PDA

View Full Version : Tigers sign Porcello


INSox56
08-14-2007, 01:06 PM
for 4 years/$7.28 MILLION :mg:

chaerulez
08-14-2007, 01:12 PM
At least they are willing to take high risk, high reward prospects. Something our front office wants nothing to do with. In five years or so we'll find out what organization's philosophy is better.

rdivaldi
08-14-2007, 01:22 PM
At least they are willing to take high risk, high reward prospects. Something our front office wants nothing to do with. In five years or so we'll find out what organization's philosophy is better.

:?:

Every player in the draft is a risk, there are no sure things. The Sox have drafted Gio Gonzalez, Kris Honel, Ryan Sweeney and other high schoolers in the first or second round as of late.

Porcello fell because his agent is a snake. If the Kitties want to pay a high schooler that much money, then good luck to you. Watch Aaron Poreda pitch and you'll sing a different tune.

balke
08-14-2007, 01:42 PM
7 million a year for a player who's never seen MLB hitting. He'll probably not even be on the roster for the first season. That's really dumb IMO. What's with Detroit signing rookies for way too much money?

FloridaTigers
08-14-2007, 02:00 PM
What's with Detroit signing rookies for way too much money?

Its working, isn't it? Verlander is an ace, Miller has so much potential, and Maybin among the Top 5 prospects in baseball. Each "paid too much money". With an owner who has the money and is willing to spend and a smart GM like Dombrowski, the Tigers have restocked their farm system with this draft alone.

Boras might be a snake to many teams, but he's got a great relationship in Detroit. Magglio Ordonez was "paid too much" and is a Boras client. Thats paid off quite well for the team.

rdivaldi
08-14-2007, 02:11 PM
Its working, isn't it? Verlander is an ace, Miller has so much potential, and Maybin among the Top 5 prospects in baseball. Each "paid too much money". With an owner who has the money and is willing to spend and a smart GM like Dombrowski, the Tigers have restocked their farm system with this draft alone.

Time out, let's get a grip for a second. Before you go patting the Tigers on the back for drafting Verlander, Miller and Maybin, let's not forget that these three guys were drafted #2, #6 and #10. Not exactly steals, especially since Miller and Maybin have done nothing in the majors as of yet.

Secondly, what's with this "restocked" crap? That's absolutely ridiculous, there are no sure things in the MLB draft. Let's hold off on annointing Dombrowski a genius, okay?

chaerulez
08-14-2007, 02:21 PM
:?:

Every player in the draft is a risk, there are no sure things. The Sox have drafted Gio Gonzalez, Kris Honel, Ryan Sweeney and other high schoolers in the first or second round as of late.

Porcello fell because his agent is a snake. If the Kitties want to pay a high schooler that much money, then good luck to you. Watch Aaron Poreda pitch and you'll sing a different tune.

Porcell fell because of the money issue, but he is the high school pitcher with the highest ceiling. Meaning he is the best potential pitcher in the draft. Of course, if he reaches that remains to be seen. I'm just tired of all these "safe" college picks in the past few years. Maybin and Miller, while high picks, did fall because of signing concerns. All I know is the Tigers have a much higher rated farm system than ours. We don't have anyone (unless you still count Fields) that has star quality potential (maybe Gio) in our system right now, and the Tigers have at least a few.

jabrch
08-14-2007, 02:23 PM
Porcello fell because his agent is a snake. If the Kitties want to pay a high schooler that much money, then good luck to you. Watch Aaron Poreda pitch and you'll sing a different tune.


Not just the $ - a MLB contract for a HS pitcher is a crazy risk. You have 3 years to get him to the majors or you may lose him. So you have to possibly rush him, and burn a 40 man roster spot.

That's just nuts.

PatK
08-14-2007, 02:47 PM
Its working, isn't it? Verlander is an ace, Miller has so much potential, and Maybin among the Top 5 prospects in baseball. Each "paid too much money". With an owner who has the money and is willing to spend and a smart GM like Dombrowski, the Tigers have restocked their farm system with this draft alone.

Boras might be a snake to many teams, but he's got a great relationship in Detroit. Magglio Ordonez was "paid too much" and is a Boras client. Thats paid off quite well for the team.

Let's not let one winning season go to everyone's head.

balke
08-14-2007, 02:55 PM
Its working, isn't it? Verlander is an ace, Miller has so much potential, and Maybin among the Top 5 prospects in baseball. Each "paid too much money". With an owner who has the money and is willing to spend and a smart GM like Dombrowski, the Tigers have restocked their farm system with this draft alone.

Boras might be a snake to many teams, but he's got a great relationship in Detroit. Magglio Ordonez was "paid too much" and is a Boras client. Thats paid off quite well for the team.

I was more referring to Calvin Johnson, hehe. Maggs sat on the bench his first season and possibly could've been half the hitter he was for the rest of his career, much like Porcell may play for 7 mil in the minors, and possibly never be MLB calibur.

The Sox don't have that kind of money to pay a player 15 million dollars to ride the bench, or 7 million to develop. Good for the Tigers.

And I gotta say it is working well for them, but Kenny's philosophy has worked out better. See World Series Champion banner, v. World Series Banner.

rdivaldi
08-14-2007, 02:58 PM
Porcell fell because of the money issue, but he is the high school pitcher with the highest ceiling. Meaning he is the best potential pitcher in the draft. Of course, if he reaches that remains to be seen. I'm just tired of all these "safe" college picks in the past few years. Maybin and Miller, while high picks, did fall because of signing concerns. All I know is the Tigers have a much higher rated farm system than ours. We don't have anyone (unless you still count Fields) that has star quality potential (maybe Gio) in our system right now, and the Tigers have at least a few.

I think that Broadway and McCullough have skewed your view of our draft history. Just because a guy is a college player does not make him a safe pick.

2000 - Borchard (extremely risky as well as expensive)
2001 - Honel (risky high schooler)
2002 - Ring (college reliever, very risky (and stupid))
2003 - Anderson (viewed as a high ceiling player)
2004 - Fields (extremely risky, ala Borchard)
2005 - Broadway
2006 - McCullough
2007 - Poreda (risky, high ceiling pitcher)

Also, beware the hyping of prospects by BA. Whenever a team develops a couple of guys that helps a team win, BA quite often overrates the rest of their system. We were a victim of that in 2000 as were the Cubs in 2004 and the Tribe in 2005.

balke
08-14-2007, 03:07 PM
I think that Broadway and McCullough have skewed your view of our draft history. Just because a guy is a college player does not make him a safe pick.

2000 - Borchard (extremely risky as well as expensive)
2001 - Honel (risky high schooler)
2002 - Ring (college reliever, very risky (and stupid))
2003 - Anderson (viewed as a high ceiling player)
2004 - Fields (extremely risky, ala Borchard)
2005 - Broadway
2006 - McCullough
2007 - Poreda (risky, high ceiling pitcher)

Also, beware the hyping of prospects by BA. Whenever a team develops a couple of guys that helps a team win, BA quite often overrates the rest of their system. We were a victim of that in 2000 as were the Cubs in 2004 and the Tribe in 2005.

I think in 2003-2004 people were rumbling about the raw talent in our Farm System. They said this franchise would be successful because of all the young talent coming out of the system. It was all STUPIDLY DEALT.


Rauch... meh
Ring... meh
Borchard... meh
Anderson (So far)... meh
Mccarthy... meh
Reed... meh
Morse... meh

I don't blame Kenny for playing it safe.

Oblong
08-14-2007, 03:11 PM
Not just the $ - a MLB contract for a HS pitcher is a crazy risk. You have 3 years to get him to the majors or you may lose him. So you have to possibly rush him, and burn a 40 man roster spot.

That's just nuts.

Why is it crazy? I'd rather see a team take a risk for a reasonable, in MLB money, amount on a high ceiling prospect than a journeyman hanging on. The money he's getting is pretty much the veteran league minimum. KC passes on Miller last year because his price is too high but then shells out $55 million for Gil Meche? That's what is nuts. I'm also glad that Detroit stuck it to Selig and his "slot" money.

Also, where are you getting this 3 years from?

Beckett got a major league deal when Dombrowski and Chadd drafted him in Florida.

California Sox
08-14-2007, 03:19 PM
rdvaldi, I respect you as much as anyone on this board, but I think this time you're missing the point. If the kitties continue to be able to get the second-rated player on the board with the 27th pick of the draft because they're willing to obliterate MLB's slot recommendations, while the Sox are so in the Selig camp that they won't even pay an extra $50,000 now and again, the Sox will have a hard time competing. An example I will use from this year's draft is our 10th rounder Guinn. To sign him, the Sox would have to go significantly over slot. They've said he's a priority, but so far no action. If the Tigers are going to sign the likes of Porcello and we can't even bring the Guinns of the world into the fold, it's going to be a long few years.

Daver
08-14-2007, 03:20 PM
Also, where are you getting this 3 years from?

He has no option years, conceivably he can gain the service time to be arbitration eligible in three years.

Beckett got a major league deal when Dombrowski and Chadd drafted him in Florida.

It worked out real well for Prior and the Cubs.

rdivaldi
08-14-2007, 03:27 PM
rdvaldi, I respect you as much as anyone on this board, but I think this time you're missing the point. If the kitties continue to be able to get the second-rated player on the board with the 27th pick of the draft because they're willing to obliterate MLB's slot recommendations, while the Sox are so in the Selig camp that they won't even pay an extra $50,000 now and again, the Sox will have a hard time competing.

I see what you're saying, but this is not the NFL draft, this is the MLB draft. If the Kitties want to shell out big bucks for unproven high school players then good luck. If that was the way to win, don't you think that Steinbrenner would have been doing it years ago? The MLB draft is extremely unpredictable, there's no reason to think that Porcello is any more likely to win a Cy Young than blow his arm out in two years and never even sniff AA. If he was a college pitcher another team would have snapped him up before they did, but even that is not a sure thing.

I'm interested to see what the Sox do over the next couple of years, they were able to sign Nevin Griffith which is a good sign.

upperdeckusc
08-14-2007, 03:30 PM
I think that Broadway and McCullough have skewed your view of our draft history. Just because a guy is a college player does not make him a safe pick.

2000 - Borchard (extremely risky as well as expensive)
2001 - Honel (risky high schooler)
2002 - Ring (college reliever, very risky (and stupid))
2003 - Anderson (viewed as a high ceiling player)
2004 - Fields (extremely risky, ala Borchard)
2005 - Broadway
2006 - McCullough
2007 - Poreda (risky, high ceiling pitcher)

Also, beware the hyping of prospects by BA. Whenever a team develops a couple of guys that helps a team win, BA quite often overrates the rest of their system. We were a victim of that in 2000 as were the Cubs in 2004 and the Tribe in 2005.

why was he risky??

TDog
08-14-2007, 03:30 PM
Porcell fell because of the money issue. ...

Mark Prior fell, in large part, because of the money issue. No one is complaining about the Twins drafting Joe Mauer today.

Pitchers can have a world of potential and fizzle out. Tod Van Poppel, from a Texas high school in 1990 where he had an ERA under 1 in his senior year, was supposed to be the future pitching star in baseball when he fell to the A's because of the money he was demanding. The Braves backed away from him with the No. 1 pick and chose Chipper Jones instead. Van Poppel never had an ERA under 4 until his seventh major league season, when he had found his niche as a reliever for the Cubs, his fifth big league team. After the Rangers signed him as a $2 million free-agent reliever, he was so bad playing home games in the city where he graduated from high school that he was released in August. In his career, he was twice selected off of waivers and thrice released.

Van Poppel is just the beginning. The Rangers chose David Clyde out of high school with the No. 1 pick in 1973 and were so impressed with him that they immediately put him in the starting rotation. And he dominated in his first game. Clyde eventually pitched n the minors. He pitched only 84 major league games, finishing his career with an 18-33 record.

Pitchers can have a world of potential and have success in the major leagues and lose it in a hurry because something goes wrong. See Prior and Kerry Wood.

If you're going to commit big money to a pitcher out of high school, you have to be very lucky to get your money's worth.

California Sox
08-14-2007, 03:34 PM
why was he risky??

Mostly a football player in HS. He has risen to dominance stuff-wise just in the last two years. His secondary stuff is a work in progress. Has a high upside, but all those issues could make him an early flame-out.

California Sox
08-14-2007, 03:39 PM
I see what you're saying, but this is not the NFL draft, this is the MLB draft. If the Kitties want to shell out big bucks for unproven high school players then good luck. If that was the way to win, don't you think that Steinbrenner would have been doing it years ago?

I think the Yankees (and to an even greater extent the Red Sox) are starting to use this approach. Look at Ian Kennedy, Joba Chamberlain, and I believe Hughes was signed for over-slot.

I agree that the specific case of Porcello is pretty risky. That's a lot of money and a major league deal to a HS righthander. Lots can go wrong. But they also signed two other over-slot deals. My point is, they're doing what they think is best for their organization. We're doing what we think is best for the industry as a whole. It's like we're fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.

