Pricing Renteria
by azruavatar on Nov 16, 2008 4:37 PM EST
150 comments
The idea of acquiring Edgar Renteria seems to be gaining traction this offseason with yet another article noting the Cardinals interest. Setting aside whether or not this is a good idea in and of itself (I'm inclined to think it's not), what is an appropriate price for Renteria.
To start, let's evaluate his offense. Last year was a disappointment after two consecutive years of posting wOBAs over the league average he fell collapsed posting his lowest wOBA in more than 5 years. Of course, we'd be derelict in just taking his numbers last year so we'll utilize the Marcel weights (5/4/3) and take three years into account. This makes a huge difference in the projection for Renteria since he had a superb 2007. This gives us a wOBA of .356. Assuming a league wOBA around .340 (not unreasonable looking over the last few years) that puts Renteria about 10 runs over average with the bat.
I'm going to cop out on the defense somewhat. Defensive projections are much more difficult to make (in part because of the larger error bars) so I'll turn to someone who a) is smarter than me and b) has already done the work. Chone Smith's defensive projections have Renteria as a -6 fielder next year. The one quibble I have here is that I'd prefer stats regressed to league average rather than the fans scouting report. I understand the reasons to do both but I'm just not sold on using the fans as a baseline for numerous reasons. I digress.
The positional adjustment for SS is .5 wins, which we then strip away for aging. So we're looking at Renteria as probably about 5 runs above average or (assuming NL replacement level) around 2 to 2.5 wins above replacement. You could also apply a playing time coefficient (80%) to that WAR as well.
After running through this exercise, that number seems awfully high to me. I'm inclined to believe that Renteria's skills have deteriorated to something more like 1 to 1.5 wins above replacement. If you take the former (just the numbers), he's worth between 8~10M on a one year basis. My valuation would have him more like a 4~6M dollar player for one year.
Good SS are obviously hard to come by as we've seen in recent seasons but if the Cardinals are going to buy, I'd rather they go all out and get a really good SS. Pay a good defensive SS (read: undervalued) and splurge on 2B or the reverse. An 8M dollar contract for Renteria strikes me as one the Cardinals would regret.
7 recs |
150 comments
Email
Print
Comments
what if we are able to get him cheaper than 8 mil
(6.5+ incentives?) and move him to second, then trade for/splurge on a SS (furcal!)
by dunc4life on Nov 16, 2008 4:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
either / or proposition
I think Renteria / Furcal is an either / or proposition for the Cards. I expect us to make a bid on Furcal but not to win him in the open market. But if we did, then any thought of Renteria goes out the door. I suspect Renteria is the fallback plan if we lose out on Furcal.
by jjray on Nov 17, 2008 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, ask and ye shall recieve
Besides the fact that Renteria’s skill set is on the backside now, I still have a bad taste in my mouth over the way the whole Renteria thing went down last time. Wasn’t the difference in the two contracts this option year that the Tigers already declined?
by Hardcore Legend on Nov 16, 2008 5:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Hardcore
I think the Cards offer was about 2 mill less than the Red Sox. Plus the Cards wanted to differ money. As I remember it the two parties were real close and I thought they would work out a deal. Suddenly Edgar pulled the plug and said he was being diss’ed. It was certaintly a big mistake for both parties that they couldn’t come to terms. At the time I blamed Renteria, but now I think the Cards should not have tried to pinch pennies with him. That said, I would not mind a 2y 13m deal.
by nybirdfan on Nov 17, 2008 9:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He had a down year, but
he was an excellent hitter the past two seasons with Atlanta. He was out of shape this year in Detroit, and he didn’t look comfortable all year long. I am sure that he can go back to form with a move back to the NL and some strong offseason work. Hell if he struggles we can just bat in in the 2 spot and let him get fastballs down the middle on every pitch.
by vivaelpujols on Nov 17, 2008 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
2 million
If I remember correctly, the Red Sox offer was 4 years and 40 million. The Cards offer was 4 years 32 million. (with much of that deferred.) There was a lot of talk that there were higher offers by the Cards…after the fact, but the last confirmed one I remember was 32 million. I don’t know why everyone got so upset that Renteria took an offer that was 25% higher…I got news for you, all of you would not have left 8 million on the table in your one chance to cash in on free agency during your prime. People switch jobs for higher pay all the time, in all walks of life. The difference is…in sports, they call it respect instead of money. Edgar screwed up, he took the money and wished he had stayed where he was happy. This also happens to real people with real jobs. The Cards made a prudent decision, I was a fan of Edgar, but he was worth 8mil per year at the time, but not 10.
I think he has a couple more good years left in him and I would offer him around 7 million or so to come back with an option year.
How about handin' me another helpin' of those mashed taters...thank you very much!
by Elvis on Nov 18, 2008 7:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I understood him taking the higher pay...
it was some comments he made about tradition and stuff that rubbed me the wrong way. STL has a MUCH better tradition than Boston with more notable players and (obviously) more history of success.
by cardzfanbub on Nov 19, 2008 9:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
I’d say Boston’s got some pretty nice history to work with. Any team that’s been around that long does. Obviously the Cards have had more success. But part of Boston’s tradition is their lack of success. And they’ve had some notable players as well.
by spants on Nov 19, 2008 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it's all pretty comparable
Boston has had a ton of fantastic players come through, and so has St. Louis. Each team has had one of the two best pitcher seasons of the post-war period. They have Carlton Fisk, we have Ted Simmons. The all-Red Sox team would probably be slightly better than the all-Cardinals team, but that’s just because they’d have Babe Ruth pitching and hitting cleanup, and though Gibson was a fantastic hitter for a pitcher, he was no babe ruth.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Nov 20, 2008 7:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If renteria wouldn't have left
we wouldn’t have recieved a draft pick from boston and wouldn’t of used it on Colby Rasmus.
"There are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary. And there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I learned that, I gave Jesus a chance."
by Bahamaredbird on Nov 19, 2008 6:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
last year
a bad one, he was about 1/2 a win above average — pretty consistent w/ the 2-2.5 wins above replacement that you suggest. Subtract a little for another year of age but add the difference between the NL and AL back in and there’s some merit to the idea that he’s worth in the neighborhood of $8M for 1 year. That surprises me actually. Maybe 1.5 wins is a little more realistic — thus, in the neighborhood of $6 – 6.5 M.
It still is just a band-aid rather than a long-term solution and the revolving door in the middle infield continues. I still oppose it but it’s gotta be a better idea than trading something of value to SD for Khalil Greene. He, too, is just a band-aid but would cost us a prospect. Anything beyond a 1 year deal for Renteria would be horrendous, IMO.
by chuckb on Nov 16, 2008 8:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm with Chuck
.. don’t give Renteria a multi-year deal and just say “no” to Khalil Greene. Prefer Tyler Greene to Khalil. They’re both solid defenders and strikeout machines but one costs nothing and might actually improve.
by jjray on Nov 17, 2008 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
KG has a .248/.304/.427 (95 OPS+) MLB career.
He’s 29 years old. Don’t you think he can improve on a .213/.260/.339 (64 OPS+) 2008 season?
His career offense + defense average would be a large marginal improvement for us at SS.
by astrostl on Nov 17, 2008 6:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He also hit 27 homers and 44 doubles the year before
Also getting out of San Diego would definitely help hit hitting.
by vivaelpujols on Nov 17, 2008 9:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Khalil Greene
Here’s my thinking on Khalil Greene. He’s an expensive one year rental almost by default. If he puts up similar numbers to those he posted in SD last year, we don’t resign him after the 2009 season. If he has some sort of glorious resurrection to his career, then he’ll leave for a multiyear deal that the Cards will not want to give—see Lopez. Tyler Greene, OTOH, is 6 years of cost controlled SS if he somehow translated his AFL performance into a respectable showing in the MLB.
