Ryan Berry comes in at #9

[Tony-OH]

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.

There are times that a player gets more than what the organization thinks they are worth but there's usually extenuating circumstances involved.

I know one case in which the Orioles had an extra hundred thousand after another guy didn't sign and Jordan was convinced by his area scout to put that into a kid who Jordan really didn't think was worth that kind of money. In the end, Jordan went with his area scout's opinion and gave the kid the money he would sign for.

That's just one case of course and there are several factors that go into how much a team's assesses the worth of a player and even more importantly sometimes, the leverage said player has in the negotiations.

Most of the Orioles scouts do a real good job assessing what players want and as long as they don't change their mind (Christopher Herrmann 10th round - 2008) the Orioles normally sign their guys. Occasionally Jordan will take a risk that he thinks he can get the player into an area he's comfortable with and the kid can't be convinced. In those cases they agree to disagree and the kid doesn't sign.

[Tony-OH]

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.

Got it. But what this situation tells me is that another organization felt his tools or ceiling was much higher than your organization since they gave him almost seven figures. Someoen will eventually be proven right but my only point is that guys who are getting those seven figure or near seven figure overslot bonuses are perceived by at least the club signing him as having either above average tools or a high ceiling.

Those 300-400K signings just mean the club is buying out their college.

[Flosman]

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 $$.

Thanks for both responses. They both make sense in context. The first response is the proper way to judge except for probably the top guy or two in the department I would think.

[Stotle]

Got it. But what this situation tells me is that another organization felt his tools or ceiling was much higher than your organization since they gave him almost seven figures. Someoen will eventually be proven right but my only point is that guys who are getting those seven figure or near seven figure overslot bonuses are perceived by at least the club signing him as having either above average tools or a high ceiling.

Those 300-400K signings just mean the club is buying out their college.

Agree seven-figured = some really likes you.

The 300-400K, and more importantly the 400-600K, can be (from my experience) a host of different reasons, and probably vary greatly across organizations.

[SrMeowMeow]

But why would you ever want to spend, say, 200K to sign a draft pick away from college if you thought they were only worth 80K? I mean, if you're willing to overspend to get someone away from college, shouldn't that mean you value them correspondingly highly?

[Stotle]

But why would you ever want to spend, say, 200K to sign a draft pick away from college if you thought they were only worth 80K? I mean, if you're willing to overspend to get someone away from college, shouldn't that mean you value them correspondingly highly?

Leverage of the parties will dictate price tag and the path of negotiation. So, your question is correct in that you shouldn't really go beyond your established price ceiling without good cause. However, the added leverage of certain draftees means they are much more likely to reach your price ceiling than are others.

So maybe you are paying $200K for a high school player. That could be within your "value" range, but it's more than you end-up paying for a college senior (say, $90K) that grades out comparably.

I think QBs terminology may be throwing you off some -- the crux of the matter is that the value tag you assign to a player is going to differ based on, among other things, leverage. So $ does not always equal higher grades across the board.

[Frobby]

Leverage of the parties will dictate price tag and the path of negotiation. So, your question is correct in that you shouldn't really go beyond your established price ceiling without good cause. However, the added leverage of certain draftees means they are much more likely to reach your price ceiling than are others.

So maybe you are paying $200K for a high school player. That could be within your "value" range, but it's more than you end-up paying for a college senior (say, $90K) that grades out comparably.

I think QBs terminology may be throwing you off some -- the crux of the matter is that the value tag you assign to a player is going to differ based on, among other things, leverage. So $ does not always equal higher grades across the board.

I think a smart team would do some serious analysis of what draft picks are "worth" from an economic perspective and budget accordingly. For example, as I was discussing with Drungo a few days ago, in the last 20 years, the average 2nd round pick will produce about 1.5 WAR during the years before free agency. That's worth maybe $6 mm. Then you figure out how much an average 2nd rounder gets paid as a major leaguer before free agency. Let's just say it's $5 mm. That would tell you that it would be worth $1 mm to sign the guy. Obviously the analysis could get a lot more sophisticated than my simple hypothetical, and at the end of the day, having an accurate assessment of the player is critical. But it seems to me you almost have to do an analysis like this to make rational decisions about how much to budget for the draft vs. spending it on free agents.

