Referencing the draft money pool, did they skip out on any higher rated prospects due to signability issues, or miss out on signing anyone they drafted? If not, I don't see why spending less is a bad thing if they still got all the players they wanted. They would just have been throwing money away for no reason.
I like Appel and Thurman a lot as the top two draft picks. Astros signed top 14 picks. I never saw these guys or any other guys as cost cutting picks...even the ones I didn't like. The Astros drafted a lot of college guys, but for the most part these guys didn't seem like reaches. The Astros didn't get a Ruiz later in the draft, but I also think the Astros had a lot less of an idea of what they would sign Appel for than Correa. I can see an argument for the International signings being a canary, but not the 2013 Draft.
The largest building in the works for the CBD is a 50 story building on the north side. A couple of developments...one by Hines, would put a 33 story building adjacent to market square park. Will be visible at MMP. and then the 7 story Condos developed by the Fingers Co across from MMP.
Under the new CBA significantly more HS players either fall in the draft or do not sign because of signability issues. I'm not privy to the Astros' draft board to know who they rated where or might have skipped out on, other than what has been publicity released. We know they liked Wil Crowe (who was rated a ~ top 3 round talent by the Mayos, Law's, BA's and PG's of the world) enough to try and negotiate a seven-figure bonus in the 10th before ultimately passing on him due to signability. And of course we know that a number of players from third-party consensus lists fell or were not signed due to signability. So I'm not sure how to answer that question other than to say it's inconceivable to me that the Astros couldn't have found players to profitably invest their money in. The draft is an artificial market, with artificial spending limits, which historically has led to significant returns on investment even in later rounds. In the open market a win is worth about $4-5 million dollars, so it wouldn't take much to get a profitable return on 1.2 million draft dollars. I think that's reflected in the soaring bonus figures given out prior to the new CBA and the fact that almost all teams currently spend all of their bonus allotments in the new CBA. The Astros signed all their top picks, but we know from the 2012 draft (McCullers, Ruiz, Virant, Hinojosa, etc) that how much you have to spend is in some cases more important than where you pick. Under the new draft rules, not using 1.2 million draft dollars is the equivalent of not signing a late-first round pick, only worse. If you don't sign a 1st round pick at least you get that pick and the slot amount back next year; if you don't use your slot allotment, you can never spend that money in the draft again. Now, I don't know why the Astros did not use their full slot allotment. Maybe it's a completely innocuous reason; or may be they just misread the market; or one of their later unsigned picks backed out of an above-slot deal, or maybe it was overall budget reasons. I think just think it's troubling, particularly if it's the latter. I agree on Appel and Thurman, though I disagree that they didn't have a clear idea of the ballpark Appel would sign for before they drafted him. But, even if they didn't have a clear idea, they still should have had a contingency plan in place (like with Virant and Hinojosa last year) in case extra money gets freed up. I'm not saying they should have drafted X instead of Thurman, or Emmanuel or any other top 10/20 round draft pick. I'm saying, at the very least they should have found a way to use to money to draft prospects instead of some of the org and nepotism/PR picks (Clemens) in rounds 20-40. Not using that money is a mistake on par with not signing a first round pick. But if it was strategic or just a mistake, whatever, they don't deserve to be crucified over it. If it's evidence that the owner is trying to penny-pinch on the long-term success of the club, then it's a much bigger problem imo.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Forbes statement (1 of 3): FORBES is confident in its estimates of the Astros revenues and operating income ....</p>— Reid Laymance (@ReidLaymance) <a href="https://twitter.com/ReidLaymance/statuses/372416302364626945">August 27, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Forbes statement (2 of 3)earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization), based on its research of the underlying figures.</p>— Reid Laymance (@ReidLaymance) <a href="https://twitter.com/ReidLaymance/statuses/372416555927093248">August 27, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Forbes statement (3 of 3): FORBES contacted the Astros several times before publishing the story yesterday, but did not receive a response.</p>— Reid Laymance (@ReidLaymance) <a href="https://twitter.com/ReidLaymance/statuses/372416727067275264">August 27, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Our remaining pool was $877,300. The notoriously cheap Boston Red Sox left $590,300. Last year the Yankees left $406,300. 19 teams didn't use their entire slot in 2013. I don't understand the desire to overpay talent. If you have a $1M, but you think a guy is worth $100K, should you give it to him just to get him signed? I don't think so. If you are willing to overpay like that, how often before every agent is trying to be that guy with you?
Say whaaaat? He has a draft salary pool that he didn't exceed. How much he paid McCullers is meaningless to that. He overpaid the slot because McCullers had leverage. Again, he didnt exceed the pool. Scouting Correa because he's from Puerto Rico? That's a $700 round trip flight. Are you kidding me? This team has sub $20 million payroll and you're talking about costly scouting? Oh my...
Yuck. A response to the response. Does crane counter again? Would really like this team to be left alone...until they are good again.
That all presupposes that the Astros passed on players because they valued them at only 100K or so and didn't want to overpay. I find it hard to believe that the Astros didn't see at least minimal value in the numerous top 100 type HS players who fell because of signability. Public information tells that draft picks have been historically undervalued as a whole. Historically the average value of a second or third round pick is around 3 WAR. see http://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/war4.gif We know that the value of a win above replacement is around $4-5 million on the open market. It doesn't take much to realize that in an artificial market with artificial spending limits that draft picks are almost universally undervalued and underpaid. Second, the Astros with the possibility of going 5% over the cap, left somewhere around $1.4 million on the table. That was about the equivalent of a competitive type A pick slot in the supplemental first round. The Red Sox and Yankees aren't comparable. The Red Sox left money on the table (though about 600,00 less than the Astros with overage included), but it wasn't due to lack of trying. They drafted and went after above slot late round picks like Justin Sheffield and Ryan Boldt. The Yankees were under slot last year due to their first round pick, Ty Hensley, failing his physical and having to accept a reduced bonus at the last minute. But yes, to the extend that those clubs left unused money on the table, it was a mistake in execution and I think they'd tell you that. The Red Sox and Yankees also aren't asking fans to sit patiently through three 100-loss seasons and a $13 million MLB payroll, while also leaving the equivalent of 1st round pick money unused in the draft. Lastly, the argument about not wanting to overpay picks is the exact same argument some people put forth to defend McClane/Purpura when they didn't sign any of their 2007 picks. "Why should they overpay for draft picks if they only value them at $XXXX.XX?" Of course, this argument ignored (and ignores) the mountain of publicity available evidence that draft picks are enormously undervalued and underpaid.