by jjray on Nov 18, 2008 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would say a one year rental as a good thing
By 2010 either Greene or Kozma will challenge for the starting job. Most likely it will be Greene. KG isn’t that expensive, only about 7 mil for one year, and if he can give us a good offensive season like in 07 than he would definitely be underpriced. If he has a terrible year again, he should still be as good as Iz was as this year, because he would have a similar OPS and comparable defensive ability. I agree that he will be a one year rental, but that could also probably be a good thing.
by vivaelpujols on Nov 18, 2008 9:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
$6.5 mill for Iz2 production
His OPS last year was .599. Iz2’s was .628. Career, Iz2 is .629 and Greene is .731. If Greene gave us an Izturis year in 2009 for $6.5 million, that would be expensive in my book. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
by jjray on Nov 19, 2008 8:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Up until last year Khalil Green was a a very good hitter away from Petco
If you can buy low on him, you could wind up with an all star caliber player.
Furcal
by JI on Nov 25, 2008 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think they'll splurge on either
2B or SS.
Probably sign 2 of the cheapest of the following: Renteria, Izturis, or Floppy.
Felipe Lopez - next year's Joel Pineiro
by DiscoJer on Nov 17, 2008 2:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I really hope that they don't sign either
Allow Iz wouldn’t be that bad because he is cheep and his defense actually wins games for you unlike the other two who are possible the worst MIF defenders in the game.
by vivaelpujols on Nov 17, 2008 5:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't mind...
Renteria. At this point I think the Cards would be better off trying to sign a 2B (I’ve heard Edgar wants to play SS, but he would definitley be an upgrade at 2B) and resigning Izturis. I agree he is undervalued, and he is not a bad guy to have at the 9-spot in the Larussa lineup- gets on base 30-33% of the time, can steal bases. My favorite idea, still, is to resign Izturis and trade for Brian Roberts.
by BustaCard on Nov 17, 2008 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Renteria at second doesn't sound so bad
I love Roberts too, but I’m not sure if we have the young pitching that Baltimore will want in return for him. I don’t know, maybe they would take a package of Perez, Freese and Todd, but that seems like too many good prospects to give up.
by vivaelpujols on Nov 17, 2008 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We don't even know that Renteria
can play 2B. I know it’s funny to say ‘anyone can play 2B’, but for $8 M…I’d sure like to know.
by Hardcore Legend on Nov 17, 2008 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
usage
hitting in front of chipper, teixeria and mc cann (ATL), should and did give renteria much better results (06 & 07), than in front of a declining pudge, inge and granderson (DET 08). for me, it’s about the pitches he was seeing.
4-6 mil sounds right, 8 mil is too much. not that renteria wouldn’t be worth it batting 9th in front of schumaker, ludwick and pujols. but, too much because we need arms as our most pressing need. a utility ss will get 4-5 mil this offseason, and kennedy’s pulling 4.0 mil. renteria at 4-6 is ballpark, AFTER det declines arb.
by ball in play on Nov 17, 2008 1:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Renteria saw virtually the same percentage of fastballs and pitch distribution
over the last 4 years. The lineup didn’t alter that discernibly.
by azruavatar on Nov 17, 2008 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
agree that the pitch types % remained consistent
but what of the quality of pitches?
his o-swing% was way up. his o-zone contact% way up.
it’s leading me to believe he was seeing and chasing more o-zone pitches.
the last column before pitches (zone %), does have me scratching my head :) not sure whether it refers to pitches or swings.
by ball in play on Nov 17, 2008 6:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
or not seeing.
The fact that he has clearly lost a step in the field is disturbing enough, but the fact that his batting abilities also seem to be in decline is more than enough for me to see absolutely no point in his signing.
Space.
It's a problem we face.
So we never go anywhere.
We just stay in one place.
by hazel on Nov 17, 2008 7:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
batting abilities in decline?
maybe, depends on how you want to view his stats.
his first 10 yrs he averaged a 94.4 ops+, his last 3 yrs he’s averaged a 104 ops+.
his 84 ops+ in 2008 is not so far from his 88 ops+ in 1998 and 2004, when he was an all-star.
positional scarcity? sure. the same reason we had a 67 and 59 ops+ at ss last year.
by ball in play on Nov 17, 2008 10:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He shouldn't have been an All-Star...
…with an 88 OPS+. All-Star games aren’t based on any kind of objective criteria, just what players the fans and managers want in the game. Considering that he was at a higher standard before falling back last year, I would say that he’s declining. That is the very definition of a decline.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Nov 18, 2008 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Where would a real shift in the "quality"
come from unless there was a major influx of new and better talent into a league? I’m reading quality as movement since we can see that the velocity is relatively stable year to year.
It seems like the simplest answer is probably the right one here — Renteria is getting older and is experiencing some decline.
by azruavatar on Nov 17, 2008 8:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe being better at baseball...
…gave him better results? Unless there is a way to isolate the impact the Braves guys had on Renteria’s play, that claim seems impossible to prove.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Nov 18, 2008 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i typed "quality of pitches"
renteria is seeing, not quality of talent in the league. really don’t understand your response.
not to argue, but wouldn’t you agree, the quality of pitches seen decreases if the quality of batters behind a player decreases? his 08 batting order splits verify that.
then there’s his babip, extremly low. in the really bad luck range, while his LD, GB and FB% are consistent.
i can’t endorse signing him at 8 mil, but a utility infielder will pull near 4 mil. so what’s his price? good topic.
by ball in play on Nov 17, 2008 10:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
blech
this sounds like a lineup protection argument and I have no desire to go down that road again. He was unlucky last year but I don’t think the quality of the pitches he sees is really changing at all from year to year. My argument above is that, by and large, the year to year quality of pitches is stable (I have no idea what your definition of quality is so I’m on shaky ground to start) unless there was a huge turnover in pitchers being replaced by a lot of really good or really bad new pitchers thus shifting the baseline.
by azruavatar on Nov 18, 2008 12:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
wouldn't you agree, though,
that the AL is a better league than the NL and he probably faced considerably better pitching as a Tiger, by virtue of the fact that he played 90% of his games vs. AL teams, than he did as a Brave? I do agree w/ your 2 major premises — that lineup protection has had nothing to do w/ his decline and that it is more likely attributable to age and declining skills, but I’d still argue that part of the difference was a difference in competition from ’07 to ’08 as well.
by chuckb on Nov 18, 2008 8:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd agree
There’s a talent disparity between the NL and AL but, as you said, that’s not the sole issue in his numbers.
by azruavatar on Nov 18, 2008 9:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
so hitting 2nd in front of albert (or chipper)
vs bottom of the order in front of c. izturis (or brandn inge) shouldn’t affect a players effectivness at the plate and quality of pitches? lol, ok.
it’s your thread, lets ignore usage.
by ball in play on Nov 18, 2008 8:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
He looked at the actual pitch
results and saw that there was no difference in types of pitches he was seeing, especially not enough to warrant the drop off he had.
by Hardcore Legend on Nov 18, 2008 10:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2004/09/the-protection-externality-it-doesnt-exist/
This has shown to be an area where analysis defies conventional wisdom.
by astrostl on Nov 18, 2008 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think
you would have to define quality. do you mean the pitches are on the edge of the strike zone rather than down the middle? do you mean the pitches were not strikes? do you mean that there was more movement on them? more velocity? he was thrown more breaking balls?
i think your use of “quality” is what people are having a problem with. The argument that people make about hitting in front of a premium hitter is that you would get more fastballs, because fastballs are, for most pitchers, easier to throw for strikes. most people feel that fastballs are easier to hit (for most players) than breaking balls and that this would slightly inflate your stats. the data does not always show this to be the case. anyway, azruavatar has stated that the data does not show that he received anymore fastballs.
