Jump to content

Drafting Strategy 2011 vs. 2012


Recommended Posts

With the new collective bargaining agreement in place and stiffer penalties on overslot signings, I have been thinking what will teams (hopefully the Orioles) do to add as much talent as possible.

All the rumors (days after the agreement) was to not sign your top guy and spend that money throughout the rest of the draft.

If a Club does not sign a pick, its signing bonus pool is reduced by the amount of the pick. So, for example, if a Club does not sign its first round pick, and its first round pick had a slot of $1.5 million, the Club?s signing bonus pool would be reduced by $1.5. This is true of any unsigned pick, not just those covered by compensation. The main idea here was to not create incentive for a team to NOT sign a pick. Without this safeguard, a team could ?punt? a pick in order to divert those funds to another pick later on, which could result in a Draft that would look a lot like the old ones. In the next year?s draft, the Club would receive a compensation selection for failing to sign its first, second or third round selections, and the slot assigned to the compensation selection will be added to its signing bonus pool.

Source - Jonathon Mayo http://minors.mlblogs.com/2011/11/28/more-cba-goodies/

One of my first thoughts would be to utilize a signability pick. Especially if there is not much of a difference in the talent of two or three players. However, when you pick in the top 5 like the Orioles, it would be difficult to go signability. Although teams in the 6 - 15 range in some drafts may be able to utilize this strategy.

I assume MLB has thought about this and is why they gave "value" to the top picks. Mayo had the breakdown:

1 ? $7.2 million

2 ? $6.2 million

3 ? $5.2 million

4 ? $4.2

5 ? $3.5

6 ? $3.25

7 ? $3

8 ? $2.9

9 ? $2.8

10 ? $2.7

How will teams change their draft strategy? We may not know some of the stipulations (in the CBA) for several weeks. It will be interesting to see in the next 5 years how teams were successful and whether they utilized a specific strategy, or did they just scout and develop better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
With the new collective bargaining agreement in place and stiffer penalties on overslot signings, I have been thinking what will teams (hopefully the Orioles) do to add as much talent as possible.

All the rumors (days after the agreement) was to not sign your top guy and spend that money throughout the rest of the draft.

Source - Jonathon Mayo http://minors.mlblogs.com/2011/11/28/more-cba-goodies/

One of my first thoughts would be to utilize a signability pick. Especially if there is not much of a difference in the talent of two or three players. However, when you pick in the top 5 like the Orioles, it would be difficult to go signability. Although teams in the 6 - 15 range in some drafts may be able to utilize this strategy.

I assume MLB has thought about this and is why they gave "value" to the top picks. Mayo had the breakdown:

How will teams change their draft strategy? We may not know some of the stipulations (in the CBA) for several weeks. It will be interesting to see in the next 5 years how teams were successful and whether they utilized a specific strategy, or did they just scout and develop better?

If you pay a guy under-slot, do you forfeit the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the strategy from the Hobgood drafts is used more often now. That is, shooting low on your first pick (but still getting 1st round talent) then going overslot on a few guys who slipped.

Good teams will tie strategy more closely to composition of draft class. Deliberately shooting lower with your first pick shouldn't be a focus unless the draft class and your slot dictate such a strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize this is a subject in which I have little (any?) knowledge, but to me it seems silly to draft a signability Hobgood when a Machado is available just so we could add a couple of Randy Henrys later in the draft. If you have a high pick and you do not shoot for the stars, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize this is a subject in which I have little (any?) knowledge, but to me it seems silly to draft a signability Hobgood when a Machado is available just so we could add a couple of Randy Henrys later in the draft. If you have a high pick and you do not shoot for the stars, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

The issue doesn't come up if there is a star to shoot for -- only when you have a pick with no corresponding talent to select.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



  • Posts

    • Yeah, it's hard for me to complain about a handful of winnable games in a season full of surprises. I never thought they would be a playoff team even when they were tied, or maybe ahead in a WC position earlier. There's a lot to look forward to for 2023... there's also a lot of work to do this off season.   
    • I feel like there's a default assumption that he's not a great blocker because most great pass catching TEs not named Kittle aren't.  But I've been looking out for him on running plays and this man is straight mauling people in run blocking.  He's easily Boyle's equal as a blocker even when Boyle is healthy.  But he's almost never playing tight end.   With the way he's pretty much permanently our slot receiver, having him as one of the main blockers on WR screens should be terrifying for DBs that have to shed this guy while tackling the receiver.  We put Ricard out wide a lot too, imagine Ricard and Andrews blocking for a WR screen to Bateman or Duvernay in trips.
    • Good post.  For me it doesn’t sting very much.   The team came a very long way this year.   But they were never more than a team with a puncher’s chance at the playoffs.   I’d still like to see them finish by playing a little better than they have for the last couple of weeks, to leave a good taste in our mouths after a fun season. 
    • I would want at least 3 years left for any pitcher we get in a trade.  I still think one of the young Astros starters makes the most sense.  The Astros were interested in Mullins before to upgrade their center fielder.   Elias knows that system so I like that as advantage.  Garcia, Valdez, Javier and Urquidy would be better fits because of at least 1 more year of control.  Javier would be my first choice because he has more strikeout stuff compared to other 3.  
    • Well Castillo was also dealt at the deadline and pitching usually gets more at the deadline. 
    • The Reds got two top 50ish prospects in Marte and Arroyo, plus two other solid prospects, from Seattle for 1.5 years of Luis Castillo, so 2 full years of Burnes or Woodruff (who have both been significantly better than Castillo over the last 3 years) should cost even more than that. Something like Cowser and Holliday, plus 2 or 3 more decent prospects from our top 30. Personally, I'd rather just throw a Brinks truck or two in Justin Verlander's general direction since our payroll is sub-Rays level atm.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...