras told teams if you want him, you pay him like a top 10 pick.

So then you have a team like Detroit towards the bottom of round 1. They see players who are far lesser talents and will sign for the chance to play. They also see this kid who has the talent of one of the top 10 players in the draft but it will cost them a ton of money. It isn't like the NFL where players who fall tend to be forced to take less money.

Basically going over slot lets teams in the bottom of the draft draft like they are in the top 10.

He still went in the first round. The Yanks sign guys in the 5th - 10th rounds for 750K+ and more quite frequently. Porcello was a first round talent who went in the first round and negotiated for himself more than slot. But the real problem is when the rich few get 1st/2nd round talent in the 5th-10th rounds.

This is a pretty good (although old) summary of the topic.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6545


I don't have much a problem paying a 1st rounder big money. Porcello is a good example. (I wouldn't want my team to pay that much for a HS pitcher - but I understand why a team would But it bothers me when teams sign a guy in the mid rounds and pay him like a first rounder. Jeff Samardszia is an example - drafted in the 5th round, but given a deal with a signing bonus that, according to Cot's (http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/chicago-cubs_112114177768677294.html) amounts to 7.25m if he doesn't play football.

Thatguyoverthere
02-23-2010, 10:03 AM
I'm not a big fan of the slot system. If the top talent knows it can slide in the draft and still be paid like a top pick, then some teams who need the high draft picks are going to be in a tough position. If the best players aren't going to the worst teams (the teams who need them), then what is the point of the draft?