Post-Draft Signing Deadline Reactions Thread, and Mini-Blueprint
Last night was the deadline for teams to come to terms with the amateur draft picks they selected in June. For many high-profile players, this August 15th deadline is quite significant and many teams had negotiations go down to the wire. For the players who did not come to terms - typically these are high-school guys, Juco players, or draft-eligible sophomores, since those groups have more leverage to return to school than do college juniors and seniors - they retain their amateur status, go back to college, and the drafting team loses their draft rights.
This is meant to be a "Tidbits with Taj"-style post with some bullet-point reactions to this year's draft signings, and I hope you'll share your own in the comments below.
*There were four high school players drafted from Santa Clara County :
-Shawon Dunston Jr. from Valley Christian, who was taken in the 11th round by the Cubs (No. 339 overall) and who signed for more than $1.2M, an incredible overslot figure for that draft slot. This pick is all projection, family pedigree and tools; I'm pretty sure that Dunston wasn't even all-league in the very competitive WCAL (granted, sample sizes are very small in a 30-game high school season, but the cream still rises to the statistical crop typically at that level).
-The last three Santa Clara County high school draftees all came from Saint Francis High in Mountain View - 3b Tyler Goeddel, who was drafted No. 41 overall by the Rays and signed last night for $1.5M to break his commitment to UCLA; 1b Richard Prigatano, was was drafted by the Jays in the 16th round, No. 499 overall, but couldn't come to terms and will attend Long Beach St.; and shortstop Alex Blandino, taken in the 38th round by the A's (pick 1,156).
I paid particular attention to this local high school angle, having had the opportunity to watch my alma mater a few times this year. When the A's drafted Blandino, the Mercury CCS Player of the Year with a section-leading nine homers (more impressive given the new BBCOR bat restrictions that have drastically suppressed amateur offense), and a 90 mph fastball, I was intrigued, even though I knew Blandino was a Stanford commit and that he'd be an extremely difficult player to sign.
*Even though I shouldn't have had my hopes up, I was a little disappointed when I refreshed MLB Trade Rumors last night and saw that the A's were one of the few teams that did not appear to make any over-slot signings of draft picks in the last 48 hours.
You couldn't help but feel that there was a really exciting party last night and the A's weren't there. Click on the first three pages of MLBTR, and you'll read headlines like "Pirates Break Draft Records," and "Nationals Spend Big in Draft." There were all kinds of records made in the last two days, and the Pirates, Nationals, Rays, and Blue Jays all added a ton of potentially high-impact talent to their systems. The Rays had 10 of the first 60 picks, and if you study this list from MLBTR, they managed to sign all of them, and none of them look like Jeremy Brownesque, drastically-below slot pre-draft agreements. I love what the Rays did. They slashed $20M off their major-league payroll this year, perhaps in part because they knew they would need to budget an additional $10M more than usual to prepare for the historic opportunity they would have in this year's draft. And, now that they have signed 10 of the top 60 picks without having to sign below-slot talent, I think they should feel very good about how that plan worked out. They won't make the playoffs this year, but retaining Carl Crawford for $18M a year wouldn't have changed that.
*Some other stats from last night: The Pirates spent a record $17M+ on their 24 signees; top overall pick Gerrit Cole signed for a record $8M and second-rounder Josh Bell signed for a record $5M, more than double the previous record (prior to this year) for any player selected outside of the first round. The Nationals also spent nearly $17M, including a $4.4M major-league deal for third-rounder Matt Purke.
*In the A's defense, they were left out of this spending orgy partially because of circumstances. The team didn't have a 2nd-round pick, as a result of signing Type A free agent Grant Balfour last year. They also didn't have the benefit of any compensation picks in the sandwich round, like the Rays and Jays used to bolster their very strong drafts. As such, the A's had a Grand Canyon-sized gulf between pick No. 18 overall, Sonny Gray, and their 2nd pick - No. 105 overall B.A. Vollmuth. Both players received approximately slot-level deals - Gray for $1.54M, and Vollmuth for about $300K.
But the A's created those circumstances for themselves. They signed Balfour, which cost them the opportunity to draft another high-impact talent at pick No. 75, such as Austin Hedges ($3M to the Padres) or Purke, who went at pick No. 96 overall to the Nationals. Both Hedges and Purke were widely considered first-round talents, and they were paid accordingly.
They also could've acquired a comp pick, as the Blue Jays did last winter when they traded $500K for Miguel Olivo, a pending Type B free agent, solely to acquire the comp pick he would garner in the sandwich round once he signed elsewhere.
I would've been much more excited about the A's draft if it yielded Gray, and Hedges or Purke, and Vollmuth, instead of just Gray and Vollmuth, which is basically what the A's 2011 draft depends upon, since they signed only one high school and JuCo kid and didn't pay anyone well over slot. Granted, Hedges or Burke would've cost somewhere between $3-4.5M, which means the team probably wouldn't have had enough money to sign either Balfour or Fuentes. Aw shucks.
In review, I am slightly disappointed, because I feel the team should've compensated for the lack of high-end opportunities - only one pick in the first 100 - by taking tons of high-upside high school kids in the next 15 rounds and signing most of them to well-above slot contracts. Basically, exactly what the Blue Jays did.
Blandino, the 38th rounder, is a great example. I realize a Stanford scholarship is an incredibly difficult one to break, but I hope the A's offered him high six figures, and that this wasn't just a ceremonial pick - like Geren's kid, or Scott Boras' kid, or the 79-year-old ticket lady at the Coliseum's kid, or Beane's neighbor's kid (only two of those are ridiculous things that didn't happen, by the way). Signing a few players of this stature - there are only 10 sections in California, which produces ~15-20% of the future major league talent, and Blandino was the Section Player of the Year in one of them - late in the draft is a great way to buttress an otherwise bleak draft.
Instead, the A's seemingly did the opposite of the Blue Jays approach: The A's took almost all three-year college kids for the first 20 rounds. The one high schooler they did take, a lefty in the 9th round, they didn't sign. Then they took a bunch of high school kids in the last 25 rounds, including Blandino, and signed only one of them, Chris Bostick, their 44th rounder who had a full ride to St. John's. The A's raised their initial bonus offer "significantly" after watching him play more in the summer. This probably gives us an insight into how they handle many of their late-round high school draftees: treat it as a mini "draft and follow" - draft him in early June, then watch him more closely for two months to see if he does indeed warrant a bonus worthy of a higher-round pick.
Anyway, I'm a big fan of how the Blue Jays are doing things, and their GM seems tireless and very willing to think outside the box, and I don't think it's a good thing when I find myself typing "Instead, the A's seemingly did the opposite of the Blue Jays approach."