But, like you said, the kid's not Durant or Oden. No such thing as a sure thing in the MLB draft.

jabrch
08-14-2007, 03:40 PM
Why is it crazy? I'd rather see a team take a risk for a reasonable, in MLB money, amount on a high ceiling prospect than a journeyman hanging on.

What "journeyman hanging on" are you talking about?


The money he's getting is pretty much the veteran league minimum.

That's just not true.

KC passes on Miller last year because his price is too high but then shells out $55 million for Gil Meche? That's what is nuts.

Absolutely not. Meche stepped in and provided very solid MLB innings, right away. That's the price you pay for proven MLB talent. You don't pay the price you'd pay for proven MLB talent to get prospects who have a very high degree of likelihood of being complete busts.

Also, where are you getting this 3 years from?

A major league contract means he will be on the 40 man roster right away, and will only have three years until he has to be on the MLB roster. Those are the rules.

Beckett got a major league deal when Dombrowski and Chadd drafted him in Florida.

So have many other players. And more often than not it is a very bad idea for a HS kid. It eats a spot on your 40 man roster, and it forces you to bring a guy along on a certain timetable.

jabrch
08-14-2007, 03:45 PM
We're doing what we think is best for the industry as a whole.

I don't see it that way. I see the Sox saying that they aren't going to sign guys to ridiculous deals and let them go the way of Borchard, Stumm, etc.

Porcello is no lock - if he were, some GM other than Dombrowski might have been willing to pick him. Trust me - if Boras had his way, there would be more teams interested in his players, and they'd be taking them higher. But as long as he pushes for major league deals and such high $ contracts, he will be limiting the number of teams interested in his players. Let's see what happens the next day and a half as the deadline approaches.

oeo
08-14-2007, 03:48 PM
Its working, isn't it? Verlander is an ace, Miller has so much potential, and Maybin among the Top 5 prospects in baseball. Each "paid too much money". With an owner who has the money and is willing to spend and a smart GM like Dombrowski, the Tigers have restocked their farm system with this draft alone.

Miller has already begun what I see as an injury-plagued career and Maybin hasn't done squat. Paying up the ass for these guys is going to end up biting Dombrowski in the butt, then we'll see how smart he is.

California Sox
08-14-2007, 03:49 PM
Jabrch, are you saying that JR is not a staunch supporter of Selig-enforced slotting? If so, that's simply not true.

jabrch
08-14-2007, 04:17 PM
Jabrch, are you saying that JR is not a staunch supporter of Selig-enforced slotting? If so, that's simply not true.

No - I didn't say that.

What I said is that he and KW are doing what they think is right for the team, not what they think is right for the league. The fact that there is an intersection between the two doesn't lessen the fact that KW/JR still don't believe it is good business to give a HS pitcher a major league deal and something like 8mm in guaranteed money.

Hindsight is 20/20. But imagine if we "played it safe" in 2000 instead of "paying way over slot money and taking a risk" and passed on Joe Borchard and his huge contract and took that "safe" 2B from UCLA....CHASE UTLEY...who went 3 picks later?

Of course JR is in favor of "slotting" - it keeps his costs predictable and controllable and doesn't favor owners willing to spend more money than he is. That's not a surprise. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't also believe that his team is better off not overpaying for a HS kid who is even still for from a sure thing to ever contribute in a meaningful way to his major league club. Assume the overall (Minors + Majors) budget is fixed. The decision is $8mm to Porcello or $2mm to Poreda and $6mm to spend on major league talent for next year. It's not as black and white as some make it sound that we should have taken Porcello. (again - that's without discussing the ramifications of a major league contract.)

FloridaTigers
08-14-2007, 04:26 PM
And I gotta say it is working well for them, but Kenny's philosophy has worked out better. See World Series Champion banner, v. World Series Banner.

But has happened since? One team has sunk without a strong of a system and the other team is still competetive with a better farm system. Now, it won't be a fair assessment until we see how things play out for the next few years, but I prefer DD's "High risk, high reward". People said he paid too much for Troy Percival. Who cares? When he failed, no one saw his salary holding down the Tigers.

And why can't we Tigers fans pat him on the back? He's built TWO World Series teams. (1997 and most of the 2003 guys were results from his trades in 1998) and turned around arguably the worst American League team of all time into American League Champions in a span of 3 years. Not only that, he's refueled what was the worst farm system in the majors.

oeo
08-14-2007, 04:29 PM
But has happened since? One team has sunk without a strong of a system and the other team is still competetive with a better farm system.

It's been two years...*****. We were not bad last year...and had Buehrle had a career average year, your Tigers wouldn't even have made the postseason.

You saw how quickly the Sox fell off the map, and it can just as easily happen to the Tigers (they're an even older team than the Sox). We'll judge who did the better job 10 years from now, not even in a couple.

FloridaTigers
08-14-2007, 04:37 PM
Which is why I said it won't be a fair assessment for another few years. But the Tigers have so many young, promising arms in their system at the moment. If only three of those develop into MLB caliber pitchers, the Tigers won't be sinking at the bottom of the division for a while.

jabrch
08-14-2007, 04:42 PM
But the Tigers have so many young, promising arms in their system at the moment.

So do the Sox. So do many franchises. The problem is that most will wash out for all franchises. When you have 8mm in guaranteed money sunk into your #1 pick, and he washes out, it is a huge loss. When the guy you took with a top 10 draft pick washes out, it is a huge loss. (I'll let you know when the Sox have that problem - we haven't picked in the top 10 in a long time)

TDog
08-14-2007, 04:53 PM
Which is why I said it won't be a fair assessment for another few years. But the Tigers have so many young, promising arms in their system at the moment. If only three of those develop into MLB caliber pitchers, the Tigers won't be sinking at the bottom of the division for a while.

I remember at the end of the last century when he White Sox had so many promising arms in their system. That's what everyone said anyway.

I also remember when the White Sox came close to getting to the World Series in 1993, when the future looked so bright with James Baldwin and Scott Ruffcorn were among the best pitching prospects in baseball.

UserNameBlank
08-14-2007, 04:58 PM
rdvaldi, I respect you as much as anyone on this board, but I think this time you're missing the point. If the kitties continue to be able to get the second-rated player on the board with the 27th pick of the draft because they're willing to obliterate MLB's slot recommendations, while the Sox are so in the Selig camp that they won't even pay an extra $50,000 now and again, the Sox will have a hard time competing. An example I will use from this year's draft is our 10th rounder Guinn. To sign him, the Sox would have to go significantly over slot. They've said he's a priority, but so far no action. If the Tigers are going to sign the likes of Porcello and we can't even bring the Guinns of the world into the fold, it's going to be a long few years.
I agree with this 100%.

Personally I think the rules for the draft need to be changed all the way around. There should be salary caps depending on the round and major league contracts should not be given to US players without experience in professional baseball. This way the teams with the highest picks can actually get the best players.

That said, the system as it is allows winning teams in larger markets to take advantage of players who fall so far. I see no reason for the Sox not to take advantage of this because considering the payroll the Sox can afford, the Sox are in better position to take larger risks. I don't see how letting a division rival scoop up better players is helping the Sox. I also don't see how refusing to deal with Borass clients is helping the Sox. The Sox have shown since 2005 that they can be a large market team, yet they still operate with this small market mentality.

Oblong
08-14-2007, 05:11 PM
What "journeyman hanging on" are you talking about?


That's just not true.

Absolutely not. Meche stepped in and provided very solid MLB innings, right away. That's the price you pay for proven MLB talent. You don't pay the price you'd pay for proven MLB talent to get prospects who have a very high degree of likelihood of being complete busts.

A major league contract means he will be on the 40 man roster right away, and will only have three years until he has to be on the MLB roster. Those are the rules.

So have many other players. And more often than not it is a very bad idea for a HS kid. It eats a spot on your 40 man roster, and it forces you to bring a guy along on a certain timetable.

Check any MLB roster and you'll find some schlub making $2-3 million who is just wasting away a roster spot when there's a AAA guy in their system who could do the same thing.

Are you saying you'd rather have Gil Meche at $55 million for 5 years on your team than Andrew Miller at his signing bonus and salary? It's incredibly short sighted. What does Meche get you if you are the Royals? 70 wins instead of 65? By the time they are able to turn it around Meche will be gone while Miller's entering his prime. Obviously there's a risk in signing Miller but there's a risk in any pitcher, especially with someone like Meche and he cost 10 times as much.

Any pitcher is a risk. I'd rather see a team do this than sign the veterans like Zito, Dreiffert, Meche.... or even Jose Mesa for $2.5 million

I'll get back to you on the roster stuff.
.

balke
08-14-2007, 05:17 PM
But has happened since? One team has sunk without a strong of a system and the other team is still competetive with a better farm system.

Yeah, all we have to do is lose the second most games in MLB history, and get some of the best picks in the draft while flooding the team with high risk free agents with huge contracts. No thanks. The Tigers are so good now because they were such an embarassment then. I congratulate them on taking risks and having them workout, but they don't set a great model for maintaining a franchise. They've set a great model for rebuilding a franchise.

TDog
08-14-2007, 05:17 PM
I agree with this 100%.

Personally I think the rules for the draft need to be changed all the way around. There should be salary caps depending on the round and major league contracts should not be given to US players without experience in professional baseball. This way the teams with the highest picks can actually get the best players.

That said, the system as it is allows winning teams in larger markets to take advantage of players who fall so far. I see no reason for the Sox not to take advantage of this because considering the payroll the Sox can afford, the Sox are in better position to take larger risks. I don't see how letting a division rival scoop up better players is helping the Sox. I also don't see how refusing to deal with Borass clients is helping the Sox. The Sox have shown since 2005 that they can be a large market team, yet they still operate with this small market mentality.


It would seem the draft system could be changed through the collective bargaining agreement. Considering the union is made up of players who wouldn't be affected by what you suggest, it would seem to be something the union shouldn't fight. It would hurt the agents, though, and I'm guessing that is why the system won't change.

There is only one team that can afford to make mistakes in the millions of dollars, and even the Yankees have been extended to their limit in recent years. Money a team spends stupidly is money the team can't spend to do what needs to be done.

It's entirely possible that Rodriguez won't be with the Tigers next year because of money issues. The Tigers have a $13 million option with a $3 million buyout. It isn't simply a question of spending money, it's how a team spends it.

FloridaTigers
08-14-2007, 05:24 PM
I don't get it. So most of you guys seem like you would rather spend 55 million just to TALK to someone and then pony up even more cash to sign them over taking a 7 million dollar chance on a younger arm that your organization can take baby steps with and not rush?

balke
08-14-2007, 05:25 PM
Would anyone here like to be paying Gavin Floyd 7 million dollars a season for 4 seasons? #4 overall pick. That's about as far as you have to go with this discussion. This is not a good model to follow.

I'm wondering if the people in this thread that support this type of signing are the same ones who think Luis Terrero is a future star for the Sox based on his tools.

UserNameBlank
08-14-2007, 05:28 PM
It would seem the draft system could be changed through the collective bargaining agreement. Considering the union is made up of players who wouldn't be affected by what you suggest, it would seem to be something the union shouldn't fight. It would hurt the agents, though, and I'm guessing that is why the system won't change.

There is only one team that can afford to make mistakes in the millions of dollars, and even the Yankees have been extended to their limit in recent years. Money a team spends stupidly is money the team can't spend to do what needs to be done.

It's entirely possible that Rodriguez won't be with the Tigers next year because of money issues. The Tigers have a $13 million option with a $3 million buyout. It isn't simply a question of spending money, it's how a team spends it.
I agree with this but I certainly believe a team in the top ten or so in payroll can take that kind of chance in the first round of every draft. If nothing else, these guys are tradeable after one year. Not that they would do it, but just as an example imagine what the Tigers could get for Miller or Maybin right now. That type of player is the centerpiece in a major deal, and it would be stupid for the Sox to continually pass up on opportunities like these when you consider that there is always some small market team in a perpetual state of rebuilding willing to offer up above average major league players before they become too expensive in arbitration.

Edit: also note that Miller and Maybin were just examples, even though the Sox didn't have a shot at them as in the case of Porcello.

I agree on Rodriguez even though I think he'll be picked up since it will cost them $3mil to dump him, but you also have to consider that the Rodriguez, Ordonez, and Percival (are they still paying him?) signings were kind of imperative. The Tigers were a dog**** team at the time and needed to vastly overpay to lure big name free agents that would improve their team. As it is now, the Tigers are at a point where they won't have to do that anymore. They will still overpay, as every team in baseball has to because of the current state of the market, but they aren't going to be bidding against invisible teams and forking over any more than anyone else.

