I think this is how it shakes out.

[allstar1579]

Again, my point has always been 1) there is an argument for drafting Posey -- his position shouldn't rule him out, and 2) I would prefer several players ahead of Posey.

Sigh....

Fielder? Really? Is that the long term investment you want for your team?

Fielder will cost you double his contract in clubhouse food. Seriously, he looks bigger now that he has supposedly been a vegetarian for months now, when did they classify ice cream as a vegetarian food group?

[Stotle]

Fielder will cost you double his contract in clubhouse food. Seriously, he looks bigger now that he has supposedly been a vegetarian for months now, when did they classify ice cream as a vegetarian food group?

There's a reason he'll be the player MIL eventually lets walk. Nice to have Braun up and LaPorta and Gamel in the pipe...

[markpolis]

Eh, I think signing bonus should be based in large part on tool set for HSers. They generally aren't that close to fully-baked.

Are you being serious? :scratchchinhmm:

You're last few posts mention "baked" and "in the pipe".

I think I finally get where you are coming from. :wedge:

[allstar1579]

Are you being serious? :scratchchinhmm:

You're last few posts mention "baked" and "in the pipe".

I think I finally get where you are coming from. :wedge:

Yeah, I get where he is coming from. HS players, in general take 3-5 years to become an everyday major leaguer. College guys are closer to 1-3 years. With exceptions of course, but people freak out when a 20 year old is tearing up AA, so how rare does it have to be for a 20 year old to tear up the majors? I can think of maybe 5-10 in the past decade, out of the 1,000's drafted.

With escalating salaries and no cap in place for draft picks, HS players are asking, and getting millions of dollars before they take a single at bat or make a pitch as a professional.

I feel like there should be a rookie cap like the NBA or NHL where there is a max contract you can sign, and no more of these contracts expiring minor league options like Loewen's. While they are in the minors they should be paid up to a max, and a cap until they have 2 years service time in the majors. That way they can still sign these long term deals if they choose, but not until they have 2 years in the majors.

[Greg Pappas]

Eh, I think signing bonus should be based in large part on tool set for HSers. They generally aren't that close to fully-baked.

Prince Fielder

Derreck Lee

Casey Kotchman

Justin Morneau

Paul Konerko

Adrian Gonzalez

James Loney (soon)

I follow your line of thinking that 1B aren't as valuable to a team as other positions... but I imagine that if you check throughout the history of baseball champions, WS winners, most of those teams will have a much better 1B'man than SS or Catcher.

Talent is talent, at any position, and while it's harder to find a great SS or C as compared to 1B'men, if Eddie Murray, or Prince Fielder, or Justin Morneau, etc, are available, paying them to be a part of your team, even if there is an extra two year wait, can pay off handsomely.

I am not at all advocating paying Hosmer whatever he wants, but draft history supports the results that in the first round (cream of the crop) HS hitters, 1B'men or otherwise perform very well, and even better when a top ten selection.

Is it preferable that as a team you'd prefer a quicker return? Certainly. You've said (at least I think it was you) that you'd rather have Smoak hitting 25 HR's a year and getting good production from him, than getting Hosmer two years later hitting 5 more HR's per year with slightly better production. Whether it was you or not, I disagree with this premise.

I'm exhausted... good night all.

[markpolis]

Again, my point has always been 1) there is an argument for drafting Posey -- his position shouldn't rule him out, and 2) I would prefer several players ahead of Posey.

Sigh....

Fielder? Really? Is that the long term investment you want for your team?

Time and time again you seem to miss the point.

To paraphrase, you say "because Matt Wieters is 6'5" and no other catcher has had a successful career as a catcher at 6'5" it can't happen so let's draft Posey and move Wieters to 1B." I've pointed out several "big" catchers who have long and successful careers behind the plate, BUT because NONE of them were 6'5" it's not possible for Wieters to have a successful career as a catcher.

Contrary to what some people still believe, you do realize the earth is round?

Now you say because Eric Hosmer is a HS player who plays first base we shouldn't draft him AND he "should have his signing bonus based in large part on his tool set" because he is relegated to playing first base. What if that "tool set" projects to plus .300 hitter with 40-45 HR's per season? I think some teams may be interested in that type of production. Don't you?

I wait with bated breath for your next Machiavelli gem.

[Stotle]

Time and time again you seem to miss the point.

To paraphrase, you say "because Matt Wieters is 6'5" and no other catcher has had a successful career as a catcher at 6'5" it can't happen so let's draft Posey and move Wieters to 1B." I've pointed out several "big" catchers who have long and successful careers behind the plate, BUT because NONE of them were 6'5" it's not possible for Wieters to have a successful career as a catcher.

Contrary to what some people still believe, you do realize the earth is round?

Now you say because Eric Hosmer is a HS player who plays first base we shouldn't draft him AND he "should have his signing bonus based in large part on his tool set" because he is relegated to playing first base. What if that "tool set" projects to plus .300 hitter with 40-45 HR's per season? I think some teams may be interested in that type of production. Don't you?

I wait with bated breath for your next Machiavelli gem.

The Wieters horse has been beaten to death, no? My point is and has always been that if Jordan claims Posey is the best option, there are arguments for selecting him, one of which is the fact that you could potentially keep Wieters healthier long term and in the lineup an extra 20 games a season. This isn't crazy or unreasonable and I don't see the point in typing it over and over again.

Regarding HSers, I'll try it this way:

1. Further away from ML and more difficult to project

2. The more "tools" a player has the more options you have in molding him into a useful MLer

3. A prospect with more than 3 plus tools is a better "investment" because of #2 above

4. A prospect with 3 or fewer plus tools but two potential plus-plus tools can be very valuable but has less room for error in his development (remember #1, it's still very hard to project). Therefore, the uber-power hitting 1b probably isn't as good an "investement" as the prospect listed in #3.

5. (As an aside) I don't think you'll find a scout that puts in writing that he thinks a particular HS player will be a .300 40-45HR hitter

I don't mind you disagreeing (obviously) but you've grown a little too condescendnig in your posts for my taste. Just let me know 1) how much you think Hosmer is worth in signing bonus, 2) how quickly he'll make the ML club, and 3) how quickly he'll be an all-star. I'll just start parroting your viewpoint -- it's a headache to try and even suggest it may be a bit off...

[Stotle]

Prince Fielder

Derreck Lee

Casey Kotchman

Justin Morneau

Paul Konerko

Adrian Gonzalez

James Loney (soon)

I follow your line of thinking that 1B aren't as valuable to a team as other positions... but I imagine that if you check throughout the history of baseball champions, WS winners, most of those teams will have a much better 1B'man than SS or Catcher.

Talent is talent, at any position, and while it's harder to find a great SS or C as compared to 1B'men, if Eddie Murray, or Prince Fielder, or Justin Morneau, etc, are available, paying them to be a part of your team, even if there is an extra two year wait, can pay off handsomely.

I am not at all advocating paying Hosmer whatever he wants, but draft history supports the results that in the first round (cream of the crop) HS hitters, 1B'men or otherwise perform very well, and even better when a top ten selection.

Is it preferable that as a team you'd prefer a quicker return? Certainly. You've said (at least I think it was you) that you'd rather have Smoak hitting 25 HR's a year and getting good production from him, than getting Hosmer two years later hitting 5 more HR's per year with slightly better production. Whether it was you or not, I disagree with this premise.

I'm exhausted... good night all.

Greg, my only point is Hosmer isn't wort the $7mio he is asking. If you think he is, fine. I laid out in my response to Mark why (when it comes to HS draftees) I feel elite hitting tools are trumped by more well-rounded tools when determining how sound an investment a player might be.

I've never said 1b aren't valuable.

My Smoak in 2010 vs. Smoak +5 HR in 2012 example was, again, presented in the context of how much you are spending on the player through signing bonus. Not only are you giving the HS player an extra couple of million on signing day, you are investing extra resources in developing him. Assuming once he makes the ML team, essentially, your investment has been realized, this is what you are weighing:

College Player -- $3mio (around slot) + cost of 2 years MiL development

HS Player -- $5.5mio + cost of 4 years MiL development

HS Player's production must be better than College Player by a factor equal to $2.5mio + cost of 2 years of MiL development in order to break even. To put this into context, that $2.5mio could have purchased 2 Arrieta's who, incidentally would also likely be ML contributors before HS Player.

I'm not saying my way is absolutely right, I'm just tired of being condescended to because I'm not willing to crown Hosmer a HOFer and throw a record HS signing bonus. It's not crazy to point out he's a 1b -- email BA's staff and I'm sure they'll point out this is one reason he's currently ranked below 6 other draftees on their top 100 (same for Smoak).

[Greg Pappas]

Greg, my only point is Hosmer isn't wort the $7mio he is asking. If you think he is, fine. I laid out in my response to Mark why (when it comes to HS draftees) I feel elite hitting tools are trumped by more well-rounded tools when determining how sound an investment a player might be.

I've never said 1b aren't valuable.

My Smoak in 2010 vs. Smoak +5 HR in 2012 example was, again, presented in the context of how much you are spending on the player through signing bonus. Not only are you giving the HS player an extra couple of million on signing day, you are investing extra resources in developing him. Assuming once he makes the ML team, essentially, your investment has been realized, this is what you are weighing:

College Player -- $3mio (around slot) + cost of 2 years MiL development

HS Player -- $5.5mio + cost of 4 years MiL development

HS Player's production must be better than College Player by a factor equal to $2.5mio + cost of 2 years of MiL development in order to break even. To put this into context, that $2.5mio could have purchased 2 Arrieta's who, incidentally would also likely be ML contributors before HS Player.

I'm not saying my way is absolutely right, I'm just tired of being condescended to because I'm not willing to crown Hosmer a HOFer and throw a record HS signing bonus. It's not crazy to point out he's a 1b -- email BA's staff and I'm sure they'll point out this is one reason he's currently ranked below 6 other draftees on their top 100 (same for Smoak).

As I stated "I am not at all advocating paying Hosmer whatever he wants...". I know that if Hosmer were a SS, he'd be the #1 player on the board, so I'm aware of why 1B are not as sought after as the much harder to find great SS's and such. Makes sense certainly.

I truly think we are not as far off in our views as these semi-debates appear to be.

I felt the part about being condescended to, and Hosmer being crowned a HOF'er were way overboard, but then again, one can grow frustrated. I respect, if not always agree, with your views. If I come off as talking down to you, I seriously apologize, as that is in no way my intent.

[Stotle]

As I stated "I am not at all advocating paying Hosmer whatever he wants...". I know that if Hosmer were a SS, he'd be the #1 player on the board, so I'm aware of why 1B are not as sought after as the much harder to find great SS's and such. Makes sense certainly.

I truly think we are not as far off in our views as these semi-debates appear to be.

I felt the part about being condescended to, and Hosmer being crowned a HOF'er were way overboard, but then again, one can grow frustrated. I respect, if not always agree, with your views. If I come off as talking down to you, I seriously apologize, as that is in no way my intent.

I've been pretty conservative with most of my projections (aside from Posey/Pudge comparisons); the fact that Mark takes my conservative stance (based on pretty basic, and admittedly over-simplistic logic) and paints it to be crazy talk akin to thinking the world is flat does get frustrating. With Wieters, it was simply pointing out merits of a pick I wasn't even strongly pushing for (Posey); with Hosmer it's a valuation system that others have also adhered to throughout the years (Hosmer is currently 7th on the BA Top 100). Although I wasn't clear, I didn't intend to lump you in with my response to him -- you were not condescending. We were just talking about different points (value of 1b in general vs. reasonable price tag in a draft).

You are right, you said he isn't wort $7mio. My response to you was meant to simply be the comparison of College Player and HS Player and the $5.5mio vs. $3.0mio to sign them. Sorry for not making that clear.

[Greg Pappas]

I've been pretty conservative with most of my projections (aside from Posey/Pudge comparisons); the fact that Mark takes my conservative stance (based on pretty basic, and admittedly over-simplistic logic) and paints it to be crazy talk akin to thinking the world is flat does get frustrating. With Wieters, it was simply pointing out merits of a pick I wasn't even strongly pushing for (Posey); with Hosmer it's a valuation system that others have also adhered to throughout the years (Hosmer is currently 7th on the BA Top 100). Although I wasn't clear, I didn't intend to lump you in with my response to him -- you were not condescending. We were just talking about different points (value of 1b in general vs. reasonable price tag in a draft).

You are right, you said he isn't wort $7mio. My response to you was meant to simply be the comparison of College Player and HS Player and the $5.5mio vs. $3.0mio to sign them. Sorry for not making that clear.

We're cool.

[crawdad]

I guess the thing that confuses me is why there is so much certainly in one's own opinion on draft prospects. In general, you have a 1 in 2 or a 1 in 3 chance of getting merely a ML player. On top of that, I'm not sure how many of us have had decades of experience at the ML level as a scout. The point is that we all have something interesting and useful to contribute to the discussion, but for anyone to assume they are 100% correct is misguided. To refuse the possibility the other person may be right when you are comparing 2 drafts prospects who have a consensus rank of 6-10 by several leading commercial scouting services . . . seems like a peculiar stand to have.

Maybe it is just me.

I imagine everyone here knows more than I do here. I just listen to the sources and make decisions off the consensus.

[Sports Guy]

I want the Orioles to take the best player left on their board when they draft 4th...Take the Ravens approach...Drafting for need and position is pointless IMO...Now, if you have 2 guys that are neck and neck and one is a SS and the other is a pitcher or catcher, then take the SS...But other than that, take the best available talent, REGARDLESS of position or money demands(we have the money to sign anyone).

[LookinUp]

I want the Orioles to take the best player left on their board when they draft 4th...Take the Ravens approach...Drafting for need and position is pointless IMO...Now, if you have 2 guys that are neck and neck and one is a SS and the other is a pitcher or catcher, then take the SS...But other than that, take the best available talent, REGARDLESS of position or money demands(we have the money to sign anyone).

I think everyone agrees with this. It's funny that the debates get jumbled when everyone should understand the basic underlying premise. This happens with every single trade discussion as well.

[allstar1579]

I guess the thing that confuses me is why there is so much certainly in one's own opinion on draft prospects. In general, you have a 1 in 2 or a 1 in 3 chance of getting merely a ML player. On top of that, I'm not sure how many of us have had decades of experience at the ML level as a scout. The point is that we all have something interesting and useful to contribute to the discussion, but for anyone to assume they are 100% correct is misguided. To refuse the possibility the other person may be right when you are comparing 2 drafts prospects who have a consensus rank of 6-10 by several leading commercial scouting services . . . seems like a peculiar stand to have.

Maybe it is just me.

I imagine everyone here knows more than I do here. I just listen to the sources and make decisions off the consensus.

I think it is just a matter of a couple well informed people analyzing data from different publications and trying to bounce their inferences off the other well informed people. There is taking raw, unbiased data from scouting and preparing ranking lists based on that, and then there is taking that data and applying it based on team needs, philosophies, and draft position and coming up with scenarios. We have a good group of knowledgeable people here that are good at interpreting that info, but with any interpretation there are going to be discrepancies. This is where our debates come from. You are right in the sense that for the most part, they are opinions, but where the opinions are based are on pre-professional production.

You are dead on that not many of these players will ever become major leaguers, the hard part is depicting from what they have shown at a pre-professional level which of them is most likely to develop into a solid pro at higher levels. It is all a big guessing game, but that is how overall scouting reports are made, from large groups of scouts and analysis compared against each other and a mean decision taken from that. It's not that any of us think we are 100% correct, we are just trying to compare our opinions against each others to come up with an overall consensus.

For example, if we had numerical values (out of 100) assigned to our opinions, and I thought Posey was a 90 player, and Stotle thought he was a 100 player, we together would have him rated at a 95. This on a much larger scale is how these things come about. What we have on this site is basically how places like baseball america get started, and after a while it gets so big that people start to listen to their opinions when making their own decisions.