Cheaping Out on the Draft Talent

[Piggiestomatoes]

The Mets spent less on the first ten rounds of the draft than any other major league team. Cash problems or did we just not like the unsigned talent?

From Baseball America...

[MFS62]

It will take a few years to find out if they got what they paid for.

Later

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yeah, we're already discussing that in another thread.

[Piggiestomatoes]

Oops.

[Guest Kong76]

Is there a list available anywhere of who spent what and the results over the
last decade? My guess is that list would create a lot of chuckles.

More chuckles than the Mets cheaped out and Brooklyn Fred took it up the ying
yang by Maddof and us fans gonna suffer. Or whatever.

[Guest Edgy DC]

It's great that the Nats spent $10,869,500 on bonuses but $7.5 million went to their number-one overall pick, $1.6 million to their number-ten overall pick, and $705,500 to their number 50 overall pick. That's $9,805,500 spent before the Mets were even allowed to enter the store.

[nymr83]

="Edgy DC":104ehcqo]It's great that the Nats spent $10,869,500 on bonuses but $7.5 million went to their number-one overall pick, $1.6 million to their number-ten overall pick, and $705,500 to their number 50 overall pick. That's $9,805,500 spent before the Mets were even allowed to enter the store.[/quote:104ehcqo] which is exactly why that chart means next to nothing for judging a franchise's alleged "cheapness"

Frayed Knot Aug 19 2009 09:25 PM

The other notion that's off in this whole insta-analysis thing is the one where the picks who were paid extra money are somehow automatically assumed to be better players. It's kind of like the Donald Trump philosophy of saying; 'this thing I just bought must be of the highest quality, look how much I paid for it'. I mean it's nice that the Yanquis paid top dollar for their 44th round draft pick - although I have no idea if he's worth it or why, if he's so good, 30 teams decided to pass on him 43 times each. Three drafts back the Yanx spent a 30th round pick on Andrew Brackman - a 6' 10" Tar Heel hoops player/pitcher. He had pitched very little in college since he was committed to playing basketball and he also pre-needed TJ surgery before he could even start a pro career, but they still had to pay him some huge amount to buy him out of any hard-court dreams and turn him towards a baseball diamond. Now it's two+ years later and he's just starting out in low-A ball even though he's nearing birthday # 24. And, oh yeah, he's getting bombed regularly! I mean we're talking a 1-12 record; a near-7 ERA; 1.7 WHiP, and I recently read a report saying scouts can find nothing good to say about him now that they've finally got to see him throw. Now I suppose there's still hope and maybe his promise and his build and athleticism will take over at some point when the surgery is far enough in the rear-view mirror, but is that something you would bet on or consider a good risk for a ton of cash? The funny part is, for the better part of a decade, it was the Yanx who were considered to be ultra-conservative in the draft at the same time they were dumping tons of money on every high-ceiling kid they could find in the Carribbean. They ultimately found that to be a very expensive and very inefficient way of doing business.

MFS62 Aug 19 2009 09:26 PM

="Edgy DC":olxsmewq]Yeah, we're already discussing that in another thread.[/quote:olxsmewq] I think this chart would be a welcome addition to the discussion in that other thread. Please do the cut and paste mod honors so the others can have their way with it. Later

[Frayed Knot]

The other notion that's off in this whole insta-analysis thing is the one where the picks who were paid extra money are somehow automatically assumed to be better players. It's kind of like the Donald Trump philosophy of saying; 'this thing I just bought must be of the highest quality, look how much I paid for it'.
I mean it's nice that the Yanquis paid top dollar for their 44th round draft pick - although I have no idea if he's worth it or why, if he's so good, 30 teams decided to pass on him 43 times each.

Three drafts back the Yanx spent a 30th round pick on Andrew Brackman - a 6' 10" Tar Heel hoops player/pitcher. He had pitched very little in college since he was committed to playing basketball and he also pre-needed TJ surgery before he could even start a pro career, but they still had to pay him some huge amount to buy him out of any hard-court dreams and turn him towards a baseball diamond.

Now it's two+ years later and he's just starting out in low-A ball even though he's nearing birthday # 24. And, oh yeah, he's getting bombed regularly! I mean we're talking a 1-12 record; a near-7 ERA; 1.7 WHiP, and I recently read a report saying scouts can find nothing good to say about him now that they've finally got to see him throw.
Now I suppose there's still hope and maybe his promise and his build and athleticism will take over at some point when the surgery is far enough in the rear-view mirror, but is that something you would bet on or consider a good risk for a ton of cash?

The funny part is, for the better part of a decade, it was the Yanx who were considered to be ultra-conservative in the draft at the same time they were dumping tons of money on every high-ceiling kid they could find in the Carribbean. They ultimately found that to be a very expensive and very inefficient way of doing business.

[MFS62]

="Edgy DC":olxsmewq]Yeah, we're already discussing that in another thread.[/quote:olxsmewq] I think this chart would be a welcome addition to the discussion in that other thread. Please do the cut and paste mod honors so the others can have their way with it. Later