I'm not so sure this will work too well this year. Other teams are already puffing up their feathers that they will draft BPA regardless of "sign-ability" this year. If a player doesn't sign, the other team will just get a pick next year. After the Astros took all the heat for Aiken not signing, the Cubs could easily be hailed as being smart financially by not caving to the demands of a no-good teenage who thinks he's worth 20% more than slot.
Really what happens is there are 60 prospects who think they should go in the 1st round. And they will want 1st round money. So you have 25 or so guys who believe they are worth more and still have the option to go to college to squeeze every nickle they can. Then you get to the 2nd round and you have another 75 guys who believe they are at least going to get drafted there. I don't think people are drafting lesser talents in the 1st round as much as those guys who have a perception they are worth more than teams have money to afford. We are talking about top 3 round quality baseball talents. That if the Astros get some solid comitments in their 2nd and 5th selection, the Astros could lure some HS player to forego College to be paid well with the subsequent picks. This is the MLB draft where every college player prospect you read about was probably drafted already but late in the rounds. So I think it is quite possible to reel in some top notch prospects with savings in the draft pool. Also, per my understanding, the perception this is a weak draft is that guys getting billed as top 3 in this draft would be going in the 8-12 in other drafts. It is not a top heavy draft. But good for teams picking later.
If teams before Astros aren't drafting lesser talents, it makes no sense in taking a guy with 2nd round talent in the 2nd round and pay him mid first round money so he can forego college. Just take the equally talented HS guy with no signing concerns or an equally talented college guy. Saving money on early picks only works if you can get teams to pass on talent due to signing concerns. With a "strong" draft next year, there is an incentive for teams to draft guys with signing concerns in this year's "weak" draft. Other teams could just be puffing smoke. However, if ever a team could play hardball with a draft pick without risk of a PR nightmare, this is the year.
Good article about a few draft trends and the uselessness of mock drafts: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2...ions-more-pitching-and-high-school-prospects/
I'm still trying to learn baseball so forgive me for the noob question, but why do people keep mocking Rodgers to us if we already have Correa? Is it because people see Correa as more of a 3B in the majors?
You don't really draft for need in baseball, with the exception of general skills. The Stros system was self-admittedly weak with corner power bats so you saw them have a focus on that in the early rounds with Fisher, Reed and Davis. If, for example, your system is weak in LHP or up the middle defense you might see a team draft that with several top 10 round picks. You can always trade young talent to plug an area of weakness (that was Hunsicker's strategy for years, "develop pitching, trade for hitting"). You can always move players, especially shortstops, to another position. The Stros had a pretty good 1Bman when they drafted Berkman.
Generally people say not to draft for organizational need because in general it takes anywhere from 3-5 years for a prospect to make it to the big leagues. Thus the organizational needs could look far different later on. If (knocks on wood) Correa were to suffer a career ending injury the day after the draft, the Astros would still have a top-flight SS prospect.
It may not be obvious, but the MLB draft is very different than the NFL or NBA drafts. MLB draftees usually have 3-5 years of development before they are ready for to play in MLB. After all of those years, playing meaningful time in the MLB is far from guaranteed. Even these high first round picks have less than a 50% chance of making it. Right now, Correa looks like a sure thing while Appel not so much. Of course 10 years from now, their fortunes could be switched.
Stat I saw in that grantland article: 70% of first round picks make the bigs, but only 40% have careers longer than 3 years.
And hopefully baseball is smart enough to point out that MLB is truly filled by uniquely gifted athletes that mesh natural talent with the right frame of mind. You cant have one without the other. this is not the NBA where high school athletes can dominate within two years. Or the NFL where a guy can become the MVP candidate his rookie year. Baseball is like martial arts, it involves a mastery of the form. And then they move up. Of course there is politics involved that leads guys getting advanced unfairly compared to their peers. But the great equalizer is the next level, because if you don't have it, you will just exponentialy pad your opponents stats.
Indeed. There have been good articles on the MLB draft showing just how difficult it is. We have high expectations, but the reality is most will fail.
For picks 2 and 5, I'm not sure "most will fail" applies. I think that would usually apply to picks after maybe picks 10 or 15 depending on the year.
Going back to 2000, the 2005 draft is the only one I can find where most didn't fail. Typically only 2 or 3 of the top 10 became really good big league players. I was surprised myself that the fail ratio for top 10 picks is as high as it is. Virtually all of them get to the show, but most end up nothing more than fringe players.
I guess it just depends on what you consider failing. Picks 2 & 5 2014 - Tyler Kolek, Nick Gordon 2013 - Kris Bryant, Clint Frazier 2012 - Byron Buxton, Kyle Zimmer 2011 - Danny Hultzen, Bubba Starling 2010 - Jameson Taillon, Drew Pomeranz 2009 - Dustin Ackley, Matt Hobgood 2008 - Pedro Alvarez, Buster Posey 2007 - Mike Moustakas, Matt Wieters 2006 - Greg Reynolds, Brandon Morrow 2005 - Alex Gordon, Ryan Braun 2004 - Justin Verlander, Mark Rogers 2003 - Rickie Weeks, Chris Lubanski 2002 - BJ Upton, Clint Everts 2001 - Mark Prior, Mark Teixeira 2000 - Adam Johnson, Justin Wayne You've got a handful of bonafide stars (with potentially guys like Bryant and Buxton added) in 15 years. Most of them are guys who made the big leagues but weren't really impact players. Then there's 5-10 who never even made the bigs. Unless your definition of success for a top 5 pick is simply making the bigs, I'd have to agree that most do fail.
Haha yup. Hell, I'd gladly "settle" for a year like 2004 and only really nail one of the picks. I'd probably jump off a cliff if we have a 2000 return.
I would not make being a really good big leaguer the criterium for determining if a draft pick is a failure. 2 WAR over club control years is useful.
