Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Explaining Jeremy Lin's Early, Surprising Success

The Amateur Draft: Why Do We Care?

Note: I'll be handling the draft coverage here tomorrow, so I figured I'd start from the beginning. To many of you, this will be old news, so feel free to ignore.

Every year come June there's a pretty big hoopla over the Major League Baseball Rule 4 Amateur draft. Baseball America talks about it non-stop for months, it's televised at primetime, and everyone and their grandmother throws up mock drafts all over the place. I even took the day off tomorrow so I can focus solely on the draft without that whole being fired business. But why do we care? A significant number of the names said tomorrow won't make the Major Leagues despite signing bonuses in the hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars. Not even those who make the bigs are guaranteed to have an impact. Look no further than our very own Jeff Clement, once billed as a power hitting lefthander who could be an elite bat at catcher and now mired in AAA pretending to be a first baseman. So why follow it at all?

Star-divide

Well, some people don't bother with it. These people comprise the vast majority of baseball fans, but I'll assume that you, dear reader, are more interested in the inner workings of baseball franchises than that. We care about the draft, and care deeply, because we care about prospects, because we care about the makeup of our team in five years, and because the players acquired each June make up the future of Major League Baseball.

Winning teams are almost never built on trades and free agents. Even last decade's Yankee dynasty wasn't fueled by its free agents but by the draft picks of the early-mid 90s. And if the most successful period of the richest franchise in the game didn't come on the back of massive spending (which actually marked the recent 'decline' of the Yankees instead), nobody else is really going to be able to spend their way up to the top either. The reason, of course, can be found in two words: Club Control.

No matter what anyone tells you, how much money a club commits to a player is important. Payrolls are not infinite, and stupid contracts can cripple a team's ability to be flexible with their rosters or make a big splash when required. Due to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, for the first six or seven years of a player's career in the majors, they are paid far less than what they would make in free agency, and for the first three they make more or less the league minimum. Think of it like this: You could get an entire 25 man roster of Adam Jones for the price of one Carlos Silva. It follows, therefore, that young, productive players are more valuable than old, productive players, because they are much much cheaper. Their very presence in a roster allows a team to supplement its young core with pricey free agents. A team of said free agents isn't magically available to pick up young talent from nowhere. Therefore, the goal of every major league team should be to put that core of talent into place and keep it stocked year after year, while adding pieces as required to go on championship runs.

Where does young talent come from? With the exception of the international free agency market, dominated by Caribbean players, it comes from this draft. The best young players in the United States and Canada are all* free for the taking, and if a team is in possession of one of the top draft picks it can come away with a truly special talent. Evan Longoria and Tim Lincecum, for example, were both taken inside the top 10 picks of the 2006 draft, while future stars David Price and Matt Wieters were taken at #1 and #5 in 2007 respectively. This year features the best amateur pitching talent the game has ever seen in Stephen Strasburg, with a reasonably strong supporting cast made up mostly of pitching, but also featuring hitting machine Dustin Ackley, generally considered to be the second best prospect in the country. This doesn't do the draft justice, though. There is talent to be found not only in the high rounds, but in the later days as well. Albert Pujols was drafted in the 13th round in 1999, and future hall of famer Mike Piazza was drafted in the 62nd (the draft only goes to 50 rounds these days).

In short, if you want young baseball players, June is where it's at. We have the #2 pick tomorrow, followed by #27, #33, and #51. Pay attention to the names you hear, because each of them has an excellent chance of turning into a household name. Pay especially close attention to the #2 pick. This team cannot afford to miss this time around. The first few rounds will be tomorrow starting at 3PST, and the draft will conclude sometime on Thursday. This should be a lot of fun.

*Assuming they are draft eligible, of course. The rules are as follows:

  • Be a resident of the United States, Canada, or a U.S. territory such as Puerto Rico. Players from other countries are not subject to the draft, and can be signed by any team.
  • Have never signed a major or minor league contract.
  • High school players are eligible only after graduation, and if they have not attended college.
  • Players at four-year colleges are eligible after completing their junior years, or after their twenty-first birthdays. The exception to this is Division III schools, where players can be drafted before their junior year.
  • Junior and community college players are eligible to be drafted at any time. [Wiki]

Comment 129 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I’m very excited. As the years have gone by I’ve lost interest in Football and Basketball, and never really understood the hype of those drafts. The MLB draft though? Awesome, I cannot wait.

by OceanBird on Jun 8, 2009 7:54 PM PDT reply actions  

Welcome to Lookout Landing.