[Stotle]

I think a smart team would do some serious analysis of what draft picks are "worth" from an economic perspective and budget accordingly. For example, as I was discussing with Drungo a few days ago, in the last 20 years, the average 2nd round pick will produce about 1.5 WAR during the years before free agency. That's worth maybe $6 mm. Then you figure out how much an average 2nd rounder gets paid as a major leaguer before free agency. Let's just say it's $5 mm. That would tell you that it would be worth $1 mm to sign the guy. Obviously the analysis could get a lot more sophisticated than my simple hypothetical, and at the end of the day, having an accurate assessment of the player is critical. But it seems to me you almost have to do an analysis like this to make rational decisions about how much to budget for the draft vs. spending it on free agents.

There could be analysis along these lines, but your basic premise is flawed in that picks by round aren't created equally. Tim Beckham, David Price, Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg were drafted #1 overall and all had very different profiles. Xavier Avery and Brandon Workman are both 2nd Rounders -- what logical reason would one have for putting them in the same category for purposes of draft analysis? From a profiling standpoint they are about as different as you get.

That's why we are asked to assign a price to a player based on their profile, not a suggestion as to in what round they should be picked. I think you are correct that the goal is to determine the value of picks, but doing by round makes little sense. Rather, you identify what a player's profile is worth, then draft him in the location that best fits the amount of money you are looking to spend on him.

Does that make sense? Trying to assign the "value" of a 2nd round pick by looking at the picks as a whole misses the boat by a fair amount, I think.

[SrMeowMeow]

Leverage of the parties will dictate price tag and the path of negotiation. So, your question is correct in that you shouldn't really go beyond your established price ceiling without good cause. However, the added leverage of certain draftees means they are much more likely to reach your price ceiling than are others.

So maybe you are paying $200K for a high school player. That could be within your "value" range, but it's more than you end-up paying for a college senior (say, $90K) that grades out comparably.

I think QBs terminology may be throwing you off some -- the crux of the matter is that the value tag you assign to a player is going to differ based on, among other things, leverage. So $ does not always equal higher grades across the board.

That makes some sense as a description of something that happens, but why do it? I mean, why draft a player with a higher price tag unless you think he's better, because otherwise he's surrounded by a replacement-level pool of comparable talent? If you're just talking about fluctuations due to various negotiating tactics used after the player's picked, then I understand.

[Stotle]

That makes some sense as a description of something that happens, but why do it? I mean, why draft a player with a higher price tag unless you think he's better, because otherwise he's surrounded by a replacement-level pool of comparable talent? If you're just talking about fluctuations due to various negotiating tactics used after the player's picked, then I understand.

Well, the problem is if you pass on a player that is ready to sign, there's a good chance he'll sign with someone else. Is $100K worth missing out on a potential ML contributor?

It's round 7 and you are looking at college players that profile as maybe potential role players and high schoolers that either might not be ready for pro ball or have enough potential that their "now" package with some question marks very well might turn into a future package worthy of a lot more money. What do you want to spend your money on? You'll need org guys, but isn't it worth it to get a potential mid-rotation guy (your assessment) even if you are paying a little more than you did in the third round for a kid with a similar assessment? The alternative is not picking or loading-up on low-leveraged college seniors with minimal upside, to be kind.

[Frobby]

There could be analysis along these lines, but your basic premise is flawed in that picks by round aren't created equally. Tim Beckham, David Price, Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg were drafted #1 overall and all had very different profiles. Xavier Avery and Brandon Workman are both 2nd Rounders -- what logical reason would one have for putting them in the same category for purposes of draft analysis? From a profiling standpoint they are about as different as you get.

That's why we are asked to assign a price to a player based on their profile, not a suggestion as to in what round they should be picked. I think you are correct that the goal is to determine the value of picks, but doing by round makes little sense. Rather, you identify what a player's profile is worth, then draft him in the location that best fits the amount of money you are looking to spend on him.

Does that make sense? Trying to assign the "value" of a 2nd round pick by looking at the picks as a whole misses the boat by a fair amount, I think.

I really just used the "round" analysis as a starting point. It is totally logical (and empirically true) that overall, the lower you go in the draft, the less chance you have of picking a meaningful player. Obviously there are many, many exceptions, but the general rule is still true. So I think how a team should look at it is by its own draft board. But sure, you have to adjust by overall talent/odds. Wieters might be more valuable than Machado even though Wieters was a no. 5 overall pick and Machado was a no. 3. But, you are setting some general guidelines and parameters. You don't pay $1 mm to draft a player whose ceiling is a guy who will be worth $5mm over 6 seasons and there's only a 25% chance he does that.

All I'm really saying is that these teams ought to have some bright MBA's working for them to figure out where their dollars are best allocated to acquire talent, both as between free agency, the draft, interntational operations etc., and within those categories. They shouldn't just be letting some scout put his finger to the wind and say, "I'd rather have this guy for $1 mm instead of these two for $500,000 each," without knowing why.

[Stotle]

I really just used the "round" analysis as a starting point. It is totally logical (and empirically true) that overall, the lower you go in the draft, the less chance you have of picking a meaningful player. Obviously there are many, many exceptions, but the general rule is still true. So I think how a team should look at it is by its own draft board. But sure, you have to adjust by overall talent/odds. Wieters might be more valuable than Machado even though Wieters was a no. 5 overall pick and Machado was a no. 3. But, you are setting some general guidelines and parameters. You don't pay $1 mm to draft a player whose ceiling is a guy who will be worth $5mm over 6 seasons and there's only a 25% chance he does that.

All I'm really saying is that these teams ought to have some bright MBA's working for them to figure out where their dollars are best allocated to acquire talent, both as between free agency, the draft, interntational operations etc., and within those categories. They shouldn't just be letting some scout put his finger to the wind and say, "I'd rather have this guy for $1 mm instead of these two for $500,000 each," without knowing why.

Regarding the first bolded, I think it's asking too much to be able to provide that level of specificity with regards to a players future value and his odds of hitting that value. As someone involved in evaluating amateur players, it just isn't possible to be THAT exact.

Regarding the second bolded, these aren't idiots throwing out random numbers. Scouts are schooled by their organizations as to what they should focus on, why, etc. Further, the braintrust at the top isn't just following an area scout's suggestion. They take that info, take info from the regional cross-checkers (who are a level above the area scouts) and take the info from the national cross-checkers (who are one more level up). Then they put that into whatever they've come up with as far as an overarching strategy and they decide on a value for their targets. The "smart MBAs" have value, but it isn't reasonable to think you can fit most amateur players into useful categories. There are so many variables that go into identifying a team's targets (at least for good organizations) that you'd inevitably be left with way too many categories of players to be manageable or useful.

There is utility in the approach you are pushing, and I think the process I'm describing uses good aspects of that (I can't get into how the values are calculated). But what seems to be the approach of certain successful organizations is identifying a handful of characteristics to focus on, and some general guidelines for players in different cross-sections (HS/college/position/pitcher/senior/sophomore/etc.).

[Frobby]

Regarding the first bolded, I think it's asking too much to be able to provide that level of specificity with regards to a players future value and his odds of hitting that value. As someone involved in evaluating amateur players, it just isn't possible to be THAT exact.

Well, I do realize that. But it's not like we know nothing. We have a lot of data on what has happened in past drafts that you could do a ton with if you had the time and were so inclined.

[Stotle]

Well, I do realize that. But it's not like we know nothing. We have a lot of data on what has happened in past drafts that you could do a ton with if you had the time and were so inclined.

I understand the theory, but think about the practical reality. You are talking about trying to assign useful dollar values on the players. So what is useful? Are you going to go back through scouting reports to find how many

HS/pitcher/91+velo/right-handed/average arm action/average projectability/average second pitch/no third pitch/wealthy, educated family/average make-up

became mid-rotation starters vs.

HS/pitcher/91+velo/right-handed/average arm action/average projectability/average second pitch/workable third pitch/wealthy, educated family/good make-up

?

How many examples of each category (whatever is deemed useful) is necessary to get an adequate sample size? Is it enough to try and identify some common characteristics among the successes, or do we need to know who failed and identify those characteristics, as well? Do we subtract the value of the poor characteristics from the value of the good characteristics or do we ding players off hand?

For example, what if your data tells you a player has everything you would look for except for height, and height is one of the automatic ding categories for that particular cross-section (say college pitcher)?

It just seems like the specificity you are looking for regarding the "value" of particular players or slots would be too tough to practically nail down, and even if you could put all the work in to actually get useful price tags, is it worth all that time and money invested? How much are you saving on the actual price tag vs. the one you've come up with by doing things the way you are right now?

[allstar1579]

Not that my 2 cents is really needed on this one, Stotle has handled that nicely, but this is just one of those areas that you absolutely can not just replace with statistics and make assumptions. There are too many variables in scouting and development, and there will always be a need for live eyes on prospects and no guarantees any of them work out. No amount of data from the past can tell you what you are going to get in the future.