Oblong
08-14-2007, 05:37 PM
Would anyone here like to be paying Gavin Floyd 7 million dollars a season for 4 seasons? #4 overall pick. That's about as far as you have to go with this discussion. This is not a good model to follow.

I'm wondering if the people in this thread that support this type of signing are the same ones who think Luis Terrero is a future star for the Sox based on his tools.

Who is paying Porcello $28 million?

California Sox
08-14-2007, 05:39 PM
Would anyone here like to be paying Gavin Floyd 7 million dollars a season for 4 seasons? #4 overall pick. That's about as far as you have to go with this discussion. This is not a good model to follow.

It's $7 million total for four seasons, not $7mil/season. And, you're right, highly regarded high school pitcher Gavin Floyd has not panned out.

I'm wondering if the people in this thread that support this type of signing are the same ones who think Luis Terrero is a future star for the Sox based on his tools.

Speaking only for myself, I have never liked Luis Terrero. Not in the Arizona system. Not with the Sox. In a box. Or with a fox. However, if you offered me Maybin for the price of his signing bonus right now, I'd take him in a heartbeat.

balke
08-14-2007, 05:55 PM
Who is paying Porcello $28 million?

OH! Then its not that bad of a price. I thought he already landed a big MLB contract without throwing a single MLB pitch. Its probably still too much, but I might agree with signing some high risk prospects for that kind of money if you get 4 seasons for 2 mil per. You gotta be pretty high on that prospect though, and I don't think Kenny will try it again until he's sure. Borchard was a bitter pill to swallow. Borchard's 5 mil could've gone towards a solid bullpen arm, or solid 5th starter.

Patrick134
08-14-2007, 06:10 PM
All of these moves will be judged solely on 20/20 hindsight. The Borchard signing= bad because he sucked, signing a joe Mauer = good because he panned out. No need to debate the Porcini signing now, both sides will have their statistical ammunition soon enough.

UserNameBlank
08-14-2007, 06:17 PM
All of these moves will be judged solely on 20/20 hindsight. The Borchard signing= bad because he sucked, signing a joe Mauer = good because he panned out. No need to debate the Porcini signing now, both sides will have their statistical ammunition soon enough.
The argument isn't about whether or not Porcello is going to win a Cy Young, it is about whether or not it was a good risk to take. Debating later would be pointless.

The Borchard signing was a good signing at the time, but it just didn't work out. If anything the Sox didn't trade him early enough, but I don't see how anyone could say how the Sox were wrong for picking him because that was the type of pick you're supposed to take in that situation.

UserNameBlank
08-14-2007, 06:22 PM
To add to the above post:

The only thing wrong with the Borchard pick is the Sox using it as a reason to stay away from what they see as the best available player. There are always failures in every draft, and the biggest failures come out of the first round, so what is the point of taking a player with say good upside/bad mechanics for a couple million when you could take a player with better mechanics and better upside for a few million more? The odds are actually against both players so it is already a big gamble, so why not go for the bigger potential payoff?

Oblong
08-14-2007, 06:31 PM
What gets lost on the risk factor is the ability and talent of the people making the decisions. A highly touted high school pitcher may be ranked that high due to faulty analysis, like Brien Taylor. It's not 20/20 hindsight in that case. The signs were all there but the Yankees ignored it due to the hype and ego. But if you have a good scouting department and faith in your guys to judge the players then it's better to spread out the money you'd give someone like a Jason Schmidt, Zito, or Suppan over the guys you think highly of coming out of the draft. How often have you heard a fan say "It's not my money" when they talk about picking up a middle infielder or fourth outfielder. Well that $3-5 million could be a prized draft pick that you let slip through your hands because you thought it was too much of a risk.

Borchard's 5 mil could've gone towards a solid bullpen arm, or solid 5th starter

who? Jeff Weaver (he cost $8 mill), Kip Wells, Randy Wolf? MLB talent doesn't come from a store where you just pick out what you need of the shelf and take it home. You either have to entice the player to play for you or you have to entice the other team with enough of a draw to deal him to you.

Oblong
08-14-2007, 06:36 PM
To add to the above post:

The only thing wrong with the Borchard pick is the Sox using it as a reason to stay away from what they see as the best available player. There are always failures in every draft, and the biggest failures come out of the first round, so what is the point of taking a player with say good upside/bad mechanics for a couple million when you could take a player with better mechanics and better upside for a few million more? The odds are actually against both players so it is already a big gamble, so why not go for the bigger potential payoff?

That's exactly what I was trying to say. And I use the Meche/Miller situation with the Royals as a prime example. Even though Meche has done well so far it's still silly to me to give him $55 over 5 years and pass over the consensus #1 player in the draft in 2006 due to his salary demands when it was a fraction of what was given to Meche. Look back over the salaries given to starting pitchers over the last 6 or 7 years. How many of the big deals worked out compared to those that didn't? The money for first rounders is almost tip money to MLB teams.

UserNameBlank
08-14-2007, 06:55 PM
That's exactly what I was trying to say. And I use the Meche/Miller situation with the Royals as a prime example. Even though Meche has done well so far it's still silly to me to give him $55 over 5 years and pass over the consensus #1 player in the draft in 2006 due to his salary demands when it was a fraction of what was given to Meche. Look back over the salaries given to starting pitchers over the last 6 or 7 years. How many of the big deals worked out compared to those that didn't? The money for first rounders is almost tip money to MLB teams.
I agree with that. The Meche situation has turned out very well for the Royals but it still is kind of dumb to take a pass on better players especially with that kind of draft position.

It's kind of funny how baseball works. You have all sorts of small market teams crying poor and saying that can't compete with the big dogs like the Yankees, and as soon as they develop one very good player they say they don't have the cash to sign him longterm. The first thing they do then is trade him for prospects, because they see that maybe these prospects will grow into similar All-Star caliber players. But then once the draft comes along they don't want to pony up the cash to get the best player available. Do they not want the best prospects? How serious are they then in terms of building from within? It doesn't make sense to me. Edit: Maybe Dave Littlefield can explain how this works? Then again, maybe he can't because it doesn't look like he has a very good plan over there in Pittsburgh.

The current system and the current way that small market teams operate plays into the hands of winning teams that re-sign players and spend money in the draft and international markets. It doesn't make sense for a large market team to ignore the obvious benefits in order to act like snobs and say "we don't like the way things are run." You don't like Borass? So what. I've hated many coworkers and bosses and the like but I've still worked with them to achieve a common goal.

Dombrowski got ripped on a lot here and elsewhere when he gave all that money to the fake Pudge. And I'll confess, I thought it was a dumb decision at the time too. But since then he's made some terrific moves like the Polanco deal and the Guillen deal, played a role in the FA market, and took advantage of some great bargains like the Kenny Rogers signings. Then he goes out and deals prospects for Sheffield, just like a good GM should. In the draft he's really gone above and beyond to show that he is one of the best GM's in baseball. The Sox should take notice because the Tigers are acting more like a large market team than we are, and we are in a bigger market than they are.

jabrch
08-14-2007, 11:36 PM
I don't get it. So most of you guys seem like you would rather spend 55 million just to TALK to someone and then pony up even more cash to sign them over taking a 7 million dollar chance on a younger arm that your organization can take baby steps with and not rush?

What are you talking about?

The Tigers just spent 8mm on a guy who they HAVE TO RUSH to the majors. He's a HS kid who now has 3 years to get to the majors.

Oblong
08-14-2007, 11:46 PM
Porcello will have 4 options, not 3. 2012 is when they'd have to decide what to do with him if he's not ready yet.

jabrch
08-14-2007, 11:50 PM
That's exactly what I was trying to say. And I use the Meche/Miller situation with the Royals as a prime example. Even though Meche has done well so far it's still silly to me to give him $55 over 5 years and pass over the consensus #1 player in the draft in 2006 due to his salary demands when it was a fraction of what was given to Meche. Look back over the salaries given to starting pitchers over the last 6 or 7 years. How many of the big deals worked out compared to those that didn't? The money for first rounders is almost tip money to MLB teams.

Again - it wasn't "Miller or Meche". That's not the option that the Royals had to choose. They could have chosen both if they wanted. They chose Meche on their major league roster and they got Luke Hochevar, rated by many right there with Miller.

26 GMs decided that giving Porcello a major league contract and 7.7mm was not the best option out there. It doesn't surprise me much. HS kids are not predictably 3 years away from being on a major league roster as Porcello now must be.

Oblong
08-15-2007, 12:04 AM
4 years.

I realize it wasn't Meche or Miller outright, but if your scouts/staff thinks a player is the best player available and you don't draft him because of finances and the risk involved and then turn around and offer a journeyman pitcher a big contract then it's not very smart. Now if they didn't think the difference between Miller and Hochevar was as great as the salary demands then they did their job. I'm addressing the particular issue of avoiding players you really want because they want a couple of million dollars and then turning around and jumping into shaky free agent markets. If a team wants to be frugal all around then they are being consistent and that's their choice.

I just think too many teams shortchange themselves in the amatuer draft over a relatively small amount of money compared to the big league roster. They overspend on questionable free agents and veterans when that money could be used in development and have better long term effects.

I would be very upset with the Tigers if they didn't draft Miller or Porcello when they thought they were the best guys available because of money. Especially after giving out $2.5 million to Mesa and cutting him as well as taking on Neifi Perez's $2.5 million contract.

jabrch
08-15-2007, 08:52 AM
4 years.

3 years of service time.

I realize it wasn't Meche or Miller outright, but if your scouts/staff thinks a player is the best player available and you don't draft him because of finances and the risk involved and then turn around and offer a journeyman pitcher a big contract then it's not very smart. Now if they didn't think the difference between Miller and Hochevar was as great as the salary demands then they did their job.

And that is exactly what happened. They had to evaluate their options, and they decided that it wasn't worth dealing with Miller when an equally talented arm was more available without the baggage. The money they spent on Meche had nothing to do with it. They needed a guy to start for them on the major league club, now, and they got that.

I'm addressing the particular issue of avoiding players you really want because they want a couple of million dollars and then turning around and jumping into shaky free agent markets. If a team wants to be frugal all around then they are being consistent and that's their choice.

There are two totally distinct issues. You need both major league talent and a farm system.

I just think too many teams shortchange themselves in the amatuer draft over a relatively small amount of money compared to the big league roster. They overspend on questionable free agents and veterans when that money could be used in development and have better long term effects.

There is nothing that I have seen yet that leads me to believe spending more money on the draft makes you more likely to win. Picking higher - that's one thing. But spending more money? Not convinced. Great prospects with reasonable demands don't slip that far. The major league contract that the Tigers gave to Porcello is going to hamstring them. It sets an awful precedent also for future negotiations. 26 other GMs weren't willing to do it. There's a reason for that.

I would be very upset with the Tigers if they didn't draft Miller or Porcello when they thought they were the best guys available because of money.

You should be more upset if they failed to go out and get big league players to help the major league club who are projectable rather than get mad about guys who, despite being highly rated prospects, are still long shots to ever be impact players.

Especially after giving out $2.5 million to Mesa and cutting him as well as taking on Neifi Perez's $2.5 million contract.

Again - the two have NOTHING to do with eachother. You should be upset about those two, regardless of what money you spend on your farm system. Those were arguably dumb acquisitions. But you need a major league team of guys who can contribute. That includes proven relievers and a veteran bench. That's not what you are drafting for and that's not what your minor league budget is for. You are confusing two very different facets of organizational development that don't warrant blending.

Porcello fell because very few teams would be willing to give a HS RHP a major league deal and $8mm. This is not Mark Prior who came from college, at age 21. This isn't even Jeff Samardzjia who pitched 3 years at ND (and is still probably going to be more than 3 years away from truly being ready - but the Cubs foolishly gave him a major league deal.) This is a HS pitcher. There's no reason to force your hand like that for him.

rdivaldi
08-15-2007, 09:33 AM
Which is why I said it won't be a fair assessment for another few years. But the Tigers have so many young, promising arms in their system at the moment. If only three of those develop into MLB caliber pitchers, the Tigers won't be sinking at the bottom of the division for a while.

Somebody needs to introduce deep pink to this guy.

Oblong
08-15-2007, 10:23 AM
3 years of service time.



And that is exactly what happened. They had to evaluate their options, and they decided that it wasn't worth dealing with Miller when an equally talented arm was more available without the baggage. The money they spent on Meche had nothing to do with it. They needed a guy to start for them on the major league club, now, and they got that.



There are two totally distinct issues. You need both major league talent and a farm system.



There is nothing that I have seen yet that leads me to believe spending more money on the draft makes you more likely to win. Picking higher - that's one thing. But spending more money? Not convinced. Great prospects with reasonable demands don't slip that far. The major league contract that the Tigers gave to Porcello is going to hamstring them. It sets an awful precedent also for future negotiations. 26 other GMs weren't willing to do it. There's a reason for that.



You should be more upset if they failed to go out and get big league players to help the major league club who are projectable rather than get mad about guys who, despite being highly rated prospects, are still long shots to ever be impact players.