So how were the pitches of a higher “quality?”
by Toddius on Nov 18, 2008 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Read
Baseball Between the Numbers. There’s a whole chapter on the lineup protection argument. The idea that a batter will hit better in front of 1 player vis-a-vis another is debunked. You can LOL all you want, but that’s what the numbers tell us. It doesn’t matter if Renteria bats in front of Pujols or bats 7th w/ the pitcher behind him, he is what he is. Ignore “usage” — whatever that means, but lets not ignore facts.
by chuckb on Nov 18, 2008 8:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
While I agree with the general explanation
about protection being a “debunked” argument, there are some very real numbers that indicate virtually every hitter who has batted in front of Albert during his career as a third-spot hitter has hit significantly better in front of Albert than when batting in other spots in the lineup. There may very well be other factors at work here, but there is substantial evidence to a Pujols Effect.
The top three #2 hitters in the last five full seasons have hit an aggregate .305/.370/.510/.880 when batting in front of Pujols. Those same hitters in the same respective seasons have a combined slash of .267/.352/.438/.790 when batting anywhere else in the lineup. We are talking about a total of 2328 PAs in the two spot and 3387 PAs in other spots. Seems like a pretty good sample.
As far as the main subject of this post goes, I don’t have enough faith in Edgar’s ability to bounce back at the plate to offset his failing defense. I don’t think that is league dependent and it is in decline. Spend the money on a better SS or another area of need.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 18, 2008 10:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Marcel projects Renteria to have a .336 wOBA
That would make him more like a -2 offensive player. That change makes him more like a 11.5 win player worth more like 57M. That seems much more reasonable.
Regression helps and the BABIP inflated 2007 numbers were distorting the projection.
by azruavatar on Nov 18, 2008 9:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don't know why SBN feels the continued need to
screw with my posts (damn those stupid auto symbols — I really effing hate them) but that 11.5 should read 1 ~ 1.5
by azruavatar on Nov 18, 2008 9:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So does that mean
$4-6M?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 18, 2008 10:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Alright
Fuck the auto symbols.
There I said it.
SBN gods (read: programmers) turn these things off or find me a site where 10% of the posters know what they are and want to keep them.
by azruavatar on Nov 18, 2008 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
4 ~ 6 or 5 ~ 7
It depends on what you use as your 1 WAR = $$$ equation. I’m waffling on what I think that should be but I’ve seen anything from 4.5 to 5.5M
by azruavatar on Nov 18, 2008 11:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Marcel also has pujols hitting 29 homers
His stats are way deflated because all he does is regress the players a lot.
by vivaelpujols on Nov 19, 2008 8:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My bad.
I forgot that Pujols = Renteria.
I have no idea what Pujols being a severe outlier has to do with Renteria being in the middle of a bell curve.
by azruavatar on Nov 19, 2008 9:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Look at Marcels full projections of every player and you will see what I mean
by vivaelpujols on Nov 20, 2008 11:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's kind of the brillance of Marcel.
I think your are missing the genius of this method. The really super sophisticated and proprietary methods are only marginally (and I mean very marginally) better than Marcel. Sure if you pick someone who consistently sits way out on the end of a curve, that’s going to be more problematic for Marcel but otherwise it is a very competitive projection technique.
I’m not sure what you are driving at.
by azruavatar on Nov 21, 2008 12:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
an ex-wife quality
I liked Edgar well enough when he was with us as a Cardinal, partly because he often proved to be a clutch hitter (as well as a decent, or better, average overall)… and especially because he was one of those LaRussa success stories. I recall the report that Tony got in Edgar’s face early-on and challenged him, roughly said “do you want to be as good as you can be or do you want to keep fooling around?”
And tho’ I never ‘felt’ he was a premier defensive SS, my point here is the FEELing I get re an Edgar discussion is that it is like having dinner with an ex: good memories, probably yes; prospect of a re-kindