that I don't agree with the sentiment that the A's drafting in the past has been bad. (I'm getting mixed messages from Blez's post here as to where he rates the A's past several drafts vis a vis the average team.) I think it just hasn't been "enough better" than other teams to compensate for their financial advantages (and, in some cases, their pick-order advantages-- see Rays, Tampa).

I do, however, heartily agree with the sentiment that the A's should devote a ton of resources to drafting talent. The "draft by computer" philosophy seems mildly ridiculous at this point-- there's still a major role for the minor-league scout, especially at the high-school level.

And there's the rub. I don't think Oakland is really in a position to pay over-slot for bonuses; I would like them to, but I don't see it happening as a realistic possibility. But there's no rule against hiring extra scouts. Double the scouting coverage and you double the number of opinions on players. It's the convergence of opinion and objective analysis that produces the best candidates.

I'd like to see the A's do exactly that-- commit to doubling team expenditure in all areas of the minor-league system (except for signing bonuses in the draft). If you're watching a guy's game, watch a full weekend series instead. Signing 2 Latin American prospects? Sign 4. Overseas academies in 3 nations? Make it 6.

A side note on over-slot bonuses (somewhat off-topic): After the 10th round of the draft (if not earlier), the A's should immediately start drafting the best available player in every round. Regardless of whether he's going to sign or not. Why? Because even if he doesn't sign, picking him will keep other teams' hands off of him. For HS picks, it'll knock him out of the draft for three entire years.

There's no excuse for Lars Anderson to make it to the 18th round without a team spending a pick to block him. The odds of a typical 11th rounder working out are minimal at best. Far better to keep a first-round talent pick out of enemy hands-- and available down the road.

Not sure how trusted, but "a source" expects him to remain with the A's.

http://mlbfleecefactor.com/2008/01/1...

My other team, the Reds, are considered to have one of the better farm systems.  They got it right on a couple drafts in a row, but only with 1 pick, ending up with Votto (2nd round '02), Bruce (1st '05), Bailey (1st '04)at the top of their drafts.  But there isn't much else in those drafts - Denorfia is the best player from any draft between '01-05 other than those 3.  Their other top talent came from a non-drafted free agent (Cueto).

I'm starting to wonder if 'playing it safe' is the way to go, or if it isn't time to start playing for the higher ceiling players as we've seen in the offseason moves.

I'd like to see a couple international non-draft FA signings looking for high-ceiling players, and the much-discussed paying over slot draft picks.

The A's have been all over the map on their recent Amateur draft picks. The A's have historically been hit & miss. Does anyone remember the A's drafting the 4 Aces back in 1990? Ariel Prieto? The A's have also lost their First Round Pick for signing of all people, Mike Magnante. The A's have also drafted Mark McGwire, Barry Zito, Tim Hudson, etc. Just about every team in every professional Sport has drafted someone that didn't pan out. When it happens to a middle of the pack payroll team like the A's the repercussions are serious.

Looking back at the A's draft history, IMO, one of the best Scouting Director's the A's ever had working for them was Grady Fuson. I believe his staff made a few astute picks. The A's can start off by keeping their scouts happy & rewarding those who have success. Oakland needs to be the type of organization that quality Scouts & talent evaluators want to work for. Cutting corners & paying hamburger wages is not going to work.

Overall, every corner of the baseball world has been mined searching for that diamond in the rough. Baseball Academy's etc are everywhere. When you look at the draft position the A's have held, with the exception of Ariel Prieto, the picks have been quality. Mark Mulder was a # 2 overall pick.

There have been discussions on holding a world wide amateur Baseball Draft. This would be of immense help to the A's. Right now when it comes to signing undrafted & free-agent foreign players, the odds are in favor of the money teams. The A's are also following slot $ as per Bud's & MLB's suggestion. I would have taken a few more dollars & signed a player like Justin Smoak. Just my opinions.  
 
 

How is the Muli-level Marketing Business now these days?

I tend to agree with PaulThomas that the best thing the A's can do is start to shift more resources back to traditional scouting.  In the recent years it seems draft resources have gone more to statistical analysis rather than hands on scouting.  The stat work has been good but I think more hands on analysis needs to be mixed in.

I think the A's get bashed a little too hard for their drafts because even Callis had to admit at BA that as far as first-round and sandwich picks go the A's have done better than average over the last few years, especially when you consider where they have been picking.  The problem is that we're not finding the occasional gem in the late rounds or from international signing.  This combined with our many recent promotions has lead to a very thin minor league system.

1.  Continue doing what you have done in the 1st round, because it has worked well overall.  Notice that your best picks have been where your picks were rated highly by scouts.  Higher draft picks this year and next year should lead to good quality players.  Take the best player on your board and you should do fine.

2. Reevaluate your 2nd-10th round philosophy. Your 2002-2005 drafts skewed way too much towards college guys with good numbers that scouts hate, and your results with these picks is not impressive.  Your 2006-2007 drafts appear to have abandoned this philosophy to a certain extent, and I think this is a good thing. Look for guys that have dropped because of signability, and pick them if you can sign them to reasonably above slot bonusues.

3.  After the 10th round, take the best player available in every single round, signability be damned.  After you pick them, be willing to spend money to sign them.  At worst, you prevent other teams from signing them. At best, you bring in a guy every year or so who covers for some of the inevitable failed 1st rounders.

4. Spend money to acquire international players, and invest heavily in academies.

5. Buy the very best scouts that money can buy, and trust their opinions. Don't be scared to occasionally go against your philosophies for the right player.

 Depodesta, Fuson and Ricciardi all combined their talents with Eric Kubota and Beane to evaluate players. When 3 of these guys moved on, their replacements (if any) brought as much to the table. Too bad b/c truly Beane's leverage was through the draft as well as some high draft choices that arrived when the team's record wasn't very good.

  All of this goes in cycles and Beane correctly is trying to avoid mediocrity which is the regression (injuries and all) that we've seen. The jury is still out whether or not this team can draft as well as some of the other top five farm systems in the league.  

about scouting and projecting potential MLB players, so I'll ask a question from a business perspective.

What's wrong with what Beane is currently doing?  Why not develop a couple of above average players and then trade them off to other teams and skimming off their potential MLB players?  It would seem to make good business sense to let the other teams pay the draft bonuses and assume the initial risk.  Then you can swoop in and restock your farm system with a plethora of players that others have assumed the initial risk on.  

You end up with a fat minor league system with guys competing to make the show for a minimal cost compared to what it would take to draft those same players yourself.