Comments on: Padres Farm Report (14 May 08) http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/padres-farm-report-14-may-08.html Blogging the San Diego Padres baseball club. Established 1997. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:10:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: LynchMob http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/padres-farm-report-14-may-08.html#comment-185682 LynchMob Thu, 15 May 2008 05:55:44 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2520#comment-185682 #14@<a href="#comment-185345" rel="nofollow">John Conniff</a>: Thanks. I guess I think some of basis for their decision to stick to slot is a belief that it's better for MLB overall ... the decision to have slots was a "team decision" and they are sticking with it. I'd guess they see "one or two flyers" as going half-ass with the team decision. And I certainly realize that calling it a "team decision" makes it sound like they may not have voted that way ... and I think we're both sure that they did (ie. I think Moores likes something about the concept of "slot", and I'd guess SA does also). Question for you (and I realize this is buried and you'll not likely find it) ... are you advocating MLB change their policy so that there's no "slot" for the first 2 rounds, but then there is after that? Or every team can "go over slot" 2 times per draft? Eh, it seems the point of "slot" is specifically for those 1 or 2 times when teams are tempted to go "over" ... Another question ... what's the rationale for not allowing trades of draft picks? It seems like if you allow that then you can more easily enforce slot ... ie. if a team wants to get a better player, it has to trade up for him.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-185682">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> #14@John Conniff: Thanks. I guess I think some of basis for their decision to stick to slot is a belief that it’s better for MLB overall … the decision to have slots was a “team decision” and they are sticking with it. I’d guess they see “one or two flyers” as going half-ass with the team decision. And I certainly realize that calling it a “team decision” makes it sound like they may not have voted that way … and I think we’re both sure that they did (ie. I think Moores likes something about the concept of “slot”, and I’d guess SA does also).

Question for you (and I realize this is buried and you’ll not likely find it) … are you advocating MLB change their policy so that there’s no “slot” for the first 2 rounds, but then there is after that? Or every team can “go over slot” 2 times per draft?

Eh, it seems the point of “slot” is specifically for those 1 or 2 times when teams are tempted to go “over” …

Another question … what’s the rationale for not allowing trades of draft picks? It seems like if you allow that then you can more easily enforce slot … ie. if a team wants to get a better player, it has to trade up for him.

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

]]> By: John Conniff http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/padres-farm-report-14-may-08.html#comment-185345 John Conniff Wed, 14 May 2008 18:10:09 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2520#comment-185345 #13@<a href="#comment-185340" rel="nofollow">LynchMob</a>: I think its what I wrote above, they see it as the most cost effective way to build a team. I agree with the concept in general, but just think they should take at least one or two flyers every draft.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-185345">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> #13@LynchMob: I think its what I wrote above, they see it as the most cost effective way to build a team. I agree with the concept in general, but just think they should take at least one or two flyers every draft.

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

]]> By: LynchMob http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/padres-farm-report-14-may-08.html#comment-185340 LynchMob Wed, 14 May 2008 17:58:57 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2520#comment-185340 #12@<a href="#comment-185315" rel="nofollow">John Conniff</a>: John … what’s your view of why the Padres have made the decision to stick to “slot”?<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-185340">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> #12@John Conniff: John … what’s your view of why the Padres have made the decision to stick to “slot”?

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

]]> By: John Conniff http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/padres-farm-report-14-may-08.html#comment-185315 John Conniff Wed, 14 May 2008 17:20:03 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2520#comment-185315 #10@<a href="#comment-185304" rel="nofollow">LynchMob</a>: To the best of my knowledge there hasn't been any sanctions by MLB against teams like Detroit, Arizona or Boston that go above the slot. I like the job that both Alderson and Fuson have done since coming on board - and Towers too for that matter. I believe that they see the draft as a type of crapshoot and have been burned too many times before with putting too many eggs in high profile picks that haven't lived up to their billing - Mark Phillips and Sean Burroughs or because of injuries - Jake Gautreau, Tim Stauffer, Cesar Carrillo and too an extent Matt Bush. By attempting to acquire more picks in the first three rounds gives them more players - thus more chances to succeed if you believe all of the picks are roughly equal. Selecting more college players, who are closer to realizing their potential also leads to more certainity. I don't have a problem with any of those philosophies but it is not a mutually exclusive concept from what myself and others are advocating. I don't see any problem stating that in the first two rounds the Padres should try to take the best player available. Period. The costs, as Tom pointed out above, are not prohibitive and in the grand scheme of things its good business.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-185315">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> #10@LynchMob: To the best of my knowledge there hasn’t been any sanctions by MLB against teams like Detroit, Arizona or Boston that go above the slot.

I like the job that both Alderson and Fuson have done since coming on board - and Towers too for that matter. I believe that they see the draft as a type of crapshoot and have been burned too many times before with putting too many eggs in high profile picks that haven’t lived up to their billing - Mark Phillips and Sean Burroughs or because of injuries - Jake Gautreau, Tim Stauffer, Cesar Carrillo and too an extent Matt Bush.

By attempting to acquire more picks in the first three rounds gives them more players - thus more chances to succeed if you believe all of the picks are roughly equal. Selecting more college players, who are closer to realizing their potential also leads to more certainity.

I don’t have a problem with any of those philosophies but it is not a mutually exclusive concept from what myself and others are advocating.

I don’t see any problem stating that in the first two rounds the Padres should try to take the best player available. Period. The costs, as Tom pointed out above, are not prohibitive and in the grand scheme of things its good business.

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

]]> By: Tom Waits http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/padres-farm-report-14-may-08.html#comment-185312 Tom Waits Wed, 14 May 2008 17:04:09 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2520#comment-185312 #10@<a href="#comment-185304" rel="nofollow">LynchMob</a>: BA has written a couple of stories about this. If a team wants to pay over slot, they have to tell the commissioner's office, which will try to talk them out of it. But there's very little "punishment" of offenders. Arizona had gone over slot when MLB helped them with their debt. The Yankees went hugely over slot and received the 2008 All-Star Game. The commissioner's office can fine teams that exceed slot, but it's not required. Here's a piece from Jim Callis on how the slot system actually works. http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/askba/print264277.html<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-185312">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> #10@LynchMob: BA has written a couple of stories about this. If a team wants to pay over slot, they have to tell the commissioner’s office, which will try to talk them out of it. But there’s very little “punishment” of offenders. Arizona had gone over slot when MLB helped them with their debt. The Yankees went hugely over slot and received the 2008 All-Star Game. The commissioner’s office can fine teams that exceed slot, but it’s not required.

Here’s a piece from Jim Callis on how the slot system actually works.

http://www.baseballamerica.com.....64277.html

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

]]> By: LynchMob http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/padres-farm-report-14-may-08.html#comment-185304 LynchMob Wed, 14 May 2008 16:45:30 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2520#comment-185304 #8@<a href="#comment-185300" rel="nofollow">John Conniff</a>: John ... what's your view of why the Padres have made the decision to stick to "slot"? It seems they think it's best for their business (ie. the Padres) and/or perhaps for MLB in general. Just playing the "Porcello" card seems to be spining the conversation away from the Padres larger perspective. I would also like the Padres to change their policy on this ... but first I need to know their reasons. Is Detroit getting any consequences for not sticking to slot? Is MLB getting any consequences for Detroit not sticking to slot? Would the consequences be more severe/obvious if more teams didn't stick to slot ... or there weren't any such concept as "slot"?<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-185304">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> #8@John Conniff: John … what’s your view of why the Padres have made the decision to stick to “slot”? It seems they think it’s best for their business (ie. the Padres) and/or perhaps for MLB in general. Just playing the “Porcello” card seems to be spining the conversation away from the Padres larger perspective. I would also like the Padres to change their policy on this … but first I need to know their reasons. Is Detroit getting any consequences for not sticking to slot? Is MLB getting any consequences for Detroit not sticking to slot? Would the consequences be more severe/obvious if more teams didn’t stick to slot … or there weren’t any such concept as “slot”?

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

]]> By: Tom Waits http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/padres-farm-report-14-may-08.html#comment-185301 Tom Waits Wed, 14 May 2008 16:13:28 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2520#comment-185301 #8@<a href="#comment-185300" rel="nofollow">John Conniff</a>: That's it, perfectly. The difference between what the Mets and the Padres can/will pay a free agent major leaguer is 75-100 million dollars. At the draft level, the difference between slot and what a premium talent requires is anywhere between 50K and 4 million dollars. And for that the team gets control of the player for at least 6 years, normally 8, and often 10. It's absolutely counterfactual to contend that the playing field isn't level when it comes to the draft, or that big market teams can influence draftable players so much that smaller-revenue teams can't compete. Sure, the players have options if they don't want to sign. But the team holds the biggest hammer of all, the chance to play baseball and get a check with 7 numbers before the decimal point. Prior was a good gamble, but that's what he was, a gamble. I don't mind Barrett because catchers are volatile; if he hadn't been hurt, he'd be the starter right now and Bard would be backing him up (assuming Bard had struggled). One way to look at it is the Padres were paying 5.2 million for the catching position. That's reasonable.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-185301">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> #8@John Conniff: That’s it, perfectly. The difference between what the Mets and the Padres can/will pay a free agent major leaguer is 75-100 million dollars. At the draft level, the difference between slot and what a premium talent requires is anywhere between 50K and 4 million dollars. And for that the team gets control of the player for at least 6 years, normally 8, and often 10. It’s absolutely counterfactual to contend that the playing field isn’t level when it comes to the draft, or that big market teams can influence draftable players so much that smaller-revenue teams can’t compete. Sure, the players have options if they don’t want to sign. But the team holds the biggest hammer of all, the chance to play baseball and get a check with 7 numbers before the decimal point.

Prior was a good gamble, but that’s what he was, a gamble.

I don’t mind Barrett because catchers are volatile; if he hadn’t been hurt, he’d be the starter right now and Bard would be backing him up (assuming Bard had struggled). One way to look at it is the Padres were paying 5.2 million for the catching position. That’s reasonable.

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

]]> By: John Conniff http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/padres-farm-report-14-may-08.html#comment-185300 John Conniff Wed, 14 May 2008 16:00:51 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2520#comment-185300 I think one of the better points that I read was by Tom Waits the other day when he noted that paying over the slot in the draft is what a team with San Diego's financial constraints should do as a matter of policy because signing established stars is really out of their budget. To not draft someone like Latos isn't simply a question of skimping, its just not good policy (my apologies Tom if I didn't get your quotes exactly correct). I liked the signing of Prior and would do it again because its a reasonable gamble. I disagree with Barrett, $3 million is far too much to pay for a backup catcher - especially when you have people within the organization that can do the job. If Carlin plays well I fully expect the team to try to dump Barrett if they can. The signing of Edmunds, that should fully be on Towers and his staff. While I like the new Dominican complex and the increase in international scouting its also important to realize that all the MLB teams are pretty much doing this now and essentially the teams that pay over the slot in the draft are more likely to be more agressive internationally where its just a bidding war. Thus, its not unreasonable to assume that if a team is unwilling to pay big bucks domestically for top high school talent, it probably isn't going to pay big bucks for a 16 year old Dominican.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-185300">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> I think one of the better points that I read was by Tom Waits the other day when he noted that paying over the slot in the draft is what a team with San Diego’s financial constraints should do as a matter of policy because signing established stars is really out of their budget. To not draft someone like Latos isn’t simply a question of skimping, its just not good policy (my apologies Tom if I didn’t get your quotes exactly correct).

I liked the signing of Prior and would do it again because its a reasonable gamble. I disagree with Barrett, $3 million is far too much to pay for a backup catcher - especially when you have people within the organization that can do the job. If Carlin plays well I fully expect the team to try to dump Barrett if they can. The signing of Edmunds, that should fully be on Towers and his staff.

While I like the new Dominican complex and the increase in international scouting its also important to realize that all the MLB teams are pretty much doing this now and essentially the teams that pay over the slot in the draft are more likely to be more agressive internationally where its just a bidding war.

Thus, its not unreasonable to assume that if a team is unwilling to pay big bucks domestically for top high school talent, it probably isn’t going to pay big bucks for a 16 year old Dominican.

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

]]> By: LynchMob http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/padres-farm-report-14-may-08.html#comment-185295 LynchMob Wed, 14 May 2008 15:32:01 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2520#comment-185295 At Lake Elsinore, Cedric's OBP is nearly .400 ... and it sure seems like Sogard has stop'd hitting doubles ...<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-185295">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> At Lake Elsinore, Cedric’s OBP is nearly .400 … and it sure seems like Sogard has stop’d hitting doubles …

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

]]> By: Pat http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/padres-farm-report-14-may-08.html#comment-185287 Pat Wed, 14 May 2008 15:01:18 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2520#comment-185287 #4@<a href="#comment-185277" rel="nofollow">JMAR</a>: I know I'm picking nits, but it's what I do. :-) I agree with John as well, but I don't see Barrett or Prior as being a waste of money. $3 million is basically a league average salary anymore, and you have to have a backup catcher. $1 million for Prior was a great gamble. Edmonds was terribly disappointing as an FO move, but the other two I don't see as bad at all. Sure they aren't working out, but that's hindsight. Edmonds was something most people here saw coming all winter long.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-185287">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> #4@JMAR: I know I’m picking nits, but it’s what I do. :-)

I agree with John as well, but I don’t see Barrett or Prior as being a waste of money. $3 million is basically a league average salary anymore, and you have to have a backup catcher. $1 million for Prior was a great gamble. Edmonds was terribly disappointing as an FO move, but the other two I don’t see as bad at all. Sure they aren’t working out, but that’s hindsight. Edmonds was something most people here saw coming all winter long.

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

]]>