*This draft may have been the last opportunity, ever, to go "over-slot," which may partially explain the spending craze of yesterday. The new Collective Bargaining Agreement, expected to be announced sometime around the World Series, may include hard-slotting of draft picks and even a worldwide draft. This might have a huge impact on the future decisions of high school prospects - if a 5th round pick is a hard-slot $100K, very few kids are going to turn down college scholarships. Suddenly, the only HS talent that goes pro are top-200 picks, guys drafted in the first four rounds. MLB powers-that-be wouldn't mind this at all, because they save on development costs while the NCAA operates as a free farm system for them, just as NCAA football does for the NFL. I think hard-slotting would cost baseball some really good amateur athletes, especially elite African-American players, which baseball already struggles to attract. NCAA D-I baseball teams can only offer 11.7 scholarships spread amongst 27 players, so most players are on partial, 25-50% scholarships. The only thing that lures a Dominic Brown-level athletic talent away from playing big-time college football and pursuing an eventual career in the NFL is that high six figure, low-seven figure bonus he is offered out of high school in the draft. If baseball cuts those late-round bonuses off in the new CBA, teams will only be able to sign high-upside, toolsy high school talent in the first 3 rounds.
Because of this I hope the hard-slotting aspect of the new CBA is some type of hybrid system that "hard slots" the first 2-3 rounds and then follows the current open-ended model for the remainder of the draft. That way teams can better project and control their costs in the draft, and yet the sport of baseball doesn't lose out entirely on the next generation of toolsy multi-sport talents. And I hope that teams are allowed to trade the hard-slot picks (rounds 1-3) as well, because I don't think a team should be forced to pay an $8M signing bonus to the first overall pick if they don't believe there is a player at that slot worthy of $8M.
*The A's should know their own "backyard" really well in scouting. I hope they saw Blandino, Prigatano (BA's top 200 overall pre-draft), and Goeddel (No. 89) at least a few times before reaching an evaluation of them. Instead of drafting family members and your next-door neighbor's kid in the last 25 rounds, why not draft the best HS prospects from Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties? It's cheaper to scout those guys, and they should be able to get a better read on them than anyone else, like the Braves did with Heyward. Maybe the prospect will have some sentimentality after being drafted by their local team, and maybe it's a little bit easier to break his college commitment as a result. If the guy does make it to the pros, it's a terrific local story, and he becomes a fan favorite because he's a local boy. I think one of the Giants' significant advantages right now is that they have so many marketable personalities, and the A's have none. But what if you hit a home run with one of these late-round local guys and Blandino fills out and becomes the next Tulowitzki, and part of the fanbase is because he's a local guy who professes to love the area, lives in the community and has all his life, etc. The thing about signing him now is, it might be the one chance you have to sign him. Because if he does blow up in college, you never even get a chance to draft him again, like Tulo did after leaving the South Bay, going to Long Beach and turning himself into a top-10 pick.
*Last thought: Next year's team will not be a playoff team. So, I hope they offer arbitration to Willingham, Matsui, Crisp, and DeJesus. If one of them accepts, fine, but I wouldn't be surprised if all four decline, because you don't try to rebuild your offensive value on a one-year deal in Oakland. If all four decline, that's five compensation draft picks. I don't really think any of the Type A free agents are good fits for the A's this off-season, so they'll keep their 2nd rounder next year. So now we're looking at potentially as many as 7 of the first 70 overall picks in the 2012 draft, 8 of the first 100 picks, as opposed to this year's draft, which only provided the team with one of the first 100 picks, Sonny Gray, who is really their only draft pick this year that I feel optimistic about. (Some would argue that Vollmuth is worthy of excitement, but look at the bust rate of guys who get $300K signing bonuses after pick No. 100, and it tempers your expectations. I'm expecting the A's get 1.5 major leaguers out of this 2011 draft).
Seven of the first 70 overall picks. Not seven quirky, plucky odd-looking guys that only the A's could appreciate, and for the low, low price of $300K apiece. Seven guys that every team in major league baseball legitimately liked and had somewhere on their top 200 Big Board. Seven guys that will cost a combined $10-15M. That's the type of draft this team needs to turn the corner long-term, I feel. Next August 16th, I hope the A's fan base is buzzing with the type of excitement that is surrounding the long-term futures of the Nationals, Pirates, and Rays right now.
Devoting that much money to the draft would mean signing no major league free agents for anything more than a Brandon McCarthy or Rich Harden one year, $1-1.5M deal, which is fine. It's easier to sign pitchers to come to Oakland than hitters, anyway, and the team has enough intriguing offensive talent talent that it's time to go all internal candidates for 2012, add Recker, Mitchell, and Miller to the 40-man to protect them from the Rule 5 draft and let our 18-20 cost-controlled offensive players on the roster all duke it out equally to make the big club. Literally no offensive position guaranteed a spot entering camp, with battles everywhere and the losers headed to the bench or Sacramento. They wouldn't make the playoffs but I think they'd play hard and be fun to watch.
128 comments
|
25 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good stuff, NSJ!
Thanks for putting it together, it was a great read. Rec’d.
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
Thank you
And congrats on having a couple of your pieces linked to and discussed at Tango’s blog. Pretty cool to know that people who work for major league teams are reading your work, and that they’re impressed by it.
I was glad Tango looked in your archives and found that “Retroactive DL” piece, which I had totally forgotten about – it was a great read the second time.
We gotta start doing more “greatest hits of the past” stuff around here. Last week you reminded me of mk74’s writing, too.
I don’t know if you ever do this but it’s fun (and sometimes humbling) sometimes to go back and look at old stuff once you have 20+ fanposts under your belt over the years. It’s an interesting time capsule of your fandom/baseball analysis.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Aug 16, 2011 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Can you provide a link to the Retroactive DL?
Visit my blog the Todd Van Poppel Rookie Card Retirement Plan!!
Here
I linked you to Tango’s link to it on purpose – because you should follow the comments section of that too. Some good info from Will Carroll.
Also, that was the second piece that elcroata had linked there in the span of a week. His BABIP piece was praised over there too.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Aug 16, 2011 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions
But who is winning the epic rec battle between you two at AN?
I don’t know how to check that.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Aug 16, 2011 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Uh oh, now he's gaining on ME.
and I have several years head start on the both of you.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
I don't think your head start gives you any advantage
Old recs were not carried over when AN 2.0 came around, IIRC, and we were both here before that. So you have more over the same period of time, then.
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
by elcroata on Aug 17, 2011 4:00 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Fun with etymology.
