I'm pretty busy right now and breaking down Day 3 of the draft will take some time. I will try to catch up with it this weekend and maybe a summary of the draft as a whole.
I'll just say that I think the Giants did just fine in the draft and Day 3 was not nearly as bad as some doomsayers are making it out to be.
Don't get your dauber down!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
OK, all you naysayers who think the Giants did a terrible job of drafting. Matt Grabusky(I always get his name confused with Matt Garrioch, sorry), did an exercise where he took the top 500 pre-draft ranked players and the top 500 draft picks and assigned a value of 500 for #1 and 1 for #500 with 0 for unranked players. He then divided the draft position score by the pre-draft score. Guess who came out #2 in the rankings! If you guessed the Giants, you get an A for the test!!
ReplyDeleteOK, naysayers, what do you have to say to that!
Look it up for yourself on MLB Draft Guide linked over on the left.
didnt we all say that the org had to restock on pitching?
Deletethat is what they did
He says not to take it seriously, it was just a fun exercise. No one is going to rank the Nationals draft last (they took Lucas Giolito) and the Angels one as the best. Its a fun exercise thats all not a fact. Giants draft gets a C- for me but that can change in 2-4 years to an A or D if the one these draftees reach the bigs and becomes a solid player, it only takes one player out of each draft in my opinion for the team to have a successful draft that year. Another option is if you can acquire major leaguers via trading the guys from that years draft. Example, the 2004 Giants draft I will rated as an A***, why? The Giants produced a solid MLB starter in Jonathan Sanchez for about 3years and was crucial in the 2010 run to the WS, then they traded him for one of the best OF in baseball right now (Melky Cabrera). In that same draft, they produced John Bowker whom they traded to Pittsburgh for Javier Lopez, another crucial player in the 2010 WS. So if the Giants can get Stratton or Agosta or another player to be a solid MLB even for 3-4 years or trade chips, to me that makes an A* grade.
ReplyDeleteLet's see if Giolito signs and if he stays healthy before we give the Nationals too much credit for this draft. If the Nats punted all their subsequent picks so they can sign Giolito, what happens if he ends up not signing or geting hurt? Taking a risk like that gets the testosterone flowing, but it has a large chance of backfiring too. I think it's very possible that the Angels got more value out of their picks than the Nats got out of theirs.
DeleteIs he saying that everyone but the Angel's draft suck? I would love to see the same analysis done for the past few years to see the impact of the new CBA.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that when you divide by the 'pre-draft' score, you are measuring it relative to where you are in the draft order.
DeleteIt's fun, the way I see it, mainly because player ranks are just that - fun, as no one really knows how most, if not all, of them will turn out in a few years.
If you are drafting at #20 and take the #20 ranked player, you are even steven. If your first pick is #83 and you get the #83 ranked player, you are still even steven. It's about what you do with the resources you have to work with. Yes, I think the Angels did very well with the draft resources they were working with. I think the Giants did too.
DeleteWhat Grabusky's list tells me is that a lot of teams decided to punt their rounds 2-6 picks in order to afford a HS player or Boras client in round 1. Is there a reasonable argument for that strategy? Yes there is. On the other hand, there is also a reasonable argument for trying to get value in the lower single digit rounds because the Giants have had some success with that very same strategy in the past.
As chief naysayer on your blog yesterday, lets chop this up a little instead of laying down battle lines, please! I viewed yesterdays picks as a waste of time. Now I'll go back and evaluate the draft as a whole. You had a post entitled "3rd day discussion". Fla-Giants post was entitled "knee jerk analysis", and that became the 3rd day discussion on MCC. Seizing on what was being said there as the critique of the draft as a whole is ignoring the big picture. If you don't want to be bothered with the 3rd day results, then why throw up a post on it in the first place?
ReplyDeleteMatt's exercise covered the first 6 rounds of the draft. It's meant to be fun. As a fair amount of teams were punting picks 4-6 rounds (Sox, Toronto, Yanks off the top of my head), grains of salt need to be applied. He likes Mac Williamson a lot, and that helped as well. I like our first 3 picks a bunch. After that, it gets a little shaky.
To my reading, Fla-Giant was trashing the entire draft. If I took that wrong, then I apologize, but that's how it came across to me.
