Jump to content

Ryan Berry comes in at #9


Tony-OH

Recommended Posts

I don't think this is being disputed by anyone. A ML regular in any capacity is well worth the typical Rule 4 signing bonus. Also, that has nothing to do with the percentage of third rounders that make the Bigs -- you can make the argument simply by pointing at cash outlay.

I point it out only because I think a lot of people (not you) have a misperception about how often high draft picks reach the majors or have an impact once they get there. Chris Ray, who was a 3rd rounder and has amassed 3.6 WAR in his career, is probably in the top 10-15% of all 3rd round picks in the last 20 years in total WAR. In fact, in the 3rd round of his draft class, only Shaun Marcum has more WAR than Ray. So, if a 9th rounder who is paid like a 3rd rounder has a Chris Ray type career, that's a very good outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Not in context. That pick and the bonus were part of a somewhat unconventional drafting strategy which so far has had disappointing results. If they get slammed for the disappointments--as they have been, and will be--they should get full credit for the hits. Which may or may not include Berry.

Hey, I love the drafting strategy. I think it's very smart. I just think that we should judge a player based on what kind of money he got, not where he was drafted. Clearly an over-slot pick needs to have higher expectations than a slot pick; otherwise, it wasn't worth the extra money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I love the drafting strategy. I think it's very smart. I just think that we should judge a player based on what kind of money he got, not where he was drafted. Clearly an over-slot pick needs to have higher expectations than a slot pick; otherwise, it wasn't worth the extra money.

The issue with judging a player based on the $$ he got is that not all values are created equally. A guy like Berry was paid like a early 3rd rounder because Baltimore obviously felt he was worthy of 3rd round money. Cameron Coffey was paid as supplemental 1st rounder/high second rounder, but a lot of his bonus had to do with signing him away from college. The HS and JuCo and even draft eligible sophomores have to be bought out of going to school which inflates the bonus.

The best way to judge a prospect is to see where they fit on your own draft board, or better yet, what their package rates as compared to others.

And also....there are gonna be hits and misses with overslotters, in actuality, more misses than hits. Of course JJ should be held accountable for the players he misses on, but also we need to understand that these overslotters drop for a reason. There is much more risk involved in the ones JJ is shooting for. If you look at Boston's overslotters from the last few drafts, you will see that only a handful have really done well so far.....Its just the nature of the beast. This is why you need to be sure with that 1st round pick that you do get, because if you miss with round 1(Hobgood?) then you are counting on these overslotters too much to help bolster the system....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue with judging a player based on the $$ he got is that not all values are created equally. A guy like Berry was paid like a early 3rd rounder because Baltimore obviously felt he was worthy of 3rd round money. Cameron Coffey was paid as supplemental 1st rounder/high second rounder, but a lot of his bonus had to do with signing him away from college. The HS and JuCo and even draft eligible sophomores have to be bought out of going to school which inflates the bonus.

The best way to judge a prospect is to see where they fit on your own draft board, or better yet, what their package rates as compared to others.

And also....there are gonna be hits and misses with overslotters, in actuality, more misses than hits. Of course JJ should be held accountable for the players he misses on, but also we need to understand that these overslotters drop for a reason. There is much more risk involved in the ones JJ is shooting for. If you look at Boston's overslotters from the last few drafts, you will see that only a handful have really done well so far.....Its just the nature of the beast. This is why you need to be sure with that 1st round pick that you do get, because if you miss with round 1(Hobgood?) then you are counting on these overslotters too much to help bolster the system....

I would hope we wouldn't pay a player 1st round money if we didn't think he was a first round talent. That would be a pretty serious mistake in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would hope we wouldn't pay a player 1st round money if we didn't think he was a first round talent. That would be a pretty serious mistake in my opinion.

Thats my point, sometimes, you are forced to overpay a kid because of his college commitment. Think about Michael Ohlman, he wasn't a high 2nd round talent when we drafted him and paid $990K for him. Some of that money was for his potential, some of it was to buy him out of going to college.

Cam Coffey was throwing in the low 90's touching 95, projectable frame, decent changeup. He when healthy MAYBE was a second rounder, but considering the fact that he went down with the torn ligament and needed TJS, there is no way you can justify his nearly $1M price tag. It has to do with buying him out of college.

Signing bonuses with the draft aren't much different than buying a car or even a house. The price you paid for it doesn't always reflect the true value or market value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats my point, sometimes, you are forced to overpay a kid because of his college commitment. Think about Michael Ohlman, he wasn't a high 2nd round talent when we drafted him and paid $990K for him. Some of that money was for his potential, some of it was to buy him out of going to college.

Cam Coffey was throwing in the low 90's touching 95, projectable frame, decent changeup. He when healthy MAYBE was a second rounder, but considering the fact that he went down with the torn ligament and needed TJS, there is no way you can justify his nearly $1M price tag. It has to do with buying him out of college.

Signing bonuses with the draft aren't much different than buying a car or even a house. The price you paid for it doesn't always reflect the true value or market value.

I don't agree with the way you are wording this. You don't pay a guy more than you think he is worth. Really what you are saying is that if you have two guys who you think are equally good prospects, one of whom is graduating high school and one of whom had finished 3 years of college, you may have to pay the high school kid more to prevent him from opting to go to college. But that doesn't mean you don't think he's "worth" that amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the way you are wording this. You don't pay a guy more than you think he is worth. Really what you are saying is that if you have two guys who you think are equally good prospects, one of whom is graduating high school and one of whom had finished 3 years of college, you may have to pay the high school kid more to prevent him from opting to go to college. But that doesn't mean you don't think he's "worth" that amount.

I guess it depends on if you think he is more valuable than the market suggests. If you really want a player, then you will pay more than the market suggests, does that mean you think he is more valuable?

When it comes down to it, if you look at bonuses that get handed out, you will see college prospects for the most part handed bonuses that reflect their market value. You will see HS and JuCo prospects with college commitments handed bonuses that are generally higher than their market value much more often....If you feel it is worth it to overpay a kid to not go to college and sign with you, then you do it.....Doesn't mean JJ thinks an injured Cam Coffey is worth a supp.1st/early 2nd rounder. He thought it was worth the risk to overpay because chances are he comes back 100% and in that case, it will be worth the risk.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the way you are wording this. You don't pay a guy more than you think he is worth. Really what you are saying is that if you have two guys who you think are equally good prospects, one of whom is graduating high school and one of whom had finished 3 years of college, you may have to pay the high school kid more to prevent him from opting to go to college. But that doesn't mean you don't think he's "worth" that amount.

I think the point is that a good portion of the money spent on overslots is going to be flushed in the end and teams know this. I would think a team with a good draft plan is going to look at the money spent on the entire group compared to the expected value of the entire group. Overslot guys are flawed generally or overpriced based on college commitments or even other opportunities the draftee has available to him. But it really all fits into the value placed on prospects. For example if we pay 4 or 5 million for a real high end guy that is a 90% likelihood of being a productive MLer it is really no different than spending 4 million on 4 overslotters with high ceilings and a 25% likelihood of producing. Teams drafting late really have to do this in order to get high end talent because the wieters, Mannys and the like don't ever get to them. I think much of the measuring of a team's success and failure in this area is flawed by sample size problems. Say if teams draft and sign 4 true overslot guys a year and each guy has a 10 to 15 percent chance of reaching their potential , I would think you would have to look at 3 to five years worth of drafts to determine if the evauluator is getting value. Also you would have to look back to drafts 2 to 3 years ago before any of it made sense at all.

So I would think judging JJ's overslot picks only now is starting to have any real merit. Stotle mentioned that paying a million for a overslot guy that eeked out a marginal ML career would not be the best use of resources. This is flawed logic IMO. The overslot dollars are paid for the players ceiling IMO. While there is some value if the guy marginally pans out the value that the club is looking for is the guy that reaches a high ceiling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point is that a good portion of the money spent on overslots is going to be flushed in the end and teams know this. I would think a team with a good draft plan is going to look at the money spent on the entire group compared to the expected value of the entire group. Overslot guys are flawed generally or overpriced based on college commitments or even other opportunities the draftee has available to him. But it really all fits into the value placed on prospects. For example if we pay 4 or 5 million for a real high end guy that is a 90% likelihood of being a productive MLer it is really no different than spending 4 million on 4 overslotters with high ceilings and a 25% likelihood of producing. Teams drafting late really have to do this in order to get high end talent because the wieters, Mannys and the like don't ever get to them. I think much of the measuring of a team's success and failure in this area is flawed by sample size problems. Say if teams draft and sign 4 true overslot guys a year and each guy has a 10 to 15 percent chance of reaching their potential , I would think you would have to look at 3 to five years worth of drafts to determine if the evauluator is getting value. Also you would have to look back to drafts 2 to 3 years ago before any of it made sense at all.

So I would think judging JJ's overslot picks only now is starting to have any real merit. Stotle mentioned that paying a million for a overslot guy that eeked out a marginal ML career would not be the best use of resources. This is flawed logic IMO. The overslot dollars are paid for the players ceiling IMO. While there is some value if the guy marginally pans out the value that the club is looking for is the guy that reaches a high ceiling.

I'm only speaking for my org (which also happens to hold the same opinion I do), but much more than ceiling goes into overslot dollars:

  • probability
  • in-home visit reports (make-up)
  • position

to name a few. Common misconception around these boards is that overslot = high ceiling and/or high grades on tools. Just isn't true as a rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm only speaking for my org (which also happens to hold the same opinion I do), but much more than ceiling goes into overslot dollars:
  • probability
  • in-home visit reports (make-up)
  • position

to name a few. Common misconception around these boards is that overslot = high ceiling and/or high grades on tools. Just isn't true as a rule.

I see what your saying and even indicated that probability was a major factor in what the value to place on the prospect. Does your org look at to total value gained from a draft class more than the individual prospects value when looking back?

BTW the position comment surprised me. I thought in baseball the best value available was the general rule. Even saying this a good prospect at certain positions is worth more, but are you saying there are overslot guys based on need?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what your saying and even indicated that probability was a major factor in what the value to place on the prospect. Does your org look at to total value gained from a draft class more than the individual prospects value when looking back?

BTW the position comment surprised me. I thought in baseball the best value available was the general rule. Even saying this a good prospect at certain positions is worth more, but are you saying there are overslot guys based on need?

Stotle will probably have answered before I post this, but bear in mind that there is always a need (or at least a high demand) for a good SS, CFer, SP. There just never seems to be enough of those to go around in pro ball, so most likely a kid who projects to one of those spots in worth more than one who doesn't, all else being equal.

EDIT: Could and should have added Catcher to the above list of premium positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm only speaking for my org (which also happens to hold the same opinion I do), but much more than ceiling goes into overslot dollars:
  • probability
  • in-home visit reports (make-up)
  • position

to name a few. Common misconception around these boards is that overslot = high ceiling and/or high grades on tools. Just isn't true as a rule.

I guess it depends on what you are considering an overslot. If you are looking at guys getting close to a million or more, you can guarantee the organization giving them that kind of money have graded out there ceiling and or tools highly. Doesn't mean they think they are top of the charts, but no one is giving a million dollars to an 18-year old kid who projects to be an average tools guy.

I certainly understand the probability factor, and that probably comes into play a bit more with college guys, but still, to get the big overslot payments someone has to see something special in you. It's not just because they have money to throw away on average tools guys. Now you can certainly argue that teams like Baltimore gravitate towards injury guys and guys who flashed top tools more than other organizations when it comes to overslot guys, but they still saw something that made them think the player could be special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the way you are wording this. You don't pay a guy more than you think he is worth. Really what you are saying is that if you have two guys who you think are equally good prospects, one of whom is graduating high school and one of whom had finished 3 years of college, you may have to pay the high school kid more to prevent him from opting to go to college. But that doesn't mean you don't think he's "worth" that amount.
I think the point is that a good portion of the money spent on overslots is going to be flushed in the end and teams know this....

I'm not equating "slot" with what the player is worth, is partially my point. "Slot" is an artificial construct of MLB that has nothing to do with what a prospect may be worth. If MLB says "slot" is $200,000, and you pick a guy whose tools, chances of success, etc. make it worth $500,000 to sign him and take the chance that he'll make it to the majors and be productive, then you'll pay him up to $500,000 if that's what it takes. But if he asks for $600,000, he's not getting it. So I don't think that a player having college available as an option causes teams to pay a guy more than they think he's worth. It may cause them to pay more than they'd have to if he didn't have college as an option, is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what your saying and even indicated that probability was a major factor in what the value to place on the prospect. Does your org look at to total value gained from a draft class more than the individual prospects value when looking back?

BTW the position comment surprised me. I thought in baseball the best value available was the general rule. Even saying this a good prospect at certain positions is worth more, but are you saying there are overslot guys based on need?

Re: First question

Without getting too specific, a ceiling price is assigned to a player considered for drafting based on a variety of criteria and picks are retrospectively looked at based on how the specific picks turns out. I'm nowhere near the pay grade that gets to look at and make suggestions regarding overarching draft strategies, but the overarching theme I've been schooled on is "success of individual selections." Makes sense -- you want to recreate successful picks, and if you are only looking at the classes as a whole you aren't going to zero in with enough specificity (in my opinion).

Re: Positions

Again without getting too specific, per studies by my org certain positions across different cross-sections are more likely to bear fruit as a general rule, and can get a player a little more $$.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it depends on what you are considering an overslot. If you are looking at guys getting close to a million or more, you can guarantee the organization giving them that kind of money have graded out there ceiling and or tools highly. Doesn't mean they think they are top of the charts, but no one is giving a million dollars to an 18-year old kid who projects to be an average tools guy.

I certainly understand the probability factor, and that probably comes into play a bit more with college guys, but still, to get the big overslot payments someone has to see something special in you. It's not just because they have money to throw away on average tools guys. Now you can certainly argue that teams like Baltimore gravitate towards injury guys and guys who flashed top tools more than other organizations when it comes to overslot guys, but they still saw something that made them think the player could be special.

My point is more that I get the impression people look at BA listing a $400 K signing bonus in the 8th round and think the kid automatically is a potential big time prospect. That isn't the case. The guys you are talking about are few and far betweem (seven-figure overslots). One example of how much gray area this is from prospect to prospect -- I was discussing one player from the '08 draft that an area scout in my org put a $250K price tag on, the org decided on a $375K price tag and he ended-up getting almost seven figures from someone else, which was way overslot for his round.

While it's clear the org that drafted him obviously sees something, you'd be hard pressed to grade him out as anything more than a back-end starter (probability), maybe with mid-rotation upside if EVERYTHING breaks right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...