Our adjective savvy comes from the Spanish verb sabe (and French savez), which is what a savvy person does a lot of.
The new word developed out of pidgin languages in the West Indies.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
Sativa means "cultivated"
Many binomials use “sativa” for the second part to distinguish wild from domestic. Domestic rice is Oryza sativa, domestic oats is Avena sativa, etc. I suppose you’re probably thinking of Cannabis sativa.
Anyway, I only posted that other comment so you could say I’m savvy about savvy.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
You were the first one to 1K
That’s all that counts
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
Thanks JLJ
Yeah, we should. I also find it nice to reread things after some time passes and see it from new perspective or with newly acquired data. Or just to laugh again.
Do they really charge $1 to use the soda machine in the locker room?! I mean, nobody can be that cheap, right?
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
Thanks for this NSJ
That the A’s are seemingly making these types of decisions – signing Balfour and losing out on the 2nd round pick, not going over-slot, etc., has me even more worried about their financial state than is currently being depicted. If the A’s don’t offer arbitration to at least three of Willingham, Matsui, Crisp, and DeJesus, I’m even more concerned.
Don't you realise you'll find next monday or next Tuesday/Your golden shoes day
by PDXAthleticsfan on Aug 16, 2011 2:09 PM PDT reply actions
This is an absolutely fantastic piece.
and, as noted elsewhere, why some believe that this past draft was a gigantic shitfest on the part of the A’s — and not in the sense of “You idiots, why did you take Cliff Pennington instead of Jacoby Ellsbury” or some other nonsense that’s possible to come up with by perusing the BB-ref draft logs.
There is a clear problem with the draft process itself. The team can’t/won’t/doesn’t spend money on big name free agents – fine, but instead of spending $15M on Brian Fuentes, Grant Balfour, and Hideki Matsui, spend that $15M on draft bonuses so that instead of trying to buy players who refuse to play in Oakland, you buy players that have no choice but to play here.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
by mikev on Aug 16, 2011 2:13 PM PDT reply actions 8 recs
That last sentence perfectly states what took me 2,000 words to write.
rec’d.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Aug 16, 2011 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm under the impression
that there’s some sort of under-the-table salary floor set by some combination of Bud and the MLBPA. It’s completely unsupported by hard evidence, but signings like Balfour, Fuentes, Orlando Cabrera, and Sheets all happened in like, Feb/March. It seemed odd that the Sheets money was burning a hole in the A’s pocker and they just threw it at anyone who would take it. It was either gross incompetence on the A’s (who have always been savvy, if nothing else), or there was some external pressure on the A’s to reach a certain payroll. I believe it was the latter.
Also, is there evidence the A’s skimp on draft pick bonuses? They drafted Stassi, who fell mostly due to signability concerns.
Apparently like 4 other people have made mention of possible
pressure for the A’s to spend on ML players to hit a payroll minimum.
Whatever, I still insist on commenting before fully reading a thread.
Good thoughts
You couldn’t help but feel that there was a really exciting party last night and the A’s weren’t there.
That pretty much encapsulates my feeling not only about the A’s draft this year, but the A’s failure to be more aggressive players in the amateur talent recruitment game (draft and international) for quite a number of years. For all the talk about Moneyball, Moneyball II, the “New Moneyball” and every other form of Moneyball related talk over the last several years, trying to find undervalued commodities is not unique in the game of baseball. Every team is trying to do it, and has been trying to do it long before Michael Lewis ever wrote his fascinating book putting into words what baseball teams are trying to do through the lens of a character study of Beane.
The periods in which the A’s have been good and relevant have been when they have drafted, signed, and developed quality amateur talent. Most of the players the A’s have “Moneyballed” over the years have been complimentary players that have helped the A’s be successful when they are accompanied by homegrown talent. If the A’s are ever to be good and relevant again, it will come from developing amateur talent.
I said pretty much the same thing 5 years ago on this site, and nothing has really changed for the A’s. Other teams continue to innovate, spend, and fight to win the amateur talent game, and the A’s continue to allow others to win that game while they tread water. It has frustrated me for years, and I see no end in sight.
yeah. And I think it's made us a little more lethargic as fans as a result. And rightfully so.
You don’t post as much anymore, and I’m always pumped to read your contributions come draft time, because I learn a lot about prospects and scouting in general. But there’s just less to get excited about, and for me, less to write about, I feel like. It’s pretty much the same themes and status quo that a lot of us have already shared our feelings about.
I’m concerned that maybe the org is feeling pressured to “fall in line.” They know they are beholden to Selig if they want to get a new stadium, so they won’t do anything outside-the-box whatsoever, which is the only way they can compete. So the way that manifests itself out on the field is – no radical overslot bonuses, no radical International signings the past two offseasons, and, perhaps worse, throwing money at middling free agents instead. And that last one is the most suspicious…Wolff kind of alluded to a rationale for it in great interview over at vertigO/MarineLayer’s blog two weeks ago. In one of the segments, Wolff started to express some displeasure at a team that historically pockets their revenue-sharing money, and then when ML asked a follow-up asking Wolff to name a specific team, Wolff declined to do so. But reading between the lines there, one can interpret that owners who receive revenue-sharing checks are pressured into spending their money on major-league payroll and if they don’t – Wolff is alluding to some disdain for either the Pirates or the Marlins in that quote – they’ll be scorned and even perhaps peer-pressured by the other members of The Lodge.
The number the media focuses on, and the number that Forbes and USA today are going to release at the beginning of every season, is Opening Day Major League payroll. So, that’s the figure that revenue-sharing recipient owners feel pressured to “beef up”. So that’s why the A’s sign Fuentes, Matsui, Balfour, etc.
Reading between the lines, I’m thinking that the pressure exists to re-invest revenue-sharing money specifically on major-league payroll, not on scouting or on signing amateur talent…which is exactly where it should be spent. If you sign Fuentes, Matsui, and Balfour for a combined $15M, you are making the Player’s Union happy, because you are finding a home for three guys who wouldn’t have signed anywhere else at those prices, and you are re-investing your revenue-sharing check, which makes the other members of The Lodge happy. If you spend that $15M on amateur talent – which is what the A’s SHOULD do from a competitive standpoint, but aren’t doing – the money ISN’T going to the Players Union, and you are subtly driving up the cost of signing amateur talent league-wide for all your peers, so it’s alienating everyone else associated with MLB.
The A’s can’t defy those unwritten rules because they need Selig to sign off on a new stadium.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Aug 16, 2011 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Even without the stadium issue,
I’m not sure the A’s would defy those rules. Wolff very clearly in that interview came across as a “don’t rock the boat” guy.
But, yeah, even when the Balfour/Fuentes signings happened, my initial inclination was “Well, Beltre didn’t work out. The A’s have to spend some money to not get in trouble with the payroll police.” Especially given that the Marlins were under heat last season. What Wolff said confirmed it.
Interesting, however, that the Pirates have spent so much on the draft this year, irrespective of the unwritten rule. I have no idea where they are with their major league payroll, however, so I’m not sure if it’s either/or for them, or if they are simply being more aggressive than in previous years.
Don't you realise you'll find next monday or next Tuesday/Your golden shoes day
by PDXAthleticsfan on Aug 16, 2011 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Beltre vs. Matsui/Fuentes/Balfour
Part of why I like concentrating money into one free agent gamble on a very good player rather spreading it around it three uninspiring ones: the roster space.
The A’s claimed Philip Humber on waivers this past offseason. They had to let him go eventually to create roster room. Humber has been a terrific find on the cheap this year, but he ended up doing it for another team.
One thing the A’s do really well is mine the scrap heap; they should always try to leave a little bit of roster room to do it.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Aug 16, 2011 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions
humber's last 5 outings have been less than pedestrian
though another waiver claim was 3B edwin encarnacion… 284, 11HR. not sure of his fielding prowess but his offense seems to be a step up from what we have had
by heartstopper on Aug 16, 2011 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions
His defense is bad
His time as a 3B is pretty much over. His nickname with the Reds and Jays was “E5”.
I disagree.
The A’s have been anything but silent in the international recruiting game. They gave the largest bonus ever to Ynoa, and out GM personally flew to his poor little hometown to meet with his family. They finished second in the Aroldis Chapman bidding. They tried to get that Japanese pitcher last offseason. They’ve done a lot of work in the international arena.
I'd resist using Iwakuma as a good example
Given how they seemingly drove the bidding up and then did jack diddly to actually get him signed. I would have liked to see him instead of Moose Costco, personally.
Iwakuma's demands were ridiculous
Or at least his agent’s were
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Aug 17, 2011 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions
We'll see how much he gets this year. That'll tell us how ridiculous they were.
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Aug 17, 2011 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions
No, it won't, because whichever team he signs with won't have to pay a posting fee on top of his salary.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
by mikev on Aug 17, 2011 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yes it will, because the posting fee is irrelevant to Iwakuma.
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Aug 18, 2011 7:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes, it's very relevant.
It’s simple to pay a guy, say, $12M per year when you aren’t also paying a $20M posting fee on top of that to the player’s team.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
The team needs to look at the total cost to the team.
The player only looks at the salary he gets. The problem I saw with the Iwakuma situation, was his agent. He basically had two agents, Don M, and the Japanese team. Both wanted their cuts. The A’s were correct to look at the total cost.
"Trying not to rec a "Fuck the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
The trouble is that they didn't look at total cost by all appearances.
They seem to have stupidly assumed that Iwakuma would take the same discount Igawa took even though Iwakuma was only under control of the Japanese team for one more year.
Their formula should have been something like:
Total cost = 4 years, $48M or thereabouts based on what Kuroda got
Free Agent Iwakuma = 3 years $36M or thereabouts
1 Year of Controlled Iwakuma = $5M or thereabouts based on what Igawa got
Posting Fee should have been something like $7M….or maybe the $9M the Twins posted, or maybe $10M if they really really liked Iwakuma. There’s no way that they should have posted $19M or whatever it was and assumed Iwakuma would take $5M for his FA years. That’s just stupid. Stupid Stupid Stupid.
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Aug 18, 2011 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with you as to how they divided up the total cost.
All I’m saying, is that once they gave “$19M” for the posting fee, they would be stupid to continue, and offer him an additional $10M.
"Trying not to rec a "Fuck the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
I guess so.
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Aug 19, 2011 7:14 AM PDT up reply actions
That makes it relevant to the A's, not to Iwakuma.
Iwakuma would be an idiot to take less from the A’s than he could get one year later by cutting the original Japanese team out of the picture. If the A’s calculated differently, they’re very very stupid.
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Aug 18, 2011 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sure, the starting demands were high
But the reported A’s offers were pretty low, and there seemed to be no desire to compromise. I don’t pretend to have any insider information, but I was disappointed by how the A’s handled those negotiations.
by el generico on Aug 18, 2011 12:20 AM PDT up reply actions
If the A's handled those negotiations poorly
Then Iwakuma’s agent (blanking on his name) was horrific.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Aug 18, 2011 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions
How so?
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Aug 19, 2011 7:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Making everything public
Just seemed very unprofessional in his dealings. We’ll never know what actually happened behind closed doors, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if his constant tweets wore on the A’s nerves.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Aug 19, 2011 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Hell, the dude replied to fans on twitter.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
In honor of Zonis:
2012 spring training 40-man roster, offensive only (19 guys):
C: Suzuki, Donaldson, Powell, Recker (two of them in AAA).
3b, SS, 2b: Pennington, Sogard, Rosales, Weeks, Sizemore, Cardenas(?)
1b, OF, DH: Allen, Barton, Carter, Doolittle*, Taylor, Sweeney, Shane Peterson, Jai Miller, Jermaine Mitchell.
*If Doolittle STILL isn’t healthy this winter it’s time to outright him off the roster. Powell is a candidate to get outrighted too, with Recker or Donaldson making the team as C2 instead. The other 17 guys, I want them to have a chance to compete for a spot. I think the team might need to carry only 17-18 offensive 40-man guys and 22-23 pitchers, because they’ll be entering the year with two of those pitcher slots spent on Braden and Anderson and getting nothing out of them. You need 20 healthy arms on your 40-man in spring to get through a season.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Aug 16, 2011 3:47 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Won't Braden and Anderson start on the 60? There is no reason for them to take a slot on the 40.
by theblackpearl on Aug 16, 2011 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Ah, good point.
They can’t join the 60-day until spring training starts though, unfortunately. They’ll kind of cramp the available spots over the winter if the team decides they need to protect Recker, Mitchell, Peterson, Miller, and any pitchers (I didn’t find any) from the Rule 5 draft.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Aug 16, 2011 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions
They're already on teh 60 day, aren't they? Do they have to be DL'd again next season?
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
yes they are....
i thnk they continue to be protected through the winter
by heartstopper on Aug 16, 2011 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions
yeah, 60-day DL ends at the end of the season
It’s only something that exists during the playing season, not during the off-season. Otherwise teams would manipulate the 60-day thing to keep extra players protected.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Aug 16, 2011 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Shane Boras
He actually signed, didn’t he?
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
Currently playing in AZL
with a .222/.282/.250 in 36 at bats.
Don't you realise you'll find next monday or next Tuesday/Your golden shoes day
by PDXAthleticsfan on Aug 16, 2011 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions
He's a middle infielder, right?
How’s his defense?
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
Yep - 2B
According to BBRef, 2 errors in 39 chances. I’m not enough of a prospect hound to know much beyond that, but I’m betting he doesn’t go much further than the Kraut guy you linked in the other thread. I’m pretty sure he’s fairly well set, money-wise, however, regardless of the A’s signing, unless daddy is one of those “make it on your own” types.
Don't you realise you'll find next monday or next Tuesday/Your golden shoes day
by PDXAthleticsfan on Aug 16, 2011 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh, good, we could use some more 2b men
A Kouzmanoff for the rest of us!
by OptimistPrime on Aug 16, 2011 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions
High school vs. College
There seems to be a unanimous agreement that high school players are higher upside. That seems to be played out in the overslot payments as well. (However, I think that the overslot payments also have to do with leverage, i.e. a college junior or especially senior has very little leverage, and a high school player has a 4-year scholarship to fall back on, i.e. a legitimate alternative).
So, what evidence is there that high school players are higher upside, especially in the later rounds? Is it just that college players are more known quantities? Couldn’t a college player, like Michael Choice, have very high upside? They say Choice was underrated because of the small school he played at. Could there be a lot of smaller school players with high upside due to the fact that they haven’t played against top level competition and are therefore (relatively) unknown quantities?
Also, do high school players have a higher tendency to be boom or bust types? Or are college players equally susceptible to this phenomenon?
I ask all these questions because it seems to be taken as fact that high school players are higher risk/higher reward, and college players are lower risk/lower reward, but I don’t know if this is just an intuitive thing or if there is evidence backing this up.
Would appreciate any input/ideas on this topic.
College players are lower-risk
because they’ve been playing longer so we have a better idea of how they’ll pan out.
They are lower-reward only to the extent that we’re comparing equal over-all value. A low-risk guy can be low-reward and still have expected total value comparable to the high-risk high-reward guy.
But yes, there are also some college guys who are low-risk, high-reward. These are the guys who fill up most of the first round. They’re all gone by the time we get to the later rounds.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
Definitely a depressing draft
For a team that badly needs an infusion of good young talent, I’m with nsj in that I see Gray as the only meaningful pick. In fact, I tried to construct a top 20 prospect list for my own use and I simply couldn’t do it without broadening the qualifications to include players with rookie eligibility at the beginning of the season (Weeks and DLS make the list look much nicer). It’s frustrating to look at our system and see that most of the players closest to the majors(Taylor, Green, Cardenas) seem to be nearly maxed out in terms of potential, while the few players who seem to have upside (Vicmal De La Cruz, Shipman, etc) are so far away from the majors that you can’t really rely on them to help you at the big league level.
I can tolerate mediocre teams at the big league level, especially with the realization that we are sort of stuck in quick sand until we can get a new stadium, as long as there is effort on the field and an eye on competing in the future. While I think that the A’s continue to fight, the personnel decisions being made suggest to me that there isn’t a long term plan.
Question for NSJ...
Why aren’t you running this team?
The only thing you missed in your piece was that you talk as if the 2012 draft is worth having picks in. Like usual, Oakland is always doing the wrong thing, they should have done what you propose they do at the end of this year, last year, and done what they did last year, at the end of this year. The 2012 draft is garbage, it would have been better to not sign Balfour or Fuentes and grab more 2011 picks, and sign type A’s at the end of THIS offseason, to miss out on said garbage draft. Just as they should have held onto Cargo or traded him in 2010 when the A’s were actually a .500 team, theyre always screwing up the timing.
And I agree that AA is looking godly, getting rid of the bad contracts then taking on disgruntled players. We really need to jump all over Morrison, he’s the kind of bat you can slot in at 3 or 4 for the next several years. It was bad enough we didn’t get Rasmus, or for that matter, Escobar. Why does Beane care about having good clubhouse guys? Did Milton Bradley really scare him that badly? I think it may have had to do with “worst manager in the history of the world” Geren, who undoubtedly wouldn’t have gotten along with those two. Things have changed now, and Morrison seems to have a pretty righteous reason to do what he did, plus the Marlins are well known for being entirely clueless. We must throw whatever we can at FLA to get LoMo.
by PL78 on Aug 16, 2011 5:39 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
How can we be so certain that the 2012 draft class is garbage
I mean we are talking about high school seniors to college juniors (17 to 21 year olds) and a lot can change. MLB teams have a hard enough time ranking and correctly selecting the current draft eligible players that I find it hard to believe that whoever is “ranking” future picks would have that ability to. Is it “weaker” because it may not have a Harper or Strasburg or Upton or other sure fire top picks? I feel that this is probably the only way someone could try and rank a future draft class, yet, even then it is still going to be hard to do.
Would appreciate you showing me if I am wrong here though.
I am of the preference to have as many top 100 or 200 draft picks in as many drafts as possible, regardless of the draft. These are where most of the talent comes from. After these picks, you’re just gambling because of the low success rate.
Yeah it's much to early to make any definitive judgments about next year's draft class
Plenty of guys could turn a corner and become a much better player than they are viewed as being at this moment.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Aug 16, 2011 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm just going from what many scouts have said
There’s a massive drop in talent across the board from previous seasons, they have been predicting this for years.
Do you have links/sources?
I am skeptical that scouts can predict quality of drafts “years” before, let alone 1 year before, let alone the day of the draft.
Damn, I believe I read it on MLBTR, but I cant currently come up with any obvious links on google, people randomly badmouthing draft classes don’t get bookmarked for future reference on on my browser, yknow what I mean? But there’s things in sites like this that bemoan how poor the college pitching group is going to be compared with next year. If i see any further analysis i’ll post.
This is a great post
And it speaks to a number of the systemic blind spots that have left the A’s spinning their wheels over the past few seasons.
A couple things. One, while Oakland certainly did put together one of their least inspired drafts ever this year, the front office doesn’t have a deeply ingrained pattern of refusing to draft or sign players who will only sign for overslot money. Yordy Cabrera, Aaron Shipman, Chad Lewis, Max Stassi, Ian Krol, Rashun Dixon…when they identify talent that they want, they will pull the trigger. Moreover, there are teams that almost never go over slot and still manage to acquire, develop, and produce significant talent through the draft. Atlanta and Philadelphia, for example, try very hard to stick to slot (although every team will go overslot on occasion). When you look at Philadelphia’s notorious stinginess, and yet they still manage to bring in enough talent to swing a trade for an elite player every single season (sometimes twice!) – well, there’s more going on here than just a willingness to go overslot.
One thing is that a lot of it does come down to scouting. It’s not necessarily worthwhile to point out every instance of “why didn’t we pick x instead of y” but on the whole, not every scout, crosschecker, and scouting director are made equal. Take two teams who have identical overall strategies (e.g., college-dominated, low-risk) and you’re still going to have differences in opinion over specific players. Just like how high-quality schools tend to care more about excellent teachers, teams that care more about scouting are going to be more aggressive about finding and keeping high-quality scouts.
That matters – picking up that Joe Smith doesn’t have the kind of swing that can track a major-league curve, that Mike Jones could be more effective with a lower arm slot, etc. It’s impossible to quantify from where we are, outside the organization, but it’s a fact that the scouts the A’s rely on aren’t the same as the scouts the Red Sox rely on, even if they have the same number of employees in the department (which they may not have). And which team’s scouting department would you pick if you had to choose right now?
The other component is something that we don’t tend to talk about as much, but it probably has more of an impact that we think it does. It’s the minor league coaches who work with these players when they’re signed and delivered. It’s easy to think of amateurs as sealed boxes that teams open to find out whether they’ve received a shiny new 5 WAR blue chip or a lump of replacement-level coal – I know I do, from time to time – but there’s more to it than that. These guys receive tons of instruction: new batting stances, new pitches, new grips, all kinds of stuff that has permanent effects on their ability as players. They’ll have coaches who care whether they stretch and do their wind sprints properly and coaches who don’t care, as long as they’re hitting the damn ball.
Again, it’s nearly impossible to quantify the degree to which the A’s recent high-upside talents could have fared better or worse in other team’s systems – I’ve never been a fan of elaborate counterfactuals – but teams do shape their players. At a certain point, given the A’s inability to convert draft picks into effective everyday players, you have to wonder what combination of scouting and development they’re missing out on.
This response is already way too long but there are lots of things tied up in this problem that have governed – and will continue to govern – Oakland’s (lack of) success for some time now. So I wish we could figure out who or what is really responsible, but there are too many moving parts for us outsiders to make any concrete conclusions.
by Spass30 on Aug 16, 2011 9:42 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Great response - rec'd
One counter point is that the Phillies tend to pay slot early in the draft, but have actually signed quite a few of their current top prospects to late round, over slot bonuses.
This article has a reference to draft position and bonus of their top prospects. Brown (20th round), Singleton (8th), Cosart (38th), etc.
perfect strategy about next year and the all the draft picks. you sir are a scholar and gentelman!
im still hoping we can get nick williams with our first pick. the strategy will also help rebuild in that we can have high pick in 13 as well. i say we do it for next year and let our own talent try to grow into something and then we can have a shitload of good prospects to work with and this train can finally start to roll in 13!!!! our farm system is quite weak and having some prospects could help our big league club in numerous ways.
I really like all your writings on this topic
One minor quibble….the Jays didn’t sign Tyler Beede or Daniel Norris so I’m not as excited about their draft as you seem to be.
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
We did get Norris signed for $2million at the last minute
Talked him down from the $4million he was asking for at draft time. The Jays new draft system is to draft best player available and sign those that will come down to the price the office values them at. No idea how it will work long term, and it meant we missed out on the likes of Beede/Suarez/Seddon/Northwood who turned down supplemental cash or more.
It did however mean we got Norris/Anderson/Comer/Biggs/Smith Jnr./Dean all of which were top 70 talent wise from the draft, so while we got less prospects (35 of 55) signed those we did have much higher ceilings than the old Ricciardi all college low ceiling drafts we’ve also suffered for the last decade.
I agree strongly with your author here, drafting predominantly college players hasn’t worked for either team for the last ten years, a new approach is needed to drafting, ours may not work but at least it’s different, your’s is still living in 2000 and doomed to mediocrity.
Cool! I hadn't heard that
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Aug 17, 2011 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Being from the WCAL,
i’m fairly familiar with those four players. I was at a camp with Dunston about 4 or 5 years ago, and then played against him my freshman year, and it honestly has to be just a pick because of the name. Unless he’s gotten significantly better, and ive heard he hasn’t, he’s not impressive at all.
Oh, and i played little league with Prigatano. He’s always been good haha.
"Caring about stuff binds us to the other people that care about stuff, and that creates the communities that makes life worth living."
by thewhizkid on Aug 17, 2011 9:30 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
True. It's not like his name is Wonderful Terrific Monds or anything
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Aug 17, 2011 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Or, BRANDON ALLEN!!!
"Trying not to rec a "Fuck the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."
Or Rock Shoulders
Head Editor of JaguarsBlog
Follow me on Twitter
by CaliforniaJag on Aug 20, 2011 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions
When the guys over at MLB Bonus Baby looked at the A's draft
they mentioned them loading up on undersized pitchers. [link] Who knows if there’s anything to it, but three of the guys are doing pretty well.
Drew Granier (32nd round), 6’0", 180 lbs. 50 K and 20 BB in 36.2 IP, 21 hits allowed.
Nathan Kilcrease (30th round), 5’6", 170 lbs. 24 K and 3 BB in 21 IP, 19 hits allowed (3.18 GO/AO).
Tanner Peters (16th round), 6’0", 150 lbs. 23 K and 8 BB in 19.2 IP, 11 hits allowed.
Sonny Gray’s tiny, too, but everybody already knows everything about him. He’s probably the only one with a real shot at starting. So… apparently, it’s possible that the A’s strategy this draft was to target undersized, right-handed throwing relievers. Moneyball, baby.
Beane misses Tim Hudson.
Don't you realise you'll find next monday or next Tuesday/Your golden shoes day
by PDXAthleticsfan on Aug 17, 2011 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Kilcrease is 5'6"?
wow. Hits low 90’s on his fastball though…crazy.
At Glenwood Academy in Phenix City, where former Auburn star and current Atlanta Braves starter Tim Hudson played, Kilcrease led his high school team to two state championships. He had a 24-3 record, an 0.64 earned run average, 204 strikeouts and only 21 walks in high school.
His fastball then was clocked in the low-90 mph range, but he lost a little of that velocity in his first two seasons at Alabama. That velocity is back this season.
“We’ve had him up to 93 on two occasions,” said Kyle Bunn, Alabama’s first-year pitching coach. “That allows you to make a few mistakes.”
Kilcrease owes some of his success this season to a change-up he has developed this season, “but my slider is where I get nasty.”
by Billy Frijoles on Aug 17, 2011 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
I mean, they're not without upside.
It just seems like there was probably a lot more upside to be bought.
I'm not really commenting on his upside, which I don't know enough about...
But just a 5’6" guy who can hit 90’s consistently is pretty insane.
by Billy Frijoles on Aug 17, 2011 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions
That's gotta be one flat fastball.
I’m predicting a lot of fly balls for Kilcrease as he moves through the system. And unless he can goose his velocity into the mid-90s in a relief role, he’s not going to find the homer-happy parks of the California and Texas Leagues to be very welcoming.
Why do you assume his fastball is flat?
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
Maybe A short guy can't get the extreme downward plane on his fb that tall guys can
Also, a short guy releases the pitch from 56 feet away instead of 55.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Aug 18, 2011 7:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah but that has nothing to do with the fastball being flat
At least not the way I associate this word. To me, a flat fastball is the one with little movement, not one which has a general trajectory more parallel to the ground.
And for the movement, the key is the grip and wrist snap because it is the spin that defines it. I would actually expect smaller guys who throw at the same speed as bigger bodied counterparts to have more spin, because I would assume less of their velocities comes from from overall body frame and strength.
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
SSS, but the guy's getting a shitload of groundballs right now.
A 3.18 GO/AO is pretty damn good. It’s probably somewhere around 55-60% groundball rate. Just because he’s short doesn’t mean his ball doesn’t sink.
If only the A's played
as well a AN writes.
by redtopcowboy on Aug 18, 2011 1:47 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Why isn't this green?
Head Editor of JaguarsBlog
Follow me on Twitter
by CaliforniaJag on Aug 20, 2011 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Thank you for the kind responses and thought-provoking feedback, it is very much appreciated.
This community really makes the writing worthwhile for me.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Aug 18, 2011 2:32 PM PDT reply actions
I really hope we trade Matsui+Breslow for Dom Brown, now he's blocked by Pence.
Matsui is a massive upgrade even defensively over Ibanez, who they can just release because he’s one of the worst players in the game and has negative WAR. Breslow gives them the lefty they want. Adding the Harden-Anderson deal going into 2012 we might have an intriguing group of players.
Wow.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
Heh
But on a series note, if Matsui should get traded anywhere, it better happen fast, as he is returning to Earth quickly. OPS of sub .600 in his last 10 games.
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
but but but
SECOND HALF PLAYER
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
And while we're at it
Cojack + Fuentes for Jesus Montero
"BA doesn't stand for Batting Average. It’s Brandon Allen, as in the percentage of a hitter’s worth compared to Brandon Allen. Ted Williams, at his best, was only 4/10th of the hitter Brandon Allen is today." - YonYonson
Factoring in that AN hates A's players more than the rest of MLB does
and players like Cameron Maybin were acquired for mediocre relievers coming off park-effected career years, its not that big a stretch. They dont value Brown that highly I dont think, or else when they got Pence they would have just released Ibanez, who is pretty much the most worthless player in the NL. Theyre literally playing a guy that cost them games over Brown, that’s hardly a vote of confidence.
It's true that they kept Ibanez over Brown
which suggests either that they think Brown is the worse player right now, or that they don’t want to bench a guy making $11.5M. Since Ibanez is a FA at the end of the year, I see no reason why they’d sell low on Brown when he’s the cheap (and more talented) answer for 2012+.
They may just believe Ibañez is the better bet to succeed in the post-season,
based on their relative experience. Philly is pretty much thinking about October now.
That being said, I agree that D. Brown may be ripe for the buying. It would be nice if for a change the A’s, instead of the Jays (Y. Escobar, Napoli, Rasmus), got in on a player who had worn out his welcome with his team but who had a lot to offer his new team.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I guess I still don't get
Why they would sell the next 5+ years of Brown cheaply just because they aren’t playing him right now. The Phillies don’t know there will be seasons in 2012-2016?
THANK YOU.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
OT: Ms. Jeans' blog debut
She would be thrilled if you (or your significant other) read her first few entries. :)
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Aug 18, 2011 5:29 PM PDT reply actions
I posted this on FK, but I'm feeling self-indulgent enough to repost it here:
NSJ, I think you’re being far too kind…
Jim Callis charted the draft spending figures for every team this year. As you can see, the A’s were 28th out of 30 teams in spending, ahead of only the White Sox and Tigers, in a year widely acknowledged as one of the most talented and deepest drafts in decades. This isn’t surprising as the A’s draft strategy this year was to pick mostly uninspiring, slot-level talent. The A’s spent roughly 3 million this on the draft, half of which went to Sonny Gray’s 1.5 million bonus. So they basically spent 1.5 million on the ~48 other picks they had. Furthermore, those numbers don’t include the money teams spent on international FA signings this year, a market in which the A’s made no forays into thus far. The A’s may very well be last in the league in overall amateur spending this year.
Callis didn’t just chart the numbers for this year. He also listed the numbers for draft spending the last three years. All in all, the A’s rank 25th of 30 teams in draft spending the last three years so it isn’t exactly news that the A’s don’t devote significant monetary resources to the draft. Part of it is draft position; obviously teams that routinely pick top 5 like the Pirates and Royals spend more since most of their spending goes to signing that top 5 pick. But other teams like the Rays, Red Sox, Blue Jays, etc who have also had middling to low draft positions the last three years are top 5, top 10 teams in spending. Consequently, they have maintained strong, deep farm systems without having to resort to tanking to secure high draft positions. That’s the beauty of going overslot.
And it’s no secret that the A’s have a terrible farm system, ranked 28th by BA if I remember correctly to start the year. And it’s no secret that they can’t compete with most other teams on the free agent talent market. And of course, we’re all aware that the current talent at the major league level is very mediocre. So why haven’t the A’s taken full advantage of the one market in which they can adequately compete with every other team?
I don’t agree with the mindset that the team should look to lose games to secure a high draft position. I can never root for my team to lose games. A high draft position is one of the ways to infuse impact talent into a farm system but it’s not the only way. A combination of draft position, going overslot, and of course, excellent scouting and drafting is the way to build an excellent farm. Teams like the Blue Jays, Red Sox, and Rays have shown that it’s possible to build a strong, deep farm with impact talent in spite of low draft positions by focusing on the latter two: going overslot + excellent scouting. The A’s, quite frankly, have been awful at all three. So honestly, what could you expect?
In a year in which other teams set a record for draft spending, the A’s were content to go completely the opposite direction. There were many things disappointing about this year, but this development is probably the most disappointing of all, since it has the potential to create many more disappointing seasons just like this one.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Aug 18, 2011 8:18 PM PDT reply actions 5 recs
Actually, one foray.
Furthermore, those numbers don’t include the money teams spent on international FA signings this year, a market in which the A’s made no forays into thus far.
You’re right that the A’s have been very quiet in the international market this year, but it’s not quite “no forays”. In March, the A’s signed Seongmin Kim, a high-upside power-hitting high-school catcher from Korea. He signed for $510K.
(There are also three other international FA signings reported this year, but all three are returns of players who had been in the A’s farm system previously and went away to play at home for the winter season — 22yo Dominican infielder Wilfredo Sosa, 25yo Dominican catcher Gabriel Ortiz, and 21yo Mexican RHP Andres Avila.)
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
If a Dominican prospect is LISTING his age at 25, that makes him...
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Aug 18, 2011 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Ah, I had forgotten about Kim.
In my head, I have the time frame for the yearly IFA signing period as starting on July 2nd since that’s when teams are able to sign Dominican/LA prospects. What happens before then counts as the previous year’s signings. So that explains why I thought Kim signed last year when he really signed in March.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Aug 18, 2011 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions
The linked story said "in 2011"
so I was taking that literally. Vicmal de la Cruz was signed last November. A’s were very active internationally in 2010, also picking up Renato Nuñez, Argenis Raga, and a few others.
It does kind of make sense to count the years as July through June when considering international signings, but in that case it’s too early to say the A’s are inactive this year. As de la Cruz shows, not everyone is signed in July.
Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree
Rec'd, thank you re-posting this here.
Lots of great info that I hadn’t seen (I only get BA info secondhand).
I have an interesting tidbit to add on to your post that is germane to your point about scouting:
Originally this post was going to be much longer, and I did about 20 hours of research when I was brainstorming a more grandiose organizational blueprint. I try to do one of these per summer – this is my first article in months, and with the school year about to start I won’t write again until winter break probably – and one of the topics I really looked into was scouting departments.
I’ll post some links later when I’m not on the iPad, but here’s some good nuggets I found:
-in 2007 the A’s had 12 area scouts. This was the fewest in all of baseball. The red sox were tied for the most in baseball at that point, with 18. So they 50% more area scouts than the a’s.
-the a’s also had less regional cross checkers than other teams. I’ll have to look back at the research I found, but I think the red sox had five checkers, which was tied for the most, and the a’s had only three. And these guys, to me, are crucial, because they are the second set of organizational eyes that is getting to see the top talent. The cross checker needs to be able to say, ’I’ve seen that guy, and I’m certain we should rank him higher than the guy I saw in texas last week.’
-my last thoughts: from the data that I found, the scouting department was stretched too thin. And you can’t justify the big overslot bonuses I want them to make if you don’t have excellent scouting reports, preferably from two sets of eyes in agreement. The paucity of cross checkers worries me the most. Everybody in the game knows who the top 200 amateurs are. Christ, you don’t even need a scouting dept for that – just print out ba’s top 200 pre-draft list and a few others. What you need to be able to do is properly rank those 200 dudes on your big board, better than other teams do. I don’t know how you can do that with so few cross checkers and so few area scouts. Not enough prospects have been seen by two sets of eyes. (unless they have an excellent video database, which they should).
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Aug 18, 2011 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow, thanks for that interesting info.
I would definitely like to read those links.
It’s just disheartening to learn that the A’s “penny wise pound foolish” method of doing things extends from their free agent dealings, to their approach to drafting, down to the resources devoted to their scouting department, which is critical for a small market team that consistently needs top young talent in order to compete. I remember one of the first things AA and Zduriencik did when they took over their respective teams was to rapidly expand the scouting department. Now the Blue Jays and Mariners have a couple of the best farm systems in the league.
Forget the fact that Brian Fuentes’s contract and salary this year could’ve gone to a Josh Bell or a smorgasbord of overslot talent. How many years can the 5 million dollars going to Fuentes be instead used to pay off the salaries of the 6 additional area scouts the A’s could hire to match the Red Sox? How far can that money go towards building one of the best scouting departments in the league?
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Aug 18, 2011 10:51 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
These are all very good questions
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Aug 19, 2011 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Scouts make a starting salary of about 30k per year, not counting their per diem/medical/etc.
And some old scouts would say that you are “worthless” as a scout until you’ve done it for five years and gained that necessary experience. In other words, you really earn your money for the team once you’ve been in the profession for a long time.
Even then, the top paid scouts are making 80kish, with the average scout probably making 50k (again, not counting per diem, hotels, benefits, whatever).
Cross checkers are going to be near 100k, assistant general manager 125k, with variations depending upon the org.
The only guys who get paid exceptionally well in all of baseball (excluding players) are general managers and field managers. 60 jobs, with millions(?) of people who would dream of doing them. Incredibly competitive.
The main takeaway here for me was that at team could drastically re-make their scouting department – raise your total number of scouts by 50% even, like the Blue Jays did under AA, or poach away the best scouts from other teams by paying them $100K – for a total cost of a marginal free agent reliever or utility infielder.
If that extra scout finds and signs even just one amateur who becomes a league average player he’s justified his presence in the org for decades.
But, getting back to one of my cynical central themes here: poaching away the top scouts from other teams would upset the other owners in The Lodge, and raise the cost of business for everyone. Not at all likely to happen anytime before Selig makes a decision on a stadium.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Aug 19, 2011 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This unfortunately makes sense
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Aug 19, 2011 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions
OT: Have you read Prophet of the sandlots?
2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too
I haven't, but you just prompted me to read up on it.
Looks very interesting. Any good anecdotes that you remember offhand?
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Aug 20, 2011 7:40 AM PDT up reply actions
In the BA article
I notice the A’s have a serious trend downwards in bonus money spent: 6.5M, 5M, 3M (2011). This is a very unusual trend. Draft position and additional picks (or lack of picks) explain some of it. Could the remaining portion be related to the theory that the A’s must follow the company line for the time being until Bud and the good old boys network decides on the new ballpark?
Nice post, NSJ
And lots of good commentary.
A couple of topics I’d like to address, and since I’m late to the dance I won’t bother trying to go direct with replies.
Actually… as it turns out… I’ll be making a fanpost out of my reply.
The monster at the end of this blog.
yay!
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR
NSJ
You’re the biggest Anthony Gose advocate I know around these parts, can you shoot me an e-mail when you have the time? I’d appreciate it.
The monster at the end of this blog.

