Not signing is completely different. That is on the organization for not being able to gauge signability. I hope you realize how flawed average WAR is with draft picks. It isn't remotely that simple because the worst players will end up as zero WAR, not negative WAR (because they won't reach the majors). You could have 9 guys never make the majors, and one post a WAR of 10, and you'd get an average of 2 WAR. Then you have to factor in their salaries over their careers to get that WAR. Not just their signing bonus.
They could have, but maybe they didn't see a talent they wanted at a price they wanted. The Astros went above slot with Nicely & German, so I'm not sure you can say they didn't try. So for them you think it was a mistake in education, but for the Astros it was being cheap. Even though they went into the penalty last year, but because they didn't this year.
You're absolutely right that a real analysis would consider other relevant factors. But that would only matter at the margins. So in your scenario the average would be one WAR? In that scenario the 10 WAR player would be worth $50 million and would be paid $10 million in salary? 15 million? (factoring in 3+ years of min salaries, plus 3 years of below market arbitration salaries-not counting salaries or WAR after Free Agency). The nine other would be paid zero in salary. So with a surplus value of $35 million of so and 500k bonus, you're looking at the difference between something like 700% roi from his bonus to a 400% roi. It matters at the margins, but it still doesn't change the fact that as a whole draft picks are severely underpaid. That also doesn't consider the fact that through his first 3+ years, you're paying that 10 WAR player the exact same salary that you would pay a replacement level player if you didn't sign him. If you don't want to consider the WAR argument, just look at what comparable amateur prospects got on the open market. Jorge Soler, a good but not other worldly prospect, got 30 million dollars. Puig who was thought of at the time as a only a decent prospect got over $50 million. When Boras was able to get Travis Lee declared a free agent back in 1996, he signed for a then-record $10 million or five times what the #1 overall pick got that year (who was drafted ahead of Lee).
I think I was clear in my first posts that I don't know why they left 1.4 million on the table. It could have been a mistake in execution; it could have been that a draftee reneged on an above slot deal and decided to go to college instead; it could have been penny-pinching; or I guess it could have been, like you said, that they didn't see any value in the players that fell and didn't want to overpay. Although I think the last scenario is by far the most unrealistic. The two points I was trying make are 1) the Astros' recent failure to spend their full slot allotments in the 13 draft and 12-13 intl period is troubling, and may (although I hope it doesn't) foreshadow larger budgetary problems; and 2) that the Astros leaving the equivalent of a 1st round pick on the table last draft was a major mistake. On the second point I'd also say that people make a big deal about signing draft picks, as they should, but I'd argue that the Astros' failure to spend that 1.4 million is worse that failing to sign an equivalent draft pick because, unlike rules that give compensation picks for unsigned top 3 round picks, the Astros will never be able to spend that unused money in the draft ever again. When the Diamondback failed to sign their 1st round pick in 2010, they were able to sign Archie Bradley at #7 the next year. When the Pirates failed to sign Appel, at least they were given the opportunity and slot allotment needed to sign Austin Meadows this year. When the Astros fail to spend 1.4 million in slot room, it doesn't roll over into next year's draft cap; it's an opportunity that's gone forever.
They would still all receive signing bonuses and costs in developing them to be nothing. Then you've got to wait. You are still being to simplistic and forcing there to be too many assumptions. You've also had the international free market for years and a draft market for years that had no caps. You didn't see the insane dollars then either. Spending on the draft has gone up in the new system.
Draft bonuses went down about 10% from 2011 to the new rules in 2012. And this is when revenue and tv dollars were just beginning to explode in the game. Also the draft wasn't an open market before the new rules. If you want to get a sense how much it's undervalued compared to the open market look at direct comparables. Look at Travis Lee in 96. That's the perfect example. You saw international spending on July 2 prospects go drastically up the last few years before the new rules as teams realized how undervalued they were. That's why you saw guys like Ronald Guzman get 5-6 million dollar bonuses when they wouldn't even be first round picks in the draft. Thats why you saw guy like Soler and Puig, who would have been first round picks, get mid-eight figure deals.
Most teams don't. Including the much-lauded big spenders already mentioned above. But it's completely relevant to the conversation. When necessary, dude paid to get his guy. Am I the only one forgetting the Drew Stubbs fiasco, and the other unsigned draftees from the end of the Drayton era? Again, that's immaterial in the grand scheme of things. Are you kidding me? This team has a sub-$20MM payroll and you're b****ing about $800K in draft pool not spent--when they signed all their top picks? And if you're just going to mention one $700 plane ticket and pretend that the significant expansion they've done in international scouting and signing is inexpensive, then carry on pretending. Dude has been cheap in only one front: the ML salary. And, he *said* he would be until the depth structure beneath the team was worth a damn and sustainable. Two years from now, when all these young'ns are making noise and it's going to be time for some of them to get paid, we shall see if Crane is cheap. When there is a solid core and a good FA or two could possibly propel this team into contention, we shall see if Crane is cheap. Until then, throwing around "cheapskate" is premature.