DeleteI am, in fact, interested in the day 3 results because I think it's fun to look at who was picked and see if we can figure out who might be a diamond in the rough which is why I "threw up a post on it." That's a whole lot different than expecting a run on all those 5 tool prospects out there who are going to sign for $100 K.
Day 3 is where teams draft organizational filler while at the same time looking for guys who might have an overlooked talent that might allow them to break out of the pack once they are signed and start playing games. I see no reason to believe that there are any fewer of those in this year's day 3 than any other day 3.
You also have to remember that the rules do demand a change in strategy. They simply do not allow teams to draft a HS kid in round 34 and then persuade him to sign for $250 K. If you don't believe the kid will sign for $100K or less, there is no point in wasting the pick.
One of the issues posed by the McC crowd is why did the Giants wait until the late 30's to start drafting the HS and JC kids, after presumably drafting a multitude of org fillers? If you believe that you can sign these kids, you would draft them earlier, say the late teens. Otherwise, why even draft them at all unless you decided that you have enough org fillers, and that you can afford to waste the picks. BTW, my personal belief is that you don't need to draft 20+ org fillers. There shouldn't be that many roster openings to begin with, and you can always get them from the independent league (e.g Linden). After round 20 or so, go ahead and take a lot of kids who might not sign. If they don't, you won't lose much. (Is there a penalty for not signing the 10-40 rounders? - I know you cannot use the money on the other picks).
DeleteOnce you get past round 10, there is absolutely no advantage to drafting a HS kid any earlier than round 40. You can offer the #40 pick $100 K to sign just like you can offer #11. No more, no less.
DeleteBut you risk losing him to another team. Why draft org fillers ahead of non-org fillers (HS or JC) if you think there is a chance of signing him.
DeleteThe point is, you are not going to get much of a HS player for a $100 K bonus. There is really no more upside to a kid like that than a crazy wild college reliever who hits 95 on the radar gun. The whole notion that there are all these magical HS kids out there who are going to turn into phenoms who are going to sign for $100 K is pretty much a fantasy. There are sleepers who come out of college too: Romo and Jonathan Sanchez are two excellent examples.
DeleteOK. You know I wasn't expecting 5-tool talent in the 16-40. You also know I'm not expecting an overdraft signing for 250K, and you know I'm aware of the new CBA rules.
DeleteWhat we got was an extremely conservative 3rd day, with a couple bright spots. 13 seniors interrupted once by my lefty from Kentucky. Then to tilt the odds a bit, or throw a bone to draftniks, 2 JC guys and 4 HS guys they have no intention of signing beyond a quick lowball take it or leave it offer. I would be extremely surprised if there is an offer above 25K in the 16-40. I would expect a lot of 5-10K signings, and actually a lot of non-signings. So it goes. Very uninspiring.
I'm sifting through a review of OFs, they made some interesting picks. Shayne Houck from Kutztown (Vogelsong's alma mater) was PSAC ROY as well as PSAC reigning MVP for the past 2 years, as well as 2010 Atlantic Region Player of the Year. The LA-Monroe guys are actually interesting. Our #12 pick SS Jeremey Sy was the Sun Belt Conference player of the year.
That doesn't mean the Giants aren't being conservative and cheap though. More on that another time.
DrB:
DeleteI specifically used your term "org-filler" to indicate that there is a very small chance that these players will become a Sanchez or Wilson. It's the sequence of drafting college players until the last 6 picks that is causing the controversy. I guess it is plausible that the Giants thinks that all of the useful players are gone by the time they drafted in the 35th round.
It is fascinating how this is playing out. The initial signings appear to be slightly below slot for the top rounds, and ridiculously low bonus in the later rounds. I check back at last year's bonuses, and around $100K is what many 7th round and later got. So a $100K bonus is nothing to sneeze at. The slot for 6th round is only around $150K. Unless the kid is sure that he'll end up in 5th or higher, he might be better off taking the $100K. With the $5K/$50K numbers being signed by top 10 round draftees, I think more HS will sign than expected.
More checking on prior numbers - Chuckie got $125K, Kentrill Hill for $100, and Derek Law got $125. Is the rule $100K max for each of the 10th round and later, or $100K total for the remaining 30 rounds? If it is $100K each, signing HS's shouldn't really be a big problem.
Anon #1 (yes, I was the first anon to post on this blog when you first started it)
Anon #1, I am picking up what you are putting down. Thank you for articulating some of the rage I feel towards the Giants epic phone in on day 3.