Again - the two have NOTHING to do with eachother. You should be upset about those two, regardless of what money you spend on your farm system. Those were arguably dumb acquisitions. But you need a major league team of guys who can contribute. That includes proven relievers and a veteran bench. That's not what you are drafting for and that's not what your minor league budget is for. You are confusing two very different facets of organizational development that don't warrant blending.

Porcello fell because very few teams would be willing to give a HS RHP a major league deal and $8mm. This is not Mark Prior who came from college, at age 21. This isn't even Jeff Samardzjia who pitched 3 years at ND (and is still probably going to be more than 3 years away from truly being ready - but the Cubs foolishly gave him a major league deal.) This is a HS pitcher. There's no reason to force your hand like that for him.

They have everything to do with each other. Teams operate on a budget and if they are wasting money on the major league team for marginal talent at the expense of guys in the draft that they want then they are not being smart. Because of the risk involved with drafting you have to spread it out among more players because not all of them will pan out.

Also, Porcello will have 4 options. The Tigers will not have to include him on the major league roster until 2012. The flexibility issue is not as bad as being portrayed. They knew going in what the situation was.

Comparing Porcello to other draftees is silly because it was other organizations making those decisions. They are not comparable just because they are high school pitchers. That's like saying they are comparable because they have brown hair. It's still dependant on the scouting department and talent evaluators to make the right call. If Dombrowski and his staff think he was the best guy to take and was worth the risk of a MLB deal then I as a fan am willing to wait that out. They are not idiots. They know the rules. They are not foolproof, nobody is when dealing with HS pitchers especially, but it will be an informed decision by smart and talented people and that's all a fan can ask for.

What's even more gratifying was reading the Yankee fan reactions when the TIgers picked him before they did. They just assume that any high priced talent is theirs by birthright.

thedudeabides
08-15-2007, 11:24 AM
It would seem the draft system could be changed through the collective bargaining agreement. Considering the union is made up of players who wouldn't be affected by what you suggest, it would seem to be something the union shouldn't fight. It would hurt the agents, though, and I'm guessing that is why the system won't change.


I don't believe the agents make money on minor league contracts. A friend of mine was a sandwich pick and was given a $600k signing bonus. He is represented by Boras and said he doesn't receive any commission until he gets a big league contract.

Maybe, that's just how Boras operates. But, if that's universal they should be able to slot draft pick salaries, in a similar manner to the NBA. I think only then the draft will operate on a level playing field.

champagne030
08-15-2007, 02:13 PM
They have everything to do with each other. Teams operate on a budget and if they are wasting money on the major league team for marginal talent at the expense of guys in the draft that they want then they are not being smart. Because of the risk involved with drafting you have to spread it out among more players because not all of them will pan out.

Also, Porcello will have 4 options. The Tigers will not have to include him on the major league roster until 2012. The flexibility issue is not as bad as being portrayed. They knew going in what the situation was.

Comparing Porcello to other draftees is silly because it was other organizations making those decisions. They are not comparable just because they are high school pitchers. That's like saying they are comparable because they have brown hair. It's still dependant on the scouting department and talent evaluators to make the right call. If Dombrowski and his staff think he was the best guy to take and was worth the risk of a MLB deal then I as a fan am willing to wait that out. They are not idiots. They know the rules. They are not foolproof, nobody is when dealing with HS pitchers especially, but it will be an informed decision by smart and talented people and that's all a fan can ask for.

What's even more gratifying was reading the Yankee fan reactions when the TIgers picked him before they did. They just assume that any high priced talent is theirs by birthright.

Don't get yourself too worked up. You're basically correct. A few on here assume that if Kenneth passed on Porcello he must suck. If Kenneth took Porcello it would be the greatest draft pick in the history of draft picks. :D:

chaerulez
08-15-2007, 02:42 PM
What are you talking about?

The Tigers just spent 8mm on a guy who they HAVE TO RUSH to the majors. He's a HS kid who now has 3 years to get to the majors.

They don't have to rush anyone. He still can't be a free agent until he puts in 6 years of MLB service time. After his contract is up, all the Tigers have to do is offer him arbitration.

chaerulez
08-15-2007, 02:51 PM
Also, 4 years/7.3 million isn't that bad when we gave Borchard a 5+ million signing bonus.

I would rather give that money to a high ceiling pitcher than a power hitter who wasn't a 5 tool player.

jabrch
08-15-2007, 02:52 PM
They don't have to rush anyone. He still can't be a free agent until he puts in 6 years of MLB service time. After his contract is up, all the Tigers have to do is offer him arbitration.

Since he is on the 40 man roster, he can only be in the minors for 3 seasons. After that, he has to be up. They very much have to rush him up. How many HS kids are MLB ready after 3 years?

And we learned our lesson from Joe - I doubt we do that again.

rdivaldi
08-15-2007, 02:55 PM
Don't get yourself too worked up. You're basically correct. A few on here assume that if Kenneth passed on Porcello he must suck. If Kenneth took Porcello it would be the greatest draft pick in the history of draft picks. :D:

That's rather presumptuous of you. Perhaps the more level-headed on here realize that throwing millions at a high school pitcher is both risky and stupid.

rdivaldi
08-15-2007, 02:57 PM
And we learned our lesson from Joe - I doubt we do that again.

You'd think, but we'll probably make the same mistake again. It happens, scouts and GMs fall in love with players and go all out for them.

balke
08-15-2007, 03:01 PM
Also, 4 years/7.3 million isn't that bad when we gave Borchard a 5+ million signing bonus.

I would rather give that money to a high ceiling pitcher than a power hitter who wasn't a 5 tool player.

Borchard was rated the #2 athlete in the draft.

Credentials: 1998 - Freshman 1st team All-America DH 1999 - Pac-10 Conference All-Star OF 2000 - Palo Alto Regional MVP (College World Series), 2nd team College All-American OF, College World Series All-Tournament Team OF, Pac-10 Conference All-Star OF 2001 - Southern League All-Star OF

Many thought him a future all-star. I think you're looking back with 20/20 here.

jabrch
08-15-2007, 03:02 PM
You'd think, but we'll probably make the same mistake again. It happens, scouts and GMs fall in love with players and go all out for them.

That will happen - but I doubt we will overspend the market by such a high rate. LTP got WAY more than anyone else - right? We may pay on the high end, but not OVER the high end like we did with Borch.

rdivaldi
08-15-2007, 03:04 PM
That will happen - but I doubt we will overspend the market by such a high rate. LTP got WAY more than anyone else - right? We may pay on the high end, but not OVER the high end like we did with Borch.

Never say never. I'll be interested to see what we do this upcoming draft with our unfortunate high pick.

jabrch
08-15-2007, 03:05 PM
Borchard was rated the #2 athlete in the draft.

Credentials: 1998 - Freshman 1st team All-America DH 1999 - Pac-10 Conference All-Star OF 2000 - Palo Alto Regional MVP (College World Series), 2nd team College All-American OF, College World Series All-Tournament Team OF, Pac-10 Conference All-Star OF 2001 - Southern League All-Star OF

Many thought him a future all-star. I think you're looking back with 20/20 here.

Exactly - I'd much rather give that kind of money to a college star than a HS kid. A lot can happen between a kid's Sr. year of HS and the day he is ready to be a Major Leaguer.

jabrch
08-15-2007, 03:06 PM
Never say never. I'll be interested to see what we do this upcoming draft with our unfortunate high pick.

It will be interesting. I want to see how high our pick ends up. Pending what players don't sign today, we might be slipping further than we thought.

rdivaldi
08-15-2007, 03:09 PM
A lot can happen between a kid's Sr. year of HS and the day he is ready to be a Major Leaguer.

Jason Stumm, Brian West, Kris Honel, et al.

jabrch
08-15-2007, 03:23 PM
Jason Stumm, Brian West, Kris Honel, et al.

Ask the Tigers how picking Kyle Sleeth #3 overall and giving him 3.5mm has worked out so far?

Ask the Cubs about Ryan Harvey?

What do the Royals think of Lubanski?

The Indians paid way over slot for Jeremy Guthrie.

The road to success is littered with failed draftpicks. Spending 8mm on a guy is not significantly less risky than spending 2mm, except that you can spend 2mm 4 times for each 8mm you spend.

spiffie
08-15-2007, 03:28 PM
Ask the Tigers how picking Kyle Sleeth #3 overall and giving him 3.5mm has worked out so far?

Ask the Cubs about Ryan Harvey?

What do the Royals think of Lubanski?

The Indians paid way over slot for Jeremy Guthrie.

The road to success is littered with failed draftpicks. Spending 8mm on a guy is not significantly less risky than spending 2mm, except that you can spend 2mm 4 times for each 8mm you spend.
And you can spend $100,000 80 times with that 8mm. Considering that it seems your view of the draft is that pretty much no one pick is better than any other, why not just go for the quantity approach? Sign a crapload of cheap prospects and pray that 2 of them work out? Since really, if you're going to be just kind of crossing your fingers and hoping, isn't 2 million still a pretty pricey lotto ticket? Mark Buehrle was a 37th round pick. Take 80 shots at guys like him, and you gotta think one is more likely to emerge than from just 3-4 1st round picks.

jabrch
08-15-2007, 03:32 PM
And you can spend $100,000 80 times with that 8mm. Considering that it seems your view of the draft is that pretty much no one pick is better than any other, why not just go for the quantity approach? Sign a crapload of cheap prospects and pray that 2 of them work out? Since really, if you're going to be just kind of crossing your fingers and hoping, isn't 2 million still a pretty pricey lotto ticket? Mark Buehrle was a 37th round pick. Take 80 shots at guys like him, and you gotta think one is more likely to emerge than from just 3-4 1st round picks.

Do you think that's a bright idea?

Do you think that is what I was proposing?

That's just ridiculous Spiffe. If you want to have a real discussion, save the exaggeration and the drawing of an arguement well past a logical extreme to the point where it holds absolutely no significance.

champagne030
08-15-2007, 03:33 PM
That's rather presumptuous of you. Perhaps the more level-headed on here realize that throwing millions at a high school pitcher is both risky and stupid.

I didn't particularly have you in mind with my post. I'd agree that it's risky. I would disagree that it's stupid. It's not crazy money and everything I've seen has stated that Porcello was clearly the most talented pitcher in the draft.

Picking in the lower portion of the 1st round, I'd take that risk if a talent like Porcello was available.

balke
08-15-2007, 03:47 PM
everything I've seen has stated that Porcello was clearly the most talented pitcher in the draft.


What about David Price?

champagne030
08-15-2007, 03:59 PM
What about David Price?

Price was taken 1st because he's deemed closer to being MLB ready (22 years old) and he's graduating so going back to school isn't much of an option.

spiffie
08-15-2007, 04:21 PM
Do you think that's a bright idea?

Do you think that is what I was proposing?

That's just ridiculous Spiffe. If you want to have a real discussion, save the exaggeration and the drawing of an arguement well past a logical extreme to the point where it holds absolutely no significance.
The exagerration stems from the fact I find your argument to be kind of vaporous. I agree on the whole service time thing, the movement of a player through the organization should never be dictated by a contract signed before they take the field.

Beyond that though, I'm not sure where you're going. At some points you talk about being able to save money in the draft process to spend at the major league level, but then later on you seem to speak of the two as not at all related. Also you do a good job of pointing out the numerous busts that were greatly overvalued, which seems to imply the very high degree of unpredictability in the MLB draft. So since the odds of a player truly making it to the major leagues are so low regardless of pre-draft analysis or draft position, why wouldn't it behoove the Sox to minimize their potential exposure and go with someone who would sign for a lower salary than normally slotted for a top 10-15 draft pick? Since in your words picking higher can be useful, but spending more money has no impact on draft success wouldn't the organization be able to acheive their goals of getting good players without dipping into the high-end prospects, most of whom will apparently never pan out anyhow?

I guess it just seems like this argument is stuck halfway between the goals of "best prospect possible" and "draft picks are overpaid and unreliable" and that there's no really good way to deal with it. Yes it is something of a stretch for effect, but is one Aaron Poreda worth more than 7 Adam Russells? I realize you can't trade draft picks in MLB, but maybe there could be something to be said for loading up on guys in the 5th-7th round projection range in the early rounds. If you save $2-3 million a year in the draft, maybe that's the extra boost needed to sign a top level FA, one who is projectable, instead of dropping it on a couple of higher-rated prospects who have at best a slightly higher chance of success.

UserNameBlank
08-15-2007, 04:23 PM
Borchard was rated the #2 athlete in the draft.

Credentials: 1998 - Freshman 1st team All-America DH 1999 - Pac-10 Conference All-Star OF 2000 - Palo Alto Regional MVP (College World Series), 2nd team College All-American OF, College World Series All-Tournament Team OF, Pac-10 Conference All-Star OF 2001 - Southern League All-Star OF

Many thought him a future all-star. I think you're looking back with 20/20 here.

Very good point.

That will happen - but I doubt we will overspend the market by such a high rate. LTP got WAY more than anyone else - right? We may pay on the high end, but not OVER the high end like we did with Borch.

What is the appropriate signing bonus for a future bust? I'd give him nothing if I could see into the future and tell he would be a bust.

You have absolutely no idea whatsoever what a player with Borchard's raw tools costs in today's market so don't pretend like you do.

If a Borchard-like talent comes around and we sign him, I don't care how much it is for as long as it is within the realm of what others are paying for their draft picks. If that player drafted builds up enough trade value to net a superstar player for an area of need we have had a great draft. If that player develops into a superstar major league player we have had a great draft.

Exactly - I'd much rather give that kind of money to a college star than a HS kid. A lot can happen between a kid's Sr. year of HS and the day he is ready to be a Major Leaguer.

True. But that is a personal preforance. Lots of kids get overworked in college anyway and don't last too long without requiring surgery. It works both ways.

Besides, a kid with say the talent of Porcelo, on skill level alone because all hard-throwing pitching prospects are injury risks until proven otherwise, why does it matter he's in high school? He probably has what it takes to pitch in Double A right now. He probably just needs to learn how to pitch, which many major leaguers still don't know how to do, and refine things here and there. But it's not like he needs to be sat down and have the game of baseball explained to him. He's much further along than say our pick, Poreda, and that s why his agent can demand what he does.

Jason Stumm, Brian West, Kris Honel, et al.

Yeah, go ahead and name busts in every draft. You could go on and on and be here for all day if you wanted to. What does that prove? That most high school pitchers don't make it? How about most pitchers in general don't make it. Injuries occur all the time. Refusing to draft high school players isn't going to mean you'll be injury free. Notice Poreda was our pick instead, who was a college pitcher, and the first thing that came out I think in BA was a review saying he's going to blow out his arm. If you want to make some broad generalization like "pitcher A will be injured because he's a high school power arm" at least look at his mechanics. Porcello is a better bet to stay healthy than Poreda, and I think they will prove this in the future. Not to make it sound like I want Poreda to fail because I don't, but I still think the Sox made the wrong pick.

Ask the Tigers how picking Kyle Sleeth #3 overall and giving him 3.5mm has worked out so far?

Ask the Cubs about Ryan Harvey?

What do the Royals think of Lubanski?

The Indians paid way over slot for Jeremy Guthrie.

The road to success is littered with failed draftpicks. Spending 8mm on a guy is not significantly less risky than spending 2mm, except that you can spend 2mm 4 times for each 8mm you spend.

Blah blah blah. And you put Jeremy Guthrie on that list? Do you even follow baseball? Check out his numbers this year and tell me if it was a bad move by the Tribe to pick him up and pay over slot for him. Their problem was letting him go.

Do you think that's a bright idea?

Do you think that is what I was proposing?

That's just ridiculous Spiffe. If you want to have a real discussion, save the exaggeration and the drawing of an arguement well past a logical extreme to the point where it holds absolutely no significance.

What are you doing? You say college pitchers are better and most draft picks are busts, and no one should give out major league contracts to prospects.

The way I see it, the draft is a crapshoot anyway because even if you have the best talent evaluators in the buisness you still don't know whether or not a guy is going to hurt himself and you still don't know what goes on "between the ears" of a player. Even Schuerholz gets it wrong most of the time.

Knowing that is the case, the only thing a reasonable executive of a Major League team that wants to win can do is identify the best available player and try to sign him if the team can afford it. It is one thing to pass on a $55 million negotiation fee to talk to Daisuke. It is another to pass on the consenus BAP for about an extra $4-5million or so. Any major league team can afford that, and if they say they can't that is bull****. If you go into a car dealership looking for a brand new Vette you're not going to come away with a one if you refuse to offer no more than the price of some tiny Kia or something.

rdivaldi
08-15-2007, 04:32 PM
Yeah, go ahead and name busts in every draft. You could go on and on and be here for all day if you wanted to. What does that prove? That most high school pitchers don't make it? How about most pitchers in general don't make it. Injuries occur all the time. Refusing to draft high school players isn't going to mean you'll be injury free. Notice Poreda was our pick instead, who was a college pitcher, and the first thing that came out I think in BA was a review saying he's going to blow out his arm. If you want to make some broad generalization like "pitcher A will be injured because he's a high school power arm" at least look at his mechanics. Porcello is a better bet to stay healthy than Poreda, and I think they will prove this in the future. Not to make it sound like I want Poreda to fail because I don't, but I still think the Sox made the wrong pick..

It just goes to show that the people jumping all over the Porcello "sure thing" bandwagon are ridiculous, as is spending $7 million for a high school player. As for the Poreda to get injured hype, I don't buy it. He has a smooth, low effort delivery. His mechanics might not be perfect, but I don't see anything that isn't correctable. When I saw his scouting video I wondered what in the heck the editors at BA were smoking.

jabrch
08-15-2007, 04:33 PM
The exagerration stems from the fact I find your argument to be kind of vaporous. I agree on the whole service time thing, the movement of a player through the organization should never be dictated by a contract signed before they take the field.

Beyond that though, I'm not sure where you're going. At some points you talk about being able to save money in the draft process to spend at the major league level, but then later on you seem to speak of the two as not at all related. Also you do a good job of pointing out the numerous busts that were greatly overvalued, which seems to imply the very high degree of unpredictability in the MLB draft. So since the odds of a player truly making it to the major leagues are so low regardless of pre-draft analysis or draft position, why wouldn't it behoove the Sox to minimize their potential exposure and go with someone who would sign for a lower salary than normally slotted for a top 10-15 draft pick? Since in your words picking higher can be useful, but spending more money has no impact on draft success wouldn't the organization be able to acheive their goals of getting good players without dipping into the high-end prospects, most of whom will apparently never pan out anyhow?

I guess it just seems like this argument is stuck halfway between the goals of "best prospect possible" and "draft picks are overpaid and unreliable" and that there's no really good way to deal with it. Yes it is something of a stretch for effect, but is one Aaron Poreda worth more than 7 Adam Russells? I realize you can't trade draft picks in MLB, but maybe there could be something to be said for loading up on guys in the 5th-7th round projection range in the early rounds. If you save $2-3 million a year in the draft, maybe that's the extra boost needed to sign a top level FA, one who is projectable, instead of dropping it on a couple of higher-rated prospects who have at best a slightly higher chance of success.

Take the best player who's demands are reasonable. If a guy wants to make you break the bank for him, unless you have him pegged as a "can't miss" and there are very few of those, and they usually do miss anyhow, then you pass on him. I never saw Poreda or Porcello or Brackman pitch. I'm going by what I read and what history tells my about 18 year old kids. If it were me, I'd never draft an 18 year old kid in the first round that wants 8mm and a major league deal. I can't fault KW and 25 other GMs for not doing it. Same as I can't fault them for passing on Brackman, his contract demands, and his need for surgery. But I don't see how it is possibly a good idea to spend more money on one HS pitcher than you plan to spend on the entire draft class for the year. That would have meant either not signing (m)any other prospects of value or it would have meant taking money directly away from major league talent.

I believe in taking the hard line against excessive demands of labor in sports. This specific issue, around HS kids making assinine demands, enfuriates me. I have no problem with Alex Rodriguez getting 25+mm. He has earned it by delivering. But I don't believe you don't earn 8mm pitching 60ish innings in HS and I don't believe that is a risk worth taking with 8mm when that 8mm can be used in a number of different ways, including still signing a very talented draft pick and using the difference for something else.

UserNameBlank
08-15-2007, 04:37 PM
I guess it just seems like this argument is stuck halfway between the goals of "best prospect possible" and "draft picks are overpaid and unreliable" and that there's no really good way to deal with it. Yes it is something of a stretch for effect, but is one Aaron Poreda worth more than 7 Adam Russells? I realize you can't trade draft picks in MLB, but maybe there could be something to be said for loading up on guys in the 5th-7th round projection range in the early rounds. If you save $2-3 million a year in the draft, maybe that's the extra boost needed to sign a top level FA, one who is projectable, instead of dropping it on a couple of higher-rated prospects who have at best a slightly higher chance of success.

First rounders are always going to make 7 figures so it wouldn't make sense to draft player no. 50 on your wishlist and give him a substantial bonus when you can draft say player no. 20 on your wishlist for close to the same price.

Also, higher picks don't always have a better chance of making it to the big leagues. The higher picks are often based solely on ceiling and the lower round picks are more or less "baseball players" that are better bets to make the team as relievers or bench players or something. Just in our last draft I'd probably say our SS Sergio Miranda has a better chance of making the majors as a backup/emergency SS one day than maybe any one of our IIRC first five picks which were all pitchers.

The goal of the draft to me should be to get the best players with the highest ceilings you can. From there, you try to sign as many as you can, identify which ones you want to hold on to, and use the rest in trades if you can. I see no point in trying to draft UT players unless a player with that kind of ceiling is the best available.

UserNameBlank
08-15-2007, 04:44 PM
It just goes to show that the people jumping all over the Porcello "sure thing" bandwagon are ridiculous, as is spending $7 million for a high school player. As for the Poreda to get injured hype, I don't buy it. He has a smooth, low effort delivery. His mechanics might not be perfect, but I don't see anything that isn't correctable. When I saw his scouting video I wondered what in the heck the editors at BA were smoking.
I'm in no way saying he's a sure thing, I'm just saying he was a better pick at that time than Poreda, and also I'm defending the Tigers for making the pick and the signing. We gave $1.2mil to Poreda. The Tigers gave $7.7mil to Porcello. I'd argue that the $6.5mil difference would have been worth it.

UserNameBlank
08-15-2007, 04:55 PM
Take the best player who's demands are reasonable. If a guy wants to make you break the bank for him, unless you have him pegged as a "can't miss" and there are very few of those, and they usually do miss anyhow, then you pass on him. I never saw Poreda or Porcello or Brackman pitch. I'm going by what I read and what history tells my about 18 year old kids. If it were me, I'd never draft an 18 year old kid in the first round that wants 8mm and a major league deal. I can't fault KW and 25 other GMs for not doing it. Same as I can't fault them for passing on Brackman, his contract demands, and his need for surgery. But I don't see how it is possibly a good idea to spend more money on one HS pitcher than you plan to spend on the entire draft class for the year. That would have meant either not signing (m)any other prospects of value or it would have meant taking money directly away from major league talent.

I believe in taking the hard line against excessive demands of labor in sports. This specific issue, around HS kids making assinine demands, enfuriates me. I have no problem with Alex Rodriguez getting 25+mm. He has earned it by delivering. But I don't believe you don't earn 8mm pitching 60ish innings in HS and I don't believe that is a risk worth taking with 8mm when that 8mm can be used in a number of different ways, including still signing a very talented draft pick and using the difference for something else.

I agree with most of this in theory as I don't think prospects should get any more than a $2mil bonus in general. They just aren't worth more than that to me, but with the system the way it is, and with the team we have (mostly a winning team that picks late in the first round) it only makes sense to play the game. Throwing away a few million on a draft pick isn't going to hurt us any. It's not going to all of the sudden make for a poor major league team if our $7+ mil draft pick ends up a bust.

About your view on taking a stance against it, what good does that do? The way small market teams operate in the draft plays into our hands. We can essentially trade say a no. 25 draft pick + $6million for a top 5 pick. Jesus, we should be so lucky! You see other teams taking their "stands" but for what point? The draft picks still get their money, the agents still get their money; nothing changes except the draft picks end up with teams like the Yankees and the rich get richer.

Until the system changes, if it ever does, and becomes more fair all around, we should take advantage of the opportunities presented to us in the draft.

balke
08-15-2007, 04:55 PM
I'm in no way saying he's a sure thing, I'm just saying he was a better pick at that time than Poreda, and also I'm defending the Tigers for making the pick and the signing. We gave $1.2mil to Poreda. The Tigers gave $7.7mil to Porcello. I'd argue that the $6.5mil difference would have been worth it.

I don't know about that. You're still dealing with Boras come arbitration time, and Poreda has a lot of potential himself. If you're not 100% sold on a player, then why invest the money? Borass alone could've been enough for Kenny decide he's not worth the investment when he can get someone with a lot of potential himself for cheap.

jabrch
08-15-2007, 05:06 PM
I don't know about that. You're still dealing with Boras come arbitration time, and Poreda has a lot of potential himself. If you're not 100% sold on a player, then why invest the money? Borass alone could've been enough for Kenny decide he's not worth the investment when he can get someone with a lot of potential himself for cheap.

Frankly, I'd worry about arbitration down the road.

Where would the 6.5mm difference between Poreda and Porcello come from? I don't want it coming from the major league club. I don't want us to fail to be able to spread our investments in the minor leagues and only really sign one decent player. It's not just KW - it is 25 other GMs who said no thanks to Porcello's demands. I haven't seen any of the guys in question pitch. That said, I'll defer to 25 other GMs experience that this wasn't a worthy investment given their other choices in the draft as well as the opportunity cost for that money rather than criticize all of those GMs for passing up on paying an 18 year old nearly 8mm and starting his clock immediately.

UserNameBlank
08-15-2007, 05:08 PM
I don't know about that. You're still dealing with Boras come arbitration time, and Poreda has a lot of potential himself. If you're not 100% sold on a player, then why invest the money? Borass alone could've been enough for Kenny decide he's not worth the investment when he can get someone with a lot of potential himself for cheap.
If a draft pick sticks around long enough to be worthy of arbitration you've already won the battle IMO. From there you can do whatever you please. Either offer arbitration, aviod it with an extension, or trade him for a nice bounty.

balke
08-15-2007, 05:47 PM
If a draft pick sticks around long enough to be worthy of arbitration you've already won the battle IMO. From there you can do whatever you please. Either offer arbitration, aviod it with an extension, or trade him for a nice bounty.

His trade value would most likely be less as well since he's a higher paid minor leaguer, and he's got a vulture for an agent. I like the philosophy of staying as far from boras as possible. Buehrle came out of the 38th rd of the draft. Not many better than him. Why throw money around in the early rounds? Its like paying more for a lottery ticket.

Side Note: I swear I heard on ESPN or somewhere yesterday that Selig was upset over how much teams are spending on youngsters right now, and was meeting with GM's about this.

UserNameBlank
08-15-2007, 06:01 PM
His trade value would most likely be less as well since he's a higher paid minor leaguer, and he's got a vulture for an agent. I like the philosophy of staying as far from boras as possible. Buehrle came out of the 38th rd of the draft. Not many better than him. Why throw money around in the early rounds? Its like paying more for a lottery ticket.

Side Note: I swear I heard on ESPN or somewhere yesterday that Selig was upset over how much teams are spending on youngsters right now, and was meeting with GM's about this.
Not really. Look at what Beckett brought in: Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez. Nice move.

Buehrle was a 38th rounder, but when you look around, there aren't many Buehrles around are there? You have a few I guess who are kind of similar in some ways like Noah Lowry, Jeremy Sowers, Danks, Washburn, etc. but none are on Buehrle's level. You'll find more power arms around that are highly successful than you will find soft-tossers, and the power arms go higher because of it. 38th rounders don't usually turn out, but if you at the Sox drafts, they are usually pretty good at finding talent in the 5-15th rounds or so.

If you want to use a lottery ticket as an analogy, I guess it would probably be something like paying $1.2 million for 20% chance of winning $50 million or $7.7 million for a 30% chance at winning $75 million. That is probably a bad analogy, but whatever.

Yeah, he was unhappy about that just like IIRC he was unhappy about the Cubs pissing away money over the offseason. But what can or will he do about it? The Cubs spent an assload of cash and helped raise the market to the level it is at currently and now everyone has to deal with it. Draft signings in years past, as well as the overpriced FA market in a way, have brought the draft to where it is today. It doesn't matter if a GM doesn't like it or not; it only matters that they have to go along with it if they want they want to improve their organization.

balke
08-15-2007, 06:47 PM
Not really. Look at what Beckett brought in: Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez. Nice move.

Buehrle was a 38th rounder, but when you look around, there aren't many Buehrles around are there? You have a few I guess who are kind of similar in some ways like Noah Lowry, Jeremy Sowers, Danks, Washburn, etc. but none are on Buehrle's level.

Jake Peavy- 15th Rd
Dan Haren- 2nd Rd
Chris Young- 3rd Rd
Bedard- 6th Rd
Webb - 8th Rd
Penny - 5th Rd
Harang - 6th Rd
Hudson - 6th Rd


How do you decide who to give the money to? These are all some top pitchers this season, and they came in lower rd's. You have some great 1st rd pitchers, but think how many 1st RD pitchers don't make it. Obviously, those are the guys that are gonna get that big bonus.

UserNameBlank
08-15-2007, 08:09 PM
Jake Peavy- 15th Rd
Dan Haren- 2nd Rd
Chris Young- 3rd Rd
Bedard- 6th Rd
Webb - 8th Rd
Penny - 5th Rd
Harang - 6th Rd
Hudson - 6th Rd


How do you decide who to give the money to? These are all some top pitchers this season, and they came in lower rd's. You have some great 1st rd pitchers, but think how many 1st RD pitchers don't make it. Obviously, those are the guys that are gonna get that big bonus.
Your scouts make those decisions for you. You are right though and most great major leaguers come from rounds other than the first, but the odds of any drafted player making a big impact in the majors is small for everyone. Besides, often some of the guys who slip do so because of commitments to college or desire to go to college. There are many each draft who get well above slot in the later rounds. Note that our best position prospect, even though he really doesn't have a position, is Chris Carter who was taken 455th overall in the 15th round. Our highest ceiling pitching prospect was signed as an undrafted free agent and didn't even touch the draft. Most moves don't work out but IMO you have to go with who your scouts consider the BAP at all times.

The only thing I'm trying to say in the whole argument is that if you have two players who look promising, and one looks better than the other, you should always take the player who you think is better. If the Sox honestly thought Poreda was a better player than Porcello than I applaud them for the pick because I would assume they are knowledgeable enough to make a good decision. But, with all the information out there regarding the two players, it certainly looks like Porcello was the better player and the Sox took a pass because of money and the agent representing the player. This I definitely do not agree with at all.

Domeshot17
08-15-2007, 08:26 PM
If we were the Royals, Pirates, Marlins, I might agree with these statements, but we aren't a small market team. We are in one of he 3-4 biggest markets in baseball, and we are a team that HAS the extra 6 mil to gamble on a pitcher who can make a big difference. Some years you have to accept the best you can do is a potential 4th to 5th starter like Broadway. But then years like this come, when you have a kid who may bust, or could be an ace, fall in your lap at pick 25 and you pass on him because of Money and Boras. As fans, we hate Scott Boras, but the man does his job better then anyone in baseball. His Job is to get the most money he can for his client, not to negotiate fair deals. If both happen then its win win. By refusing to negotiate with Boras, we are basically saying he does his job better then we do ours, and we can't get a fair deal with him, so anyone he represents is off limits. What if Buehlre had Boras as an agent, would we have dealt him?

I mean I get its not that simple. I get that the spat is over Arod years ago and Boras using us almost entirely to drive up other teams prices. However, that is his job.

Shaq is a big time shot blocker in the NBA. What if the Bulls decided they don't like to play against shaq anymore because he blocks all our shots, so instead of trying, we just decide forget it we refuse to play with you and we forfiet. That is what we do by not negotiating with a players agent, we forfiet the right entirely to try and have that player play for us. Will Poreda or Porcello ever be effective SP in the bigs? Who knows, but the one thing every team knows is on paper, Porcello has a much greater shot.

Oblong
08-15-2007, 09:25 PM
User's prettty much made my arguments for me, I just want to clarify that I'm not saying Porcello is a sure thing. No HS pitcher is a sure thing. I am just not going to jump on the Tigers for taking this particular risk. If they do it all the time and it becomes a trend and the guys do not pan out, then I will. But Dombrowski's got a proven track record with drafting and he's pretty much brought up most of his guys that were with him in Montreal and Florida to do the scouting. He's very cautious and deliberate. I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. I'm basing this on the assumption that Porcello is perceived by them as a special talent and not a typical guy you'd see in the top first round of the draft every year. This has more to do with it being Dombrowski making the call and not because he works for the team I root for. I'm not being a homer in this. If it were an average GM then I'd second guess it to the hilt. I don't think it's wise to be so rigid in your standards. You have to give room for exceptions.

rdivaldi
08-15-2007, 10:01 PM
I'm in no way saying he's a sure thing, I'm just saying he was a better pick at that time than Poreda, and also I'm defending the Tigers for making the pick and the signing. We gave $1.2mil to Poreda. The Tigers gave $7.7mil to Porcello. I'd argue that the $6.5mil difference would have been worth it.

That's fine, no problem. You will however never find me on the side of giving $7 million to a high school pitcher, at least until the slots inflate to that level. I really do like what I've seen of Poreda so far, you don't find that many big lefties throwing that hard with an easy motion (yes I know Sisco is a big lefty that throws hard, so stop yourself from bringing that up).

I will gladly admit my mistake (in 4 or 5 years) if Porcello turns into Beckett, but I do expect the same from the people on the other side of the aisle if he turns into the next Todd Van Poppel. Agreed?

UserNameBlank
08-15-2007, 10:25 PM
That's fine, no problem. You will however never find me on the side of giving $7 million to a high school pitcher, at least until the slots inflate to that level.

I don't like the cost either, and I doubt the Tigers liked paying it as well. I think it is complete BS that players with no professional experience whatsoever get that kind of money, high school or college.

I also think some of these international players are kind of getting screwed (especially with the posting system) and some new kind of program needs to be instituted. But that is a whole other matter.

I really do like what I've seen of Poreda so far, you don't find that many big lefties throwing that hard with an easy motion (yes I know Sisco is a big lefty that throws hard, so stop yourself from bringing that up).

I like Poreda, too. I just would have liked him better in the second round although I highly doubt he would have lasted that long anyway. What is really funny is that maybe if we had offered arbitration to David Riske and he declined we could have had both with Poreda coming in the supplemental. It doesn't matter now, but Porcello, Poreda, and Griffith* would have been a fantastic showing in the draft. But anyway, I will admit that the Poreda pick was pleasant to see after these last two first rounders.

*Edit: I meant Griffith, but for some reason even though Nevin is a slender black baseball player every time I think of him I think of fat, white, unathletic Peter Griffin. My bad.
I will gladly admit my mistake (in 4 or 5 years) if Porcello turns into Beckett, but I do expect the same from the people on the other side of the aisle if he turns into the next Todd Van Poppel. Agreed?

If Porcello turns out great I'll say he's a great player and it was a great pick. If he busts but is used in a trade for a very good player I'll say it was a great pick. If he turns out to be a bust and the Tigers stick with him as a bust, I'll say he is a bust and it turned out to be a bad pick. Still, regardless of what Porcello does I'll defend the Tigers for taking him, just like I've been defending the Sox for taking Borchard in this thread. When that kind of talent comes around I think you have to take the chance.

jabrch
08-16-2007, 09:03 AM
That's fine, no problem. You will however never find me on the side of giving $7 million to a high school pitcher

I couldn't agree more - to me that is a very dangerous way to spend money.

balke
08-16-2007, 09:49 AM
But, with all the information out there regarding the two players, it certainly looks like Porcello was the better player and the Sox took a pass because of money and the agent representing the player. This I definitely do not agree with at all.

I agree with it. I think what the Sox have on their hands is a grudge with Boras. I don't think they've made completely public what has gone on with him, but he's rubbed Kenny the wrong way. The best way to show disapproval of someone and their tactics would be to boycott their business as much as possible.

Poreda is the typical KW pick. Football player who's learning the game. Great athlete, great fastball, lots of potential. If they have equal potential, then he'll pick the one that doesn't have Boras as an agent every time. I applaud him for that.

champagne030
08-16-2007, 10:48 AM
Poreda is the typical KW pick. Football player who's learning the game. Great athlete, great fastball, lots of potential. If they have equal potential, then he'll pick the one that doesn't have Boras as an agent every time. I applaud him for that.

I'd agree with that if the potential was equal. The problem is I haven't seen one suggestion that Poreda and Porcello have equal potential.

Oblong
08-16-2007, 11:12 AM
I couldn't agree more - to me that is a very dangerous way to spend money.

What is dangerous about it? I'd say it's only dangerous if the club is cash strapped or if it becomes a trend without the necessary results. It's only $7 million over 4 years. They have until the 2012 season to find out if he's capable of being on the 25 man roster.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070816/SPORTS02/708160435/1050

Dave Dombrowski said Wednesday that the amateur draft is "an area where we have a lot of good people making recommendations."
"You can spend your money toward talent in various ways," he said, before mentioning markets in Asia and Latin America, along with U.S. free agents. "One place we can compete -- and I feel like we do an outstanding job -- is scouting at the amateur level, and developing those players."


If the GM feels his staff is superior to others in an area then it makes sense to direct your resources in that area. Whether they are superior is a different issue. But you should capitalize on what you think are your strengths.

BTW, that link also gives more specific details about the contract for those interested.

balke
08-16-2007, 11:20 AM
I'd agree with that if the potential was equal. The problem is I haven't seen one suggestion that Poreda and Porcello have equal potential.

I'll suggest it. They are both young pitchers, and a million things can happen from here til either is ready. Poreda throws a 97 MPH fastball, and he gained 6-7 MPH on it in one season. Porcello Throws a 96 MPH fastball. Poreda is still learning the game just like Porcello. Poreda throws comfortable 95-96. Porcello throws comfortably 94-95.

Poreda - Lefty (lefties are often more successful in the majors)
Porcello - Righty

Poreda- "This guy had the best sinker we saw all year from a college left-hander," Shaffer said. "This was a guy we focused on and we were fortunate enough to get at 25."

Porcello - "He's got four pitches, especially if the changeup continues to improve, with a plus, plus fastball, great command and terrific mechanics."

Poreda is missing his secondary pitches, but Porcello has had control issues so far. Poreda can learn pitches, Porcello can work on control.

Both guys have big upsides to them, and I'm pretty happy with the Sox pick. A lefty who throws a sinking fastball with great control for strikes. Worst case scenario, could be a great reliever.

champagne030
08-16-2007, 11:31 AM
I'll suggest it. They are both young pitchers, and a million things can happen from here til either is ready. Poreda throws a 97 MPH fastball, and he gained 6-7 MPH on it in one season. Porcello Throws a 96 MPH fastball. Poreda is still learning the game just like Porcello. Poreda throws comfortable 95-96. Porcello throws comfortably 94-95.

Poreda - Lefty (lefties are often more successful in the majors)
Porcello - Righty

Poreda- "This guy had the best sinker we saw all year from a college left-hander," Shaffer said. "This was a guy we focused on and we were fortunate enough to get at 25."

Porcello - "He's got four pitches, especially if the changeup continues to improve, with a plus, plus fastball, great command and terrific mechanics."

Poreda is missing his secondary pitches, but Porcello has had control issues so far. Poreda can learn pitches, Porcello can work on control.

Both guys have big upsides to them, and I'm pretty happy with the Sox pick. A lefty who throws a sinking fastball with great control for strikes. Worst case scenario, could be a great reliever.

Thanks, but I'll take the word of people who are paid to scout over your word. They all have said that Poreda is a one-pitch pitcher at this point. A plus-plus pitch, but he's got a long, long way to go to be an effective SP at the MLB level. Porcello already has the pitches, he just needs to refine them.

Sure, Poreda may come up with some servicable secondary pitches and be an excellent SP for the White Sox and Porcello may never gain the consistency in his secondary pitches to be very effective for the Tigers. That doesn't mean they have the same potential.

balke
08-16-2007, 12:52 PM
Thanks, but I'll take the word of people who are paid to scout over your word. They all have said that Poreda is a one-pitch pitcher at this point. A plus-plus pitch, but he's got a long, long way to go to be an effective SP at the MLB level. Porcello already has the pitches, he just needs to refine them.

Sure, Poreda may come up with some servicable secondary pitches and be an excellent SP for the White Sox and Porcello may never gain the consistency in his secondary pitches to be very effective for the Tigers. That doesn't mean they have the same potential.

In the same regard, there's not a scout saying he has a higher potential than Poreda. Mainly because they don't contrast and compare pitcher to pitcher.

A good hard throwing lefty that has control of his fastball, and can induce ground balls has a high potential for MLB service.

Porcello has 2 fastballs and a good changeup and a decent slider.

Poreda's changeup is already supposed to be improving and could be a good pitch for him, and his Slider is supposed to be developing nicely.

You can't teach left-handed, 96 MPH, or 6'6".

Scouts may not have ranked Poreda highly because he doesn't yet have his secondary pitches down, but that doesn't mean his potential is lacking. With that good of a fastball and being lefty, one could argue the actual "potential" is higher with Poreda, and he's further away from being MLB ready.

He is both "safer" because of being a lefty, and his potential is high due to the command of his sinking fastball. I like the pick, and I'm glad to be dealing with him over a Boras client who could be making demands down the line about playing time and restructuring contracts, being traded, etc.

rdivaldi
08-16-2007, 01:46 PM
I didn't necessarily like the pick of Poreda until I saw scouting video, then I said to myself, "Oh, that's why". I really knew nothing about him, but there's quite a bit of upside there. Everyone knew who Porcello was, with good reason. It will be very interesting to see how he reacts to going against minor league hitters versus high school kids. His stuff alone should get him up to low A ball with relative ease unless his command falters.

I still think giving $7 million to a high school kid is a bad move...

California Sox
08-16-2007, 01:48 PM
Just to back up my assertions about the Yankees and Red Sox changing their draft philosophies to get more over-slot players, this is what BA had to say today:

The Yankees spent more than $7.4 million in bonuses to sign their picks in the first 10 rounds,

Meanwhile it appears we didn't sign Guinn who merely wanted top 5 rounds type money. I'm always in favor of being aggressive.

rdivaldi
08-16-2007, 01:57 PM
Just to back up my assertions about the Yankees and Red Sox changing their draft philosophies to get more over-slot players... Meanwhile it appears we didn't sign Guinn who merely wanted top 5 rounds type money. I'm always in favor of being aggressive.

Well, maybe the day is coming where we will be paying $7 million for high school pitchers sooner rather than later. With our shake-up in scouting and a shifting in philosophies for the big money teams, it will make our 2008 draft very interesting.

UserNameBlank
08-16-2007, 03:42 PM
I agree with it. I think what the Sox have on their hands is a grudge with Boras. I don't think they've made completely public what has gone on with him, but he's rubbed Kenny the wrong way. The best way to show disapproval of someone and their tactics would be to boycott their business as much as possible.

Poreda is the typical KW pick. Football player who's learning the game. Great athlete, great fastball, lots of potential. If they have equal potential, then he'll pick the one that doesn't have Boras as an agent every time. I applaud him for that.
I couldn't find anything anywhere that says Poreda played football, so I don't know if you're right on that one. It looks like he just played baseball in college.

On Borass, I'm going to make a bad analogy here but it's the best I could think of now. Let's say draft picks are breakfast cereals. Borass represents all the good ****, like the Honey Nut Cheerios and Golden Grahams and ****, and the other guys all pretty much have the discount food store cereal. Now, some of the discount cereal is good but as we all know, or anyone who has ever purchased cereal from Aldi's knows, that they don't put sugar in their ****. Now, do you go to Borass and get your yummy Golden Grahams or do you pass on those yummy Golden Grahams and go to Aldi's to get the Grahmmy Golds that taste like ass just to save a few bucks? I say if you're going to be buying cereal, and you're going to be eating it every morning and not just leaving it in the cupboard like some sort of breakfast time capsule, you should get the good ****. If Boras has the BAP, just play the game.

UserNameBlank
08-16-2007, 03:45 PM
Well, maybe the day is coming where we will be paying $7 million for high school pitchers sooner rather than later. With our shake-up in scouting and a shifting in philosophies for the big money teams, it will make our 2008 draft very interesting.
I respect your view on this but just be honest here. In June when the Sox were already showing themselves as another big disappointment, wouldn't you have found it refreshing to see the Sox go out of their way make the extra effort and sign the BAP, even if he was a Borass client?

I guess I'd find it easier to side with you if our farm system was one of the best in baseball and/or our team was a young core with many playoff shots in its future, but that is not the case. As it is we need to get the best players we can find, not just because we'll need to develop one here and there, but because we need to have the minor league assets required when a Carl Crawford or Miguel Cabrera becomes available, because you know that will happen soon enough.

UserNameBlank
08-16-2007, 03:52 PM
What is dangerous about it? I'd say it's only dangerous if the club is cash strapped or if it becomes a trend without the necessary results. It's only $7 million over 4 years. They have until the 2012 season to find out if he's capable of being on the 25 man roster.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070816/SPORTS02/708160435/1050



If the GM feels his staff is superior to others in an area then it makes sense to direct your resources in that area. Whether they are superior is a different issue. But you should capitalize on what you think are your strengths.

BTW, that link also gives more specific details about the contract for those interested.

Agree with all of this. I for one am one Sox fan that would like to see his GM talk about his scouting and player development systems as strengths. I don't think the Sox are bad at this, but they aren't as good as they could be. I'd like to see them pull out all the stops to get better, even if it means spending lots of money on a draft pick that ends up as a bust in the future. I'd rather spend a higher amount on a better prospect than a lower amount on another guy who needs more work, even if they are both going to end up as busts, which the odds pretty much favor happening anyway.

balke
08-16-2007, 04:00 PM
I couldn't find anything anywhere that says Poreda played football, so I don't know if you're right on that one. It looks like he just played baseball in college.


Aaron Poreda, lhp
School: San Francisco. Class: Jr.
B-T: L-L. Ht.: 6-6. Wt.: 240. Birthdate: 10/1/86.
Scouting Report: Poreda wasn't on the radar screen in high school; he focused more on football as a defensive end/tight end. He did pitch a bit, even tossing a no-hitter, but was awkward and had suspect arm action. In three seasons at San Francisco working with pitching coach Greg Moore, however, he has developed into a first-round candidate and one of the nation's hardest-throwing lefthanders. Poreda works off the fastball almost as much as UC Riverside's James Simmons (No. 47), and like Simmons, it's his only above-average pitch. While his fastball was flat and 89-90 mph in his 2007 opener, he has been consistently in the low 90s since then, touching 96-97 and regularly hitting 94. He throws plenty of strikes (though he lacks true command), and with his 6-foot-6, 240-pound frame, he should prove durable. He doesn't pitch as downhill as he should at his size, in part because of his low three-quarters arm slot. Poreda's arm action and lower slot make his breaking ball a fringe-average pitch at best, though it has improved. He has the makings of a changeup but hasn't thrown it much, sticking to his fastball. He had experimented with a higher slot to aid his breaking ball, but the move cost his fastball some of its late life and was back to his old slot.

W L ERA G SV IP H BB SO
7 6 2.89 14 0 100 93 18 66


On Borass, I'm going to make a bad analogy here but it's the best I could think of now. Let's say draft picks are breakfast cereals. Borass represents all the good ****, like the Honey Nut Cheerios and Golden Grahams and ****, and the other guys all pretty much have the discount food store cereal. Now, some of the discount cereal is good but as we all know, or anyone who has ever purchased cereal from Aldi's knows, that they don't put sugar in their ****. Now, do you go to Borass and get your yummy Golden Grahams or do you pass on those yummy Golden Grahams and go to Aldi's to get the Grahmmy Golds that taste like ass just to save a few bucks? I say if you're going to be buying cereal, and you're going to be eating it every morning and not just leaving it in the cupboard like some sort of breakfast time capsule, you should get the good ****. If Boras has the BAP, just play the game.


BEST analogy ever. And here's why:

What you are actually referring to is taking a product, dressing it up with fancy bright colors, leprechauns, and jingles to SELL it to people. Sure I could get Tony The Tiger's Frosted Flakes for $5 bucks, but on the bottom shelf lays that bag of Frosted corn flakes that has twice the amount of food inside for a buck.

It is the same exact product, and could taste the same or better. Right now you don't know, but odds are when you try it they'll be similar, heck the cheap stuff in a bag might be better. (BTW, I've found the stuff in the bag to be better).

UserNameBlank
08-16-2007, 04:12 PM
Aaron Poreda, lhp
School: San Francisco. Class: Jr.
B-T: L-L. Ht.: 6-6. Wt.: 240. Birthdate: 10/1/86.
Scouting Report: Poreda wasn't on the radar screen in high school; he focused more on football as a defensive end/tight end. He did pitch a bit, even tossing a no-hitter, but was awkward and had suspect arm action.

He played football in high school. Ahh, doesn't mean anything to me. I'm sure a lot of players have. As long as he focused on baseball in college that's all I care about.

BEST analogy ever. And here's why:

What you are actually referring to is taking a product, dressing it up with fancy bright colors, leprechauns, and jingles to SELL it to people. Sure I could get Tony The Tiger's Frosted Flakes for $5 bucks, but on the bottom shelf lays that bag of Frosted corn flakes that has twice the amount of food inside for a buck.

It is the same exact product, and could taste the same or better. Right now you don't know, but odds are when you try it they'll be similar, heck the cheap stuff in a bag might be better. (BTW, I've found the stuff in the bag to be better).

Well the point I was making was that the Aldi's cereal doesn't have any sugar in it so it is of lower quality. I'll agree though that Borass does dress up his clients as much as he can, but still, you're not listening to what Borass says, you are listening to your scouts. If you had cereal scouts with you when you went to the grocery store they'd tell you that Porcello Flakes are of a higher breakfast quality than Poredos. If you're hungry for the best available cereal, spend the extra few bucks on Porcello Flakes.

UserNameBlank
08-16-2007, 04:20 PM
^^Also to the above post:

About more food being in the box for slightly less quality, we're not some scavenging hoboes like the Pirates. We're a large market team, so we can afford to pay more.

balke
08-16-2007, 04:20 PM
He played football in high school. Ahh, doesn't mean anything to me. I'm sure a lot of players have. As long as he focused on baseball in college that's all I care about.



Well the point I was making was that the Aldi's cereal doesn't have any sugar in it so it is of lower quality. I'll agree though that Borass does dress up his clients as much as he can, but still, you're not listening to what Borass says, you are listening to your scouts. If you had cereal scouts with you when you went to the grocery store they'd tell you that Porcello Flakes are of a higher breakfast quality than Poredos. If you're hungry for the best available cereal, spend the extra few bucks on Porcello Flakes.

Maybe the scout said:

"You might like that one more, but this one right here is pretty good and its 4 bucks less and won't make you vomit like the other one that has Boras-ic Acid in it... Plus, its a lefty!"

balke
08-16-2007, 04:23 PM
^^Also to the above post:

About more food being in the box for slightly less quality, we're not some scavenging hoboes like the Pirates. We're a large market team, so we can afford to pay more.

HAHAHA, this is ridiculous, but funny. The "more inside" was symbolism for potential. :D:

thedudeabides
08-16-2007, 04:24 PM
I couldn't find anything anywhere that says Poreda played football, so I don't know if you're right on that one. It looks like he just played baseball in college.

On Borass, I'm going to make a bad analogy here but it's the best I could think of now. Let's say draft picks are breakfast cereals. Borass represents all the good ****, like the Honey Nut Cheerios and Golden Grahams and ****, and the other guys all pretty much have the discount food store cereal. Now, some of the discount cereal is good but as we all know, or anyone who has ever purchased cereal from Aldi's knows, that they don't put sugar in their ****. Now, do you go to Borass and get your yummy Golden Grahams or do you pass on those yummy Golden Grahams and go to Aldi's to get the Grahmmy Golds that taste like ass just to save a few bucks? I say if you're going to be buying cereal, and you're going to be eating it every morning and not just leaving it in the cupboard like some sort of breakfast time capsule, you should get the good ****. If Boras has the BAP, just play the game.

5480
"Response, yeah I have a response"
"What"

UserNameBlank
08-16-2007, 04:24 PM
Maybe the scout said:

"You might like that one more, but this one right here is pretty good and its 4 bucks less and won't make you vomit like the other one that has Boras-ic Acid in it... Plus, its a lefty!"
Well, you may have a point. Lefties with fastballs in the high 90's are kind of like Lucky Charms, although since we took a projected sandwhich pick in the first round maybe he's the cheaper brand like Fortunate Charms or something.

UserNameBlank
08-16-2007, 04:26 PM
HAHAHA, this is ridiculous, but funny. The "more inside" was symbolism for potential. :D:
Ahh, I see. But then let me ask you THIS before this all ends up in the Roadhouse, what if Porcello Flakes has a hidden prize inside like a Fruit Loop or something but Poredos doesn't because he's cheaper?

balke
08-16-2007, 04:27 PM
Ahh, I see. But then let me ask you THIS before this all ends up in the Roadhouse, what if Porcello Flakes has a hidden prize inside like a Fruit Loop or something but Poredos doesn't because he's cheaper?

What if the situation is reverse?

UserNameBlank
08-16-2007, 04:29 PM
What if the situation is reverse?
What, like Borass took out the prize and kept it for himself? Because Poreda was bargain bin, he'd didn't come with a prize, unless that prize is poor mechanics.

balke
08-16-2007, 04:33 PM
What, like Borass took out the prize and kept it for himself? Because Poreda was bargain bin, he'd didn't come with a prize, unless that prize is poor mechanics.

Maybe the prize is at the bottom of the bag and you don't know it cause you didn't read the label. You just assumed it wouldn't be there cause it didn't cost a lot of money. Just like you assumed it wouldn't taste as good because it didn't cost as much, and all the commercials on T.V. said the other one was the best.

UserNameBlank
08-16-2007, 04:37 PM
Maybe the prize is at the bottom of the bag and you don't know it cause you didn't read the label. You just assumed it wouldn't be there cause it didn't cost a lot of money. Just like you assumed it wouldn't taste as good because it didn't cost as much, and all the commercials on T.V. said the other one was the best.
What would be the point of cereal scouts then? Maybe you don't read the label, but your scouts should at least. Trust your labels. At least on cereal anyway. If the sugar content isn't there, and it says "no prize included" then you damn well know you're buying bargain bin cereal.

balke
08-16-2007, 04:46 PM
What would be the point of cereal scouts then? Maybe you don't read the label, but your scouts should at least. Trust your labels. At least on cereal anyway. If the sugar content isn't there, and it says "no prize included" then you damn well know you're buying bargain bin cereal.

If cereal scouts were your only reference, you'd be out of luck. Gavin Floyd was a better cereal then either of these two. Scouts point you in a direction, the rest works itself out. The Sox scout pointed Kenny to Poreda. He's big, throws hard, and is lefty. He's progressed a lot in the past season, and he could even more. What if the Sox just found themselves a Sabathia? What if the Tigers found themselves a Floyd? That's why I think the big deal over the draft this year is dumb in the first place. The MLB is too unpredictable.

UserNameBlank
08-16-2007, 04:52 PM
If cereal scouts were your only reference, you'd be out of luck. Gavin Floyd was a better cereal then either of these two. Scouts point you in a direction, the rest works itself out. The Sox scout pointed Kenny to Poreda. He's big, throws hard, and is lefty. He's progressed a lot in the past season, and he could even more. What if the Sox just found themselves a Sabathia? What if the Tigers found themselves a Floyd? That's why I think the big deal over the draft this year is dumb in the first place. The MLB is too unpredictable.
Ok, I will give you that. Floyd was a bust and baseball is tough to predict, but I still think you have to take the best player available. By all accounts, when the Sox picked the best player, or cereal, available was Porcello. Although as I've said before in this thread, I still like Poreda, just not as much.

rdivaldi
08-17-2007, 09:42 AM
I respect your view on this but just be honest here. In June when the Sox were already showing themselves as another big disappointment, wouldn't you have found it refreshing to see the Sox go out of their way make the extra effort and sign the BAP, even if he was a Borass client?

No, I would have found it to be a sign of desperation. Lets not forget my distaste with giving a high school pitcher big money. I liken it to Bran Flakes, it's good for you, everyone says you should eat them, but in the end you're just running to the crapper to get it out. (too graphic?)

FloridaTigers
08-20-2007, 03:12 PM
Ask the Tigers how picking Kyle Sleeth #3 overall and giving him 3.5mm has worked out so far?

Sure thing!

Hey Dave Dombrowski, did that 3.5 million hinder your signings of Cameron Maybin, Justin Verlander, Andrew Miller, and Rick Porcello?

Oh, I guess not. 3 Million is chump change. If Porcello doesn't pan out, so what? Its not like the Tigers lost so much money compared to if Dice-K failed, with the 55 mil and all. If anything, with the Tigers rising revenue, 3 million isn't even a drop in the bucket.

balke
08-20-2007, 03:33 PM
Sure thing!

Hey Dave Dombrowski, did that 3.5 million hinder your signings of Cameron Maybin, Justin Verlander, Andrew Miller, and Rick Porcello?

Oh, I guess not. 3 Million is chump change. If Porcello doesn't pan out, so what? Its not like the Tigers lost so much money compared to if Dice-K failed, with the 55 mil and all. If anything, with the Tigers rising revenue, 3 million isn't even a drop in the bucket.

This chump change adds up. High School prospects aren't predictable enough to throw that much money at. Dice-K has a track record in a professional league in a foreign nation. That's much different than high school ball players in the States.

FloridaTigers
08-20-2007, 03:35 PM
But the risk for Asians is just as much for high schoolers and anyone you draft. Ask Hideo Nomo and Hideki Irabu how everything is working out. Had these players been ready to hit the US in 2007 with their hype, the would've gotten alot of money. I don't think of Daisuke level, but alot more then Iwamura.

balke
08-20-2007, 03:40 PM
Nomo had 3 immediate impact seasons recording over 230 strikeouts per season and 43 wins at the MLB level. That worked out pretty well. How you can compare a high schooler who hasn't seen an MLB game to someone with that kind of an impact on the league is beyond me. There's a difference between paying for someone who's competed at a level that is comparable to MLB, and a high schooler who could've competed against teams that just about anyone on this board could've played for.

jabrch
08-20-2007, 04:09 PM
But the risk for Asians is just as much for high schoolers and anyone you draft. Ask Hideo Nomo and Hideki Irabu how everything is working out. Had these players been ready to hit the US in 2007 with their hype, the would've gotten alot of money. I don't think of Daisuke level, but alot more then Iwamura.

From your posts, I'm guessing you are fairly new to understanding baseball. You don't seem to have much an understanding of the history around Japanese players, or around the success of paying big $ to HS pitchers in the draft. My guess - you are in your early teens and don't really remember much from when the Tigers were perennially one of the worst team in baseball (about 3 years ago)

That's just a guess. I highly doubt you are old enough to have seen the last good Tigers teams play.

FloridaTigers
08-20-2007, 06:24 PM
From your posts, I'm guessing you are fairly new to understanding baseball. You don't seem to have much an understanding of the history around Japanese players, or around the success of paying big $ to HS pitchers in the draft. My guess - you are in your early teens and don't really remember much from when the Tigers were perennially one of the worst team in baseball (about 3 years ago)

That's just a guess. I highly doubt you are old enough to have seen the last good Tigers teams play.


I'm 17, but I've seen my fair share of terrible Tigers.

UserNameBlank
08-20-2007, 10:56 PM
From your posts, I'm guessing you are fairly new to understanding baseball. You don't seem to have much an understanding of the history around Japanese players, or around the success of paying big $ to HS pitchers in the draft. My guess - you are in your early teens and don't really remember much from when the Tigers were perennially one of the worst team in baseball (about 3 years ago)

That's just a guess. I highly doubt you are old enough to have seen the last good Tigers teams play.
My guess is you like to act like a dick and make assumptions about people you don't even know.

You don't know **** about the odds of Japanese pitchers making an impact in the Majors either, so don't act like you do. The sample size is way too small to compare the draft.

First round picks typically get a lot of money and then turn into busts. It doesn't matter if they are from high school or college. The chances of them doing anything significant in the major leagues is small.

UserNameBlank
08-20-2007, 11:02 PM
This chump change adds up. High School prospects aren't predictable enough to throw that much money at. Dice-K has a track record in a professional league in a foreign nation. That's much different than high school ball players in the States.
College prospects are unpredictable as well. Why does a kid with say Porcello's talent have to go to college and dominate inferior competition? Why not go right into pro ball and face better, more experienced hitters?

On Dice-K, he did have an impressive track record but it still is one of those situations where you don't know exactly what you're getting. Sure, he has great stuff and had put up great numbers in Japan, but how will he react to pitching in front of larger crowds in bigger situations? How will he react to the language barrier? How will he deal with the media and American criticism? Is he mentally capable of working out of a terrible slump in an unfamiliar atmosphere? Boston still was taking a very big risk there.

UserNameBlank
08-20-2007, 11:31 PM
Sure thing!

Hey Dave Dombrowski, did that 3.5 million hinder your signings of Cameron Maybin, Justin Verlander, Andrew Miller, and Rick Porcello?

Oh, I guess not. 3 Million is chump change. If Porcello doesn't pan out, so what? Its not like the Tigers lost so much money compared to if Dice-K failed, with the 55 mil and all. If anything, with the Tigers rising revenue, 3 million isn't even a drop in the bucket.
Good point. The group you mentioned just shows how the bonuses can be worth it.

Think about it this way. People pay $3mil plus for an arm like Jamie Walker. With the money even, would you trade a Jamie Walker for a prospect with such a high ceiling? Sure, anyone sensible GM would. There are a lot of $3mil players out there that can be easily replaced with guys making the minimum of near the minimum. If it came to it, I'd take a hit on the major league bench in exchange for a top prospect every single year.

ilsox7
08-22-2007, 10:18 PM
Just ran across this quote from Casey Crosby. He was a 5th round pick by the Tigers and signed for ~750K, which was approximately 600K above the slot price. Here is what he had to say:

"I got more than I asked for, really," he said. "I got drafted by a great organization. I got the money I wanted and I got to spend one last summer with my family."

champagne030
08-22-2007, 10:47 PM
Just ran across this quote from Casey Crosby. He was a 5th round pick by the Tigers and signed for ~750K, which was approximately 600K above the slot price. Here is what he had to say:

Out in this neck of the woods we've known about Crosby for the last two seasons. He was projected as a high 2nd round pick (and the #1 player in Illinois), but fell due to signability questions. He had a ride to Illinois in his pocket and his mother placed a high value on getting that free education.

ilsox7
08-22-2007, 10:49 PM
Out in this neck of the woods we've known about Crosby for the last two seasons. He was projected as a high 2nd round pick (and the #1 player in Illinois), but fell due to signability questions. He had a ride to Illinois in his pocket and his mother placed a high value on getting that free education.

Yea. I was just shocked he came out and said he got more than he asked for. Kinda ****ed up.