Comments on: Slugging Shortstops and Home-Field Advantage

By: Tom Waits

Tom Waits — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:36:12 +0000

BA reports there’s zero chance we sign Toledo. MadFriars reports the same, and further that there’s almost no shot at getting Colon or Pelzer under contract. We’ve already passed on Ovens. Which means that in a draft class loaded with HS talent, we’ll end up signing 2 high school players of the 9 we selected.

The odds of any drafted player, HS or college, making the majors is slim. But those odds go to absolute zero when you don’t sign them.

I wonder if any of the local writers will run a story about how to turn 10 million into 7 million. This is just an estimate, subject to correction, but based on published reports Toledo, Pelzer, and Ovens together would have been looking for less than 1 million.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: LynchMob

LynchMob — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:03:24 +0000

148 … bingo … I’m very confident that if you asked Fuson directly / specifically about the ranking of Porcello vs Schmidt on “talent” / “physical ability” that he’d concede that category to Porcello … and I agree with the “zero intention”, since he had made his salary demands clear and the Padres have a clear position on following the slot guidelines …

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Tom Waits

Tom Waits — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:52:09 +0000

141: Before he threw in 2007, Porcello and Harvey were mentioned in the same breath. Harvey, another guy we could have popped, btw. A team that scouted him heavily might move him up and down depending on how well he did the last time he saw him vs how well the other prospects in his range did, even on which scout saw him. An area scout could see him 5 times and be hot for him, then the cross-checker comes in when Porcello throws a couple of 55 foot curveballs and his grade goes down.

Early in the process you might not have a strict board, but pools or bands, like “guys we love” and “guys we like” and “guys we’re not touching.” But on draft day, there’s not a grab bag. I’d more readily believe that Porcello wasn’t on the Padres list because they had zero intention of picking him than that he was ranked below Schmidt on physical ability.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: LynchMob

LynchMob — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:37:10 +0000

142/107 … yes, thanks for the translation, Eric … I wonder if the “Munk” in “Munk shoot” is really “Monk” which is a variation on “Padre” / “Friar”???

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: LynchMob

LynchMob — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:08:50 +0000

OT … Masticore317 just posted a link to his pics from HOF …

http://ducksnorts.com/blog/200.....l#comments

… hey, check out the “Loyal Fans” pic … that’s Coronado Mike in the back-left standing next to Phantom’s orange beach towels!!!

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: LynchMob

LynchMob — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:03:28 +0000

144 … also, I don’t really think what I proposed (137) is very different than today … Boras set Procello’s price at $7M before the draft … then 25 teams decided not to take that “slot” … right?

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: LynchMob

LynchMob — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:58:15 +0000

140(b) … au contraire … it sure seems like many commentators think that Boras is the best talent *and* market evaluator in the baseball world today … isn’t that what we’re clammoring for … that the draft somehow be free-market-based/driven?

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: The Fathers

The Fathers — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:57:11 +0000

139: The Bush thing was complete and total spin. You didn’t hear the Padres specifically talking about Bush at all until rumors surfaced a day or two before the draft, around the time that Moores intervened. It was all Niemann, Jerod Weaver and Stephen Drew.

Assuming the 10 million budget this year was not a lie, there was no signability issue with Porcello. They could have had him and still probably been under budget.

There may have been a valuation issue - perhaps they didn’t value him as a 7 million/3.5 mil bonus guy. I can concede that point easily.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Didi

Didi — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:55:06 +0000

107: Cool. Translation. Thanks, man.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: LynchMob

LynchMob — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:54:23 +0000

136 … OK … now I see/understand our difference … I do percieve that what Fuson was talking about was a “band” (rather than a strict 1-to-N ranking) …

As a reminder … here is what he said …

“He (Porcello) didn’t end up on our board above Schmidt. We had him all over the place. ”

… and to me, the “band” the union/consensus of “all over the place”. I take this to mean that their bottom line (factoring in talent and signability/cost and risks) was about an even match … and they then decided to spread their draft dollars over more players, and follow along with the “slot” guidelines.

Another reason I think of the “draft board” as having bands of players is because of the position differences … the decisions on who to take have (at least) 2 factors … who you like and who you need … granted that I think the majority of us here believe that at least with ones #1 pick the only factor should be “who you like” … but I know that my experience with doing “roto drafts” leads me to have a “band”ed “draft board” …

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)