A friendly request:

please use the subject line.

Thanks in advance, and I hope you enjoy the site.

Bye, Jeffie!
Preserved In All His Greatness - R.I.P. The Reignman 1989 to 1997

by JLProck on Jun 8, 2009 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's very strange...

The picks in football and basketball have a much more immediate impact. They’re playing with the team immediately, and a good 18-22 year-old can have a huge impact on the game.

With the MLB draft you’re looking at something like a minimum two years for mature players to make the team, usually much more. And then several more years before they hit their potential.

by Sidi on Jun 8, 2009 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

Agreed

Also, with the way those two drafts work, the players are more exposed to everyone. With the multitude of players in the mlb draft, along with the fact that many HS and JC players are picked up early, it makes it hard to track prospects. On the other hand, with the age limit in the NBA and NFL, the players gain exposure to the public in college football and basketball. Add this to the fact that college baseball is not widely televised, and you have the majority of the public not know who many of these guys are unless they are a phenom.

by Brian Floyd on Jun 8, 2009 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not sure if this if OT or not

I’ve heard a lot of talk about there being a international draft. How far away are we from it and would they do it separately or within the Rule 4 draft?

by Robert on Jun 8, 2009 8:15 PM PDT reply actions  

A few days ago, I read in an article (trying to remember - BA or something)

That Puerto Rico’s athletics officials were quite unhappy a few years after they got the draft in 1990s because it cut down the signing bonuses and put Puerto Rican athletes at a competitive disadvantage relative to their (more) international peers. I’ll try to find it.

by Decatur on Jun 8, 2009 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

That really is unfair. The entire population has a higher quality of life han all of their neighbors on account of being a US territory,

and the athletes have to deal with the Rule 4 draft. Sucks to be Puerto Rico. Those damn Haitians have it so good.

"Even the stupidest of men, by some instinct of nature, is convinced on his own that with more observations his risk of failure is diminished."
-Jacques Bernoulli Ars conjectandi 1713

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jun 9, 2009 5:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well, I don't know enough about this to say one way or the other.

Here’s an article describing Puerto Rican athletic officials’ unhappiness with the draft. Here’s what Puerto Rico’s Secretary of Sport said in 2007:

“The sudden establishment of the Draft, without previous notice nor trial period, did not allow Puerto Ricans to transform their development model to make it compatible with the new statutory reality,” Bernier said in his proposal. "On the other hand, after 17 years of presence of the Draft in Puerto Rico, MLB has not been able to transform it into an international Draft. This has left Puerto Rico in a limbo state.

“The investment in Puerto Rico is not a cost-effective one for Major League teams and has lost charm for the recruiter. This reality is substantiated by the decrease in numbers of players selected through the Draft and active in the Major Leagues. For example, in 1989, 47 players were signed, compared to only 21 in 2003. This creates a domino effect, less players at the top, less enthusiasm at the base. In the same way, organizations like our winter league, which could be associated with Major League teams in order to strengthen its structure, have suffered from the post Draft limbo state. To sum up, it is not the Draft itself, it was the sudden way it was established and to have limited it to Puerto Rico that has affected the development of our baseball.

by Decatur on Jun 9, 2009 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions  

Time to drafterbate!

Realistically: Ackley! Scheppers! Baron! Bailey!

You got slurved!

Free Tommy Hanson! [FREED]! Free Jeff Clement! Free Michael Saunders!

by Slurvey on Jun 8, 2009 8:18 PM PDT reply actions  

Even at 27th?

You got slurved!

Free Tommy Hanson! [FREED]! Free Jeff Clement! Free Michael Saunders!

by Slurvey on Jun 8, 2009 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

He hurt both his rotator cuff and his labrum before the draft last year

Stuff-wise, yes, he’s amazing. However, with shaky command and those injuries, I’m running the hell away.

by Graham MacAree on Jun 8, 2009 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hmmm sounds like a reliever to me!

You got slurved!

Free Tommy Hanson! [FREED]! Free Jeff Clement! Free Michael Saunders!

by Slurvey on Jun 8, 2009 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'd still love to get a potential front-line guy at 27

For me, it’s more a question of bonus than health. Anyway, Keith Law seems to think Aaron Crow is falling and didn’t have him in the first round of his latest mock based on no one for sure wanting him.

I’d jump for joy if we get Ackley and one of Scheppers/Paxton/Crow/Purke/Gibson

by seattlebruin on Jun 8, 2009 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Why?

I only have a passing knowledge of most draft prospects not named Stephen, Grant, or Dustin, and in my view, Gipson, Paxton, Purke, and Scheppers have basically been interchangeable (“Top rated arm that also has some questions”). I could obviously use some education here, so I’m curious why you don’t like him.

by katal on Jun 8, 2009 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

Shoulder problems

Biggest red flag for future injuries in pitchers is past injuries.

by Graham MacAree on Jun 8, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

This should be in bold, in blinking text, in multiple languages.

The biggest predictor of future injuries in pitchers is not an inverted L, a sideways sigma or tendentious tendon. It is past injuries.

If you have a pitcher with ‘amazing mechanics’ but a history of arm trouble, well…. remember the Ryan Anderson Experience?

by marc w on Jun 8, 2009 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

Something amusing the other day:

Went something like ‘Since Scheppers has no mechanical flaws, his injury likely wasn’t caused by his pitching motion but by pitching at a high level for the first time. Therefore he shouldn’t be considered an injury risk.’

Marvelous.

by Graham MacAree on Jun 8, 2009 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

They make you look smarter and more trustworthy.

Allowing you to get more assistance from random strangers when you need it instead of them ignoring your pleas for help maneuvering in unfamiliar areas. Also, Chuck Norris once wore glasses. So did Jesus.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Jun 8, 2009 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

Well that sucks then

I hope he doesn’t go to Texas – he’d get to face us and Oakland all the time

by seattlebruin on Jun 9, 2009 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

BTW, I'll be kind of excited if we get him

he’s got a good arm. Yeah, it’s a lot more likely he flames out and never makes it to the bigs… but think of just how good he might be.

Of course, I’d rather have Purke anyway

by seattlebruin on Jun 9, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

The only thing that would make it better? If he's overweight with diabetes.

It would be nice if the M’s had some pitchers with original problems. Hey, a pitcher with hydrocephalus! Nothing funnier than a pitcher with a giant head

by Kermit. on Jun 9, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

How about a position player?

It's hard to convince people to let you eat them if you're an asshole. - Thingray

by Faux on Jun 9, 2009 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

STRASBURG!

You got slurved!

Free Tommy Hanson! [FREED]! Free Jeff Clement! Free Michael Saunders!

by Slurvey on Jun 8, 2009 8:19 PM PDT reply actions  

Crow or Matzek

Either one should make you angry though. This is as clear cut as #2 gets.

by Graham MacAree on Jun 8, 2009 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

I would do backflips if that were the case.

You got slurved!

Free Tommy Hanson! [FREED]! Free Jeff Clement! Free Michael Saunders!

by Slurvey on Jun 8, 2009 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

That seems as likely as Strasburg dropping to #2

Gibson and Purke are my hopes down there if we’re going for expensive pitching

by Graham MacAree on Jun 8, 2009 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

What is your opinion on Paxton?

I’m a fan of his, simply because I knew a lot of Paxtons growing up. — this is about the extent of my draft analysis. =/

It seems that with so many expensive arms floating around, at least one of them will drop to us. I’ll be very pleased with a set of Ackley + expensive pitcher + interesting HSer as our top three pics.

by katal on Jun 8, 2009 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

He's better than his results

I suspect that if we had tRA for college pitchers it’d be screaming that he’s massively underrated. He’d fit right in #25-35, but I’m hoping we can turn out #27 into more like a top-10 pitching talent. I like him though

by Graham MacAree on Jun 8, 2009 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

Tim Wheeler and Brett Jackson at 27th.

Baron is almost for sure the 33rd pick right now and his bat is a big question mark..

You got slurved!

Free Tommy Hanson! [FREED]! Free Jeff Clement! Free Michael Saunders!

by Slurvey on Jun 8, 2009 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Poythress might be interesting also.

If I had my druthers we’d go pitching there with a middle infielder with #33.

by Graham MacAree on Jun 8, 2009 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

I doubt Poythress falls that far...

…but if he does, he’s my pick. Unless Purke’s on the board, too. Poythress’d be less risky, I’d think, but Purke’s upside is sooo much higher.

This signature space for rent.

by PositivePaul on Jun 9, 2009 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think Piazza went in the 82nd round actually.

But that had to be almost a 1 in a million chance of finding someone like that.

by Fin on Jun 8, 2009 8:55 PM PDT reply actions  

Yes you are right.

Damn, I should check my facts before speaking.

by Fin on Jun 8, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

And the only reason he was drafted was as a courtesy

he’s Lasorda’s nephew and the Dodgers took him because Lasorda asked them to.

Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.

by pdb on Jun 9, 2009 7:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

Big day tomorrow.

Lots of talk about the importance of this draft for the organization. The mantra for this one is “we have to get this right.”

Can’t wait.

by ThundaPC on Jun 8, 2009 9:00 PM PDT reply actions  

I think Club Control is also valuable because of the disadvantages of Free Agency

Most players don’t reach free agency until the middle or end of their primes. Coupled with the fact that many free agents are paid for past performance (although clubs are definitely getting better about paying for projected performance), it’s difficult to get a bargain in free agency without taking advantage of an undervalued type of player. Whereas players under club control who make the majors are almost automatically profitable (as long as they can contribute even a little above replacement level).

by Milendriel on Jun 8, 2009 9:41 PM PDT reply actions  

Do you think the M's will take Baron or reach for Nick Franklin at 33?

Dave mentioned Franklin and I’d heard the Baron rumors before. If so, do you think it is a good idea to underpay those them at 33 in order to overpay a player who falls to 27 due to signability?

by Brian Floyd on Jun 8, 2009 10:20 PM PDT reply actions  

It depends who falls

If it’s Gibson or Purke I’d be fine with Baron at #33. We have to stay within our budget, after all. If we don’t get those two I’d switch gears and try to just go for slot at #27 and #33.

So yeah, it’s something they’ll have to choose on draft day.

by Graham MacAree on Jun 8, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thoughts on Franklin?

Seems like a huge reach at 33 but would he still be around at 51 if they’re in love with him? What’s he comparable to? Also what kind of budget are we looking at for those first four picks?

by Brian Floyd on Jun 8, 2009 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

Educated guess at a budget is somewhere in the $12-15 million range, but that's still just a guess

As for Franklin, it depends on how you much you trust his bat (much like Jio Mier, but to a lesser extent). If you think he can play short and hit like an average second baseman, by all means pop him at #33. Otherwise you’ll just have to hope he falls into your lap at #51.

by Graham MacAree on Jun 8, 2009 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

I hope Matt Purke is this year's Tim Melville

and we smartly grab him and pay him what he’s worth

by seattlebruin on Jun 8, 2009 11:45 PM PDT reply actions  

Thoughts on Ackley's Major league position?

I’ve heard anywhere from 1B to OF to potentially converting to 2B. Gammons today was talking about how he “flies” on the basepaths and could easily end up at 2B. I don’t know what one has to do with the other but I’m also not paid to cover baseball….

by Benjamin(not Ben) on Jun 8, 2009 11:53 PM PDT reply actions  

So then

2011 OF of Gutierrez/Ackley/Ichiro or do you see Franklin’s value diminished in a corner role?

by Benjamin(not Ben) on Jun 8, 2009 11:57 PM PDT reply actions  

Don't try predicting that far ahead with the draft. We have no idea what will happen.

Ackley could bust, Guti could lose his bat. We could have a Saunders/Ackley/Ichiro outfield for all I know.

Also, the reply button makes conversations much easier!

by Graham MacAree on Jun 9, 2009 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

Noted, then I should ask,

as opposed to a lineup projection. I should probably ask it a different way.

Does Ackley’s glove project to be good enough to justify letting Gutz walk or ask him to move to corner as opposed to sliding Ackley over to LF?

by Benjamin(not Ben) on Jun 9, 2009 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

I can't sleep.

I feel like a 5-year-old on Christmas Eve. I left out milk and cookies, hoping that Santa has a Dustin Ackley in his bag.

by Teej on Jun 9, 2009 12:19 AM PDT reply actions  

Hey now.

What a coincidence!

When Jack Zduriencik and Tom McNamara worked together in Milwaukee, they referred to the June amateur draft as “Christmas.”

“The presents were the players,” explained McNamara, in his first year as Seattle’s scouting director. “It’s a big day, and you can’t wait to start picking the players.”

by ThundaPC on Jun 9, 2009 1:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

T'is the night before Strasburg and all through the site

not a poster was posting, cept maybe Graham and his mouse

by Robert on Jun 9, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

I also dreamed Bryan Cranston was an adulterer/plastic surgeon who preformed surprise cosmetic surgery on the teens he wanted to sleep

He paid me 100 bucks a year to not tell his wife and I followed him around a Macy’s that had a lot of weird escalators.

by Robert on Jun 9, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

3:06

Or shortly after the Mariners take Tanner Scheppers with the #2 pick :-P

This signature space for rent.

by PositivePaul on Jun 9, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

This point of Graham's caught my eye:
Winning teams are almost never built on trades and free agents.

Undoubtedly true, of course. There’s one huge exception that comes to mind: the 2001 Mariners (of course, this is one of the most exceptional teams of all time, so it’s not a model)

Aaron Sele: High-profile (Type A?) FA
Paul Abbott: Scrap heap FA
John Halama: Randy trade
Freddy Garcia: Randy trade
Jaime Moyer: 1996 Darren Bragg (!) trade
Kazuhiro Sasaki: Japanese FA
Arthur Rhodes: FA coming off rough year
Jeff Nelson: high profile FA
Brett Tomko: Griffey trade
Norm Charlton: scrapheap FA

That leaves only three pitchers who pitched over 15 innings for us in 2001 were drafted or signed to their first contract by the M’s and were under club control – Ryan Franklin (0.5 WAR), Jose Paniagua (-0.3 WAR), and Joel Pineiro (1.5 WAR) (from Chone)

And for position players, only one of our five most valuable ones were develoepd in the M’s system and then retained (Boone was signed as a FA):
Mike Cameron: Griffey Trade
John Olerud: Type A FA
Brett Boone: FA
Ichiro: posted from Japanese club.
Edgar: only guy from system
David Bell: minor trade
Carlos Guillen: Randy trade
Mark Maclemore: Free agent
Dan Wilson: original 1994 Boone/Erik Hansen trade with Reds
Al Martin: Traded for Mabry
Stan Javier: Free Agent.

So, of all the players to have any impact whatsoever in 2001, only Jose Paniagua, Ryan Franklin, and Joel Pineiro were club controlled, and none of our position players were (only Edgar stayed with the club since signing his first pro contract with it).

Again, I think the draft is the cornerstone of almost any successful ballclub, of course. I just wanted to see how the 2001 M’s did it.

by Decatur on Jun 9, 2009 10:35 AM PDT reply actions  

Following the 2001 model off a cliff got us the team we have now

Yes, there are exceptions but holy crap don’t take those as the rule

by Graham MacAree on Jun 9, 2009 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, maybe I should've put a stronger exclaimer on it:

DON’T BUILD YOUR BALLCLUB LIKE THIS!

I just find it interesting seeing how the 116 win-club was constructed. My point was that we broke just about every rule for successful long-term roster construction and farm system construction in the early 2000s. That’s all.

by Decatur on Jun 9, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

By reading a game thread of your own volition you agree to accept all liability for any and all damage done to your delicate sensibilities.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Moar_bacon_small
Everything I Know About Jesus Montero

Recent FanPosts

Wbc_029_small
Friday Morning Music Thread
Small
OTDOD - Early February Edition
Agentejebaox3_small
A Statistical Analysis of Mariners' Fan Support
Small
Who will have a better season?
Claw_small
BA's Top 10 M's Prospects
Wbc_029_small
Friday Morning Music Thread
Small
Munenori Kawasaki Predictions!!!
Small
The Longevity and Future Success of Felix Hernandez.
Small
The present vs future conundrum

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Sexy People

Wbc_029_small Jeff Sullivan

Small Matthew