DeleteI posted up a review of the OF picks on the McCronic. Upon reflection, it is more interesting than I first thought. But it doesn't change my criticism of the Giants ho-hum draft strategy.
Rage? Really? Wow! Rage is a very strong term for something that has never amounted to enough in any draft to have any type of expectations for. You listed several interesting players you found while sifting through the detritus. Why not just be thankful for interesting players since that is all you are ever going to get in rounds 16-40 anyway? Man, I appreciate the passion here, but rage is a really over-the-top response to the back end of this or any draft.
DeleteOK, I'll choose my words more carefully. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
DeleteI see you checked out Sickels' review of the NL West teams' drafts. Seems like his take is a bit closer to mine than yours and Fla-Giant's, huh?
DeleteCouple of very broad, maybe obvious, observations about the draft, the Giants and the board reactions.
ReplyDelete1. Giants were pretty clearly covering their butts for the Beltran trade. All the assurances that the system could absorb the loss of Wheeler was smoke. Had to do it. Very easy to see the Giants with 2 pitchers from the current rotation in 2014. They needed arms.
2. Giants played things very, very conservatively under the new rules. Back-end draft position helped that stance. But it's pretty clear in 4-10, Giants were hanging back, working for signability and pitching need. Not going to get burned with slot issues and penalties. They are staying low, watching how other teams are going to deal with slot challenges.
3. This makes for an uninspiring draft. I LOVED the 2011 draft. I still do. Because I felt like a gambler. Osich in the 6th round. What if??? Orepresa in the 3rd. That dream of a monster stick finally developing in the system. Even Crick felt like a steal. Susac too. And, of course, everyone loves the Blackburn bonus. And the dice are still tumbling on these guys. A lot less fun going vanilla this year. But, as Doc points out, if 3 of these pitchers are solid contributors to the staff in 2015, we're going to feel very differently about this draft. And that's a very real possibility.
Part of what the Giants do is try to lock in inexpensive quality pitching. And this was the workman approach to that. And sitting on the sidelines (to some extent) while trying to assess the new dynamic of the new draft rules.
This is a quiet learning year. But I don't think it's a throwaway draft. It's just not sparkly and dream-inspiring like 2011.
That's a fair analysis. Just remember that this draft never had the potential to be sparkly and dream-inspiring because the rules clearly are designed to suppress those kinds of drafts. There is no way the Giants would have drafted 2011 the same way had these rules been in place at the time.
DeleteA BA article quoted a ML exec saying that the new rules are going to make college baseball alot better the next 2 years. Hawaii didn't lose a single recruit to the draft for the 1st time in coach Trap's era.. Its not like Coach Trap recruits high draft picks either, he goes for mid level recruits projected between rounds 10-20.. Teams were willing to dish out the bonuses in excess of $100K to buy out mid level recruits from going to school too.. I'm interested to find out if the major college baseball programs were hit as hard from the draft this year. I'm a little torn about this being a fan of both college and pro baseball, but as OGC points out the odds are against draft picks of making the major leagues, so if the rules encourage more kids to go to school and play college baseball, I think its a good thing.
DeleteOn a side note, Breland Almadova signed with the DBACKS, he was their 37th round pick.. Good luck to him!
LG
I wonder if MLB will make a rule for next year to prevent 5k signing bonus seniors in rounds the first 10 rounds.
ReplyDeleteI propose that a rule be put in place that states, "No player drafted after the 10th round can be paid a higher bonus than any 1-10 round guy." this would have the best players selected in the top 10 rounds and stop this BS of tryIng to outsmart the system. Honestly, a 10th round selection should get a better bonus than a 32nd rounder and this rule would achieve that. Just my idea of how to fix the draft for next year and make being drafted early mean something special again.
PS I hope that some seniors that got drafted early have some pride and play hard ball to get as much money as they can.
Well the new CBA is a 4 year contract. In order to change the rules, they would have to re-negotiate and sign an addendum outside the normal negotiating window. That rarely, if ever, happens.
DeleteI do think the slot bonuses for the first 5-10 picks are too high and should be spread out farther down in the draft.
Seniors can't play hardball. They have no option to fall back on except possibly indy ball. Maybe the new rules will be a boon to indy ball leagues?