porcello reportedly close to signing
baseball america is reporting that rick porcello is close to signing a $7.7 million deal with the tigers. the reported deal would break the record for highest guarantee ever given to a high school player (josh beckett received $7MM in 1999). assuming the reports are true, do you think the cardinals should have drafted porcello over kozma?
0 recs |
21 comments
Comments
Not at $7.7 M
by Hardcore Legend on
Aug 14, 2007 10:57 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Yup
by TheFranchise9 on
Aug 14, 2007 12:26 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Think you may
by cardsgirl95 on
Aug 14, 2007 2:00 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Actually....
BA also contends that most of the first rounders have deals and the teams are just waiting until close to the deadline to announce them.
by Brock20 on
Aug 14, 2007 2:42 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
No prospect is worth 8M
by Valatan on
Aug 14, 2007 4:26 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Uhh
by joker24 on
Aug 14, 2007 5:42 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It's not costing nothing
Almost all of those guys who aren't named Verlander and Wainwright went through a year of struggling before they came into their own. And this is still ignoring the insane flame out rate. I would never sign a amateur pitcher at that rate. And the only hitter I'd sign would have to be a Griffey-sized lock.
by Valatan on
Aug 14, 2007 5:51 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Irrelevant
And it's not ignoring the attrition rate of getting nothing back. I said if a prospect has a 1/6 shot of being DECENT for the better part of 6 years, they are worth their money on that probability alone. Even if they flame out the other 5 times, that's still worth it. All the while ignoring the possibility that they are Verlander good, ignoring the possibility of being just a #5 type, ignoring that you can recoup some of that investment by putting a guy in the pen. Porcello is a pretty special prospect in that if he makes it, he probably isn't going to be just decent, so he's actually worth considerably MORE than 7 million in reality.
The fact that the payoff is 2 years down the road is also irrelevant. The Tigers have gone out the past few years and signed these big guys and have amassed a ton of ready or soon to be ready cheap value by doing so. Hell, 40% of their rotation is made of these guys.
by joker24 on
Aug 14, 2007 6:13 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The payoff being down the road is hardly irrelevan
We're not there yet, but we're quickly getting to the point where the perceived value of a hot prospect is so high that it's going to make no sense for a team to not trade them, especially given the fact that the (predicable) flameouts of several of the MLB pitchers you mentioned is likely going to cause a pretty sizeable market correction with the 2008 FA signings. It's the difference between investing in venture capital and in blue chip stocks. The latter cost you more, and aren't as likely to give you a huge return on your investment, but they are also waaaay more likely to not lose you money.
by Valatan on
Aug 14, 2007 6:53 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Time value of money yeah yeah
But all that needs to be said is that players drafted don't get to their true market worth because they only have one team with which to negotiate. Every drafted player (besides Samardzija and Matt White pretty much) has been paid LESS than what they are worth. That's how the system is set up fair or not.
I agree with you that teams are very much overvaluing future assets (prospects) over current possibilities of winning a WS. But that is again irrelevant to this discussion of whether Porcello's value is at/below 7 mil.
And yes I also agree that a Major League deal is probably not the best idea for a HS'er as he has to make the team in 3 years, but if the Tigers scouting staff feels that he's good enough to do that, I'll trust their recent track record.
by joker24 on
Aug 14, 2007 7:09 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Best post in a while
by DriverZn on
Aug 14, 2007 8:52 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't think people understand..
Not too bad.
by KeepOnRolen on
Aug 14, 2007 5:52 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Disagree
by FunkeeC on
Aug 14, 2007 6:19 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He..
by KeepOnRolen on
Aug 14, 2007 10:05 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Also doesn't it effect his arbitration/options
by OCCardsFan on
Aug 14, 2007 6:36 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Nope
by joker24 on
Aug 14, 2007 7:58 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeahbut...
by guayzimi on
Aug 14, 2007 8:07 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Could be wrong, depends on how they wrote it
by joker24 on
Aug 14, 2007 8:34 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Personally,
In general, I would vastly prefer the Cardinals go to more of a draft philosophy that resembles the Tigers or the Yankees. Look at the Yankees' signing of Joba Chamberlain. They took the highest potential payoff guy, paid him the money he wanted, (regardless of MLB's gnashing of teeth) and look at what they have now. The kid's ready to contribute at the major league level, barely more than a year since he was drafted. Or look at the Tigers themselves. In the 2004 draft, the Padres backed off their top rated players with the No. 1 overall pick. Instead of ponying up the money for a Verlander or a Stephen Drew, they took Matt Bush. Now look at what they've got going on. Bush has failed at the the position they drafted him, and they're trying to turn him into a reliever. The Tigers took Verlander. Look at the rotation they have right now; it's only going to get better with Porcello.
The whole paradigm of drafting safe bugs me in general. Want to know why? Look no further than the Cardinals' own draft pick in 2004. His name is Chris Lambert.
Take the player you believe in and pay him. Any other approach is, in my ever so humble opinion, doomed to fail.
by the red baron on
Aug 15, 2007 8:57 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs












