Colon potentially ready by next year?

[NoVaO]

Sorry if I misinterpreted your post -- I couldn't figure out what "neither of these approaches have merit" meant. From a quick look at the results of this year's draft, I would say there is a good chance a solid number of the Round 4-12 guys sign. I imagine the usual (generally speaking) number of signings will take place from the teens to Round 50.

The thing is (and I'm sure you realize this), some fall into that territory because of red flags while others are "pro-ready" but strongly committed to college -- not "tough sign", but "heavy long shot sign". The more time I've spent examining the draft and amateur ball players the more I've come to think that the oft heralded message board mantra of "pick the best and pay what it takes" is a little lacking in sophistication. Should teams spend more? Probably -- certainly on the whole, as many orgs don't even scratch the surface of the draft's potential. But I don't buy into it being realistic that an organization is operating at full efficiency if it's draft spend is up in the theoretical $18-19MM range ($10MM more than BAL's draft spend).

I think once you pass a certain threshold (depending on the year and make-up of the draft class on the whole) you are likely to just start throwing money at 1) a bunch of HSers that aren't necessarily ready for pro competition, 2) kids whose "now" skill set vs. upside/probability doesn't warrant the money (driving up your future "price tag" on players of that profile), and 3) kids that are ready to play pro ball but have otherwised priced themselves out due to a college commitment (again, driving up your future "price tag" on players of that profile).

To me, if you ultimately end-up with the same pull from a draft class spending $18MM as another team spending $12MM, you are not running a good draft. Yes, the money is insignificant compared to the cost of ML free agents, but I'd much rather spend $12MM, "miss out" on some of the kids who wouldn't otherwise be signed (and in my opinion probably shouldn't be signed), and pump that extra $6MM into the international market or into player development/nutrition.

I don't really disagree with much of what you said...I just wouldn't confuse "we need to take more guys that drop for signability purposes" as "let's give less talented players more money than they are worth".

If we spend $18 - 19 million, I would expect the overall talent in that draft class to better than the draft class of a team that spent $12 million.

EDIT -- Re: Machado, surprised you got such a convincing consensus (of course, not that I don't believe you). I got a fairly wide spectrum, though his detractors were split into two camps (so his "pro camp" was a stronger front).

Well, it's not like I talked to a huge sample...we're talking four or five guys. And it's not like they weren't without criticism of Machado. But never did I hear one of them say Colon was somebody they'd seriously consider with a top-3 pick.

[Stotle]

I don't really disagree with much of what you said...I just wouldn't confuse "we need to take more guys that drop for signability purposes" as "let's give less talented players more money than they are worth".

If we spend $18 - 19 million, I would expect the overall talent in that draft class to better than the draft class of a team that spent $12 million.

Well, it's not like I talked to a huge sample...we're talking four or five guys. And it's not like they weren't without criticism of Machado. But never did I hear one of them say Colon was somebody they'd seriously consider with a top-3 pick.

Right, I certainly agree that based on a ranking of talent, Colon probably isn't a guy you look at w/#3. But I think there are probably real life limitations (regarding negotiating windows, formulation of a balanced draft class, etc.) that would make it appealing to have a high probability quick sign up top -- particularly if you view the class as being likely to provide tough signs that drop (which this sort of was).

Regarding the spend, I just am not sure how you get to $18 - 19MM without giving money to kids who probably don't warrant it. Further, if you are loading-up on these kids, is it realistic to think you'll be able to negotiate 10 or 12 true "tough signs" at the same time? Often times your first round pick may hold out in order to allow the market to be set. So, assuming Machado's deal isn't seriously negotiated until August, do you have ample opportunity to give enough attention to get your other overslots signed?

An example of going after players that dropped using this year by rounds 1, 3-10 (general guess as to signing price):

Machado ($6MM)

Cole ($3MM)

Paxton ($1.5MM)

Narron ($800K)

Gausman ($2MM)

Osich ($500K)

Green ($600K)

Jake DePew ($300K)

Shreve ($300K)

That would be around $15MM. I'm not sure I see a likelihood that you have the opportunity to negotiate with each of these players and get them signed. Let's say you sign six of them (that is still a decent haul, talent-wise, for the first ten rounds). You are likely heavily skewed towards upside and away from probability. You are also likely heavily skewed towards high schoolers. You can balance out some in the later rounds, but you've missed out on the more desirable "probability collegians", which is where you tend to find the safety in your draft portfolio.

So, say you you take some of those probability collegians in the first ten rounds to give yourself that balance. Now you are looking at more expensive HSers than a DePew or Shreve as you move into the teens and still aim to get the "most out of the upside kids that fall". Once you're in this range, you are into "very tough signaway from school" or "price tag not on par with red flags" territory (usually). Assuming we've subtracted around $3MM from the original list above. You are now looking at spending $6MM more on this group of kids -- which I consider generally to be outside of the "good gamble" zone. Not to say you shouldn't sign any of them, but spending $18MM with 1/3 of that budget coming from this area doesn't seem like a wise investment to me.

Now, imagine you aren't picking in the top 3 where your first pick can reasonably cost $6MM. Do you see the doubt I have with "wisely" coming-up with a way to spend $18MM? Particularly if your 1st Rounder costs around $2MM? I think you can say "spend $18MM to bring in as much upside as you can" and I think you can say "bring in as much upside as you can without giving money to players that don't warrant it" but I don't think you can say both.

[bluehens45]

Right, I certainly agree that based on a ranking of talent, Colon probably isn't a guy you look at w/#3. But I think there are probably real life limitations (regarding negotiating windows, formulation of a balanced draft class, etc.) that would make it appealing to have a high probability quick sign up top -- particularly if you view the class as being likely to provide tough signs that drop (which this sort of was).

Regarding the spend, I just am not sure how you get to $18 - 19MM without giving money to kids who probably don't warrant it. Further, if you are loading-up on these kids, is it realistic to think you'll be able to negotiate 10 or 12 true "tough signs" at the same time? Often times your first round pick may hold out in order to allow the market to be set. So, assuming Machado's deal isn't seriously negotiated until August, do you have ample opportunity to give enough attention to get your other overslots signed?

An example of going after players that dropped using this year by rounds 1, 3-10 (general guess as to signing price):

Machado ($6MM)

Cole ($3MM)

Paxton ($1.5MM)

Narron ($800K)

Gausman ($2MM)

Osich ($500K)

Green ($600K)

Jake DePew ($300K)

Shreve ($300K)

That would be around $15MM. I'm not sure I see a likelihood that you have the opportunity to negotiate with each of these players and get them signed. Let's say you sign six of them (that is still a decent haul, talent-wise, for the first ten rounds). You are likely heavily skewed towards upside and away from probability. You are also likely heavily skewed towards high schoolers. You can balance out some in the later rounds, but you've missed out on the more desirable "probability collegians", which is where you tend to find the safety in your draft portfolio.

So, say you you take some of those probability collegians in the first ten rounds to give yourself that balance. Now you are looking at more expensive HSers than a DePew or Shreve as you move into the teens and still aim to get the "most out of the upside kids that fall". Once you're in this range, you are into "very tough signaway from school" or "price tag not on par with red flags" territory (usually). Assuming we've subtracted around $3MM from the original list above. You are now looking at spending $6MM more on this group of kids -- which I consider generally to be outside of the "good gamble" zone. Not to say you shouldn't sign any of them, but spending $18MM with 1/3 of that budget coming from this area doesn't seem like a wise investment to me.

Now, imagine you aren't picking in the top 3 where your first pick can reasonably cost $6MM. Do you see the doubt I have with "wisely" coming-up with a way to spend $18MM? Particularly if your 1st Rounder costs around $2MM? I think you can say "spend $18MM to bring in as much upside as you can" and I think you can say "bring in as much upside as you can without giving money to players that don't warrant it" but I don't think you can say both.

The more and more I think about it with Colon wrapped up for 2.8 million and ready to play I think he is the route I would have gone. I would be much much more happy overall with.....It would have been the same route as last year with the Matzek, Hobgood debacle but to me not as big a difference between Colon and Machado. When you consider Machado will probably get around $6 million and wont sign until Aug. compared to Colon I really think he would have been the way to go. He could be ready by sometime next year and it would have given us another $3.2 million to play with. Hell even if you land 5 out of the 11 in one year you have really stocked up your system. I mean I know it would be a long shot but could you imagine landing Cole, Paxton, Smelter, and Osich? I know its hindsight its just the more and more i think about it Colon was probably the right way to go.

Colon ($2.8MM)

Cole ($3MM)

Paxton ($1.5MM)

Narron ($800K)

Hahn ($600K)

Osich ($500K)

Green/Blash ($600K)

Jake DePew ($300K)

Shreve ($300K)

Smelter ($1MM)

Eliopoutos ($300K)

Compared to:

Machado

Klein

Mummey

Narron

Anderson

Bywater

[NoVaO]

Regarding the spend, I just am not sure how you get to $18 - 19MM without giving money to kids who probably don't warrant it.

I might not get to that dollar figure. It all depends obviously. For every tough sign, I'd have a range of what they are worth. But, in a couple instances, I might make an exception to go a little higher than I had planned to. I certainly wouldn't do that for everyone though.

Further, if you are loading-up on these kids, is it realistic to think you'll be able to negotiate 10 or 12 true "tough signs" at the same time? Often times your first round pick may hold out in order to allow the market to be set. So, assuming Machado's deal isn't seriously negotiated until August, do you have ample opportunity to give enough attention to get your other overslots signed?

Not sure, but that wouldn't stop me from picking tough to sign players. You could always hire somebody that can help with negotiations.

Now, imagine you aren't picking in the top 3 where your first pick can reasonably cost $6MM. Do you see the doubt I have with "wisely" coming-up with a way to spend $18MM? Particularly if your 1st Rounder costs around $2MM? I think you can say "spend $18MM to bring in as much upside as you can" and I think you can say "bring in as much upside as you can without giving money to players that don't warrant it" but I don't think you can say both.

Again, there is no set figure. But as I said, I'd probably make an exception to go above the range set forth for a player or two as long as there isn't too big a difference between the range and asking price.

And I'd still take more chances on tougher to sign talent in the 15 - 30 range knowing that some of those players won't sign.

[Stotle]

I might not get to that dollar figure. It all depends obviously. For every tough sign, I'd have a range of what they are worth. But, in a couple instances, I might make an exception to go a little higher than I had planned to. I certainly wouldn't do that for everyone though.

Not sure, but that wouldn't stop me from picking tough to sign players. You could always hire somebody that can help with negotiations.

Again, there is no set figure. But as I said, I'd probably make an exception to go above the range set forth for a player or two as long as there isn't too big a difference between the range and asking price.

And I'd still take more chances on tougher to sign talent in the 15 - 30 range knowing that some of those players won't sign.

I think you'd find that those 15 - 30 range "tougher to sign" talents are falling there because their asking price is beyond what most would consider to be sound investments. I don't disagree with those that say the draft could be shortened to 20 Rounds -- there isn't much impact talent signing in the 21-50 range. But I don't see how drafting kids that are asking for too much money will help the organization if you aren't going to spend beyond what those kids are worth.

I guess what I'm saying is that it seems to me that this position you're putting forward is pretty similar to what most good drafting organizations are already doing. Aside from the draft orgs concerning themselves a little more with balance.

[allstar1579]

I think you'd find that those 15 - 30 range "tougher to sign" talents are falling there because their asking price is beyond what most would consider to be sound investments. I don't disagree with those that say the draft could be shortened to 20 Rounds -- there isn't much impact talent signing in the 21-50 range. But I don't see how drafting kids that are asking for too much money will help the organization if you aren't going to spend beyond what those kids are worth.

I guess what I'm saying is that it seems to me that this position you're putting forward is pretty similar to what most good drafting organizations are already doing. Aside from the draft orgs concerning themselves a little more with balance.

My personal opinion is just while risky, overpaying for some of these kids out of HS is actually underpaying for them out of college. I'd like to get the Purke's, Cole's and Bundy's of the world for a couple hundred extra dollars when you can get multiple of them than spend the couple million you will in a couple years to get one. I completely understand what you are saying too and it's a valid point, a lot of these kids asking for money with their "now" skill sets just aren't worth it, BUT for a team doing nothing in INTL and nothing in FA, you have to spend SOMEWHERE to get better. Why not sink that $4.5 wasted on Atkins (even if he had a great year) for one year into signing 4-5 of these kids who you control for at least 6 years and see what you get? Gotta gamble somewhere if you are gonna play catch up.

[Stotle]

My personal opinion is just while risky, overpaying for some of these kids out of HS is actually underpaying for them out of college. I'd like to get the Purke's, Cole's and Bundy's of the world for a couple hundred extra dollars when you can get multiple of them than spend the couple million you will in a couple years to get one. I completely understand what you are saying too and it's a valid point, a lot of these kids asking for money with their "now" skill sets just aren't worth it, BUT for a team doing nothing in INTL and nothing in FA, you have to spend SOMEWHERE to get better. Why not sink that $4.5 wasted on Atkins (even if he had a great year) for one year into signing 4-5 of these kids who you control for at least 6 years and see what you get? Gotta gamble somewhere if you are gonna play catch up.

I just disagree. I think you'll end up sinking money in kids that aren't ready for pro ball, setting a baseline for future negotiations that are much too high, and slanting your draft class too much to the 18/19 year olds. I'd say let Jordan spends what he thinks he needs to in order to get his class (I am fairly certain he isn't spending $18 - 30MM). Spend on development. Spend on better equipment for scouts and more scouts. Pay for off-season programs. Pay for nutritionists at the Short-season, LoA and HiA levels. Etc.

I think you need to max out on your value per dollar, in all areas, when you are playing catch-up. I disagree you need to gamble, so much as you need to do a good job of making sure you "hit" as often as possible. You aren't going to make "good signs" available in a draft class just by waiving money. Build your relationships and choose which kids you'd like to follow over the summer in case something changes.

Just my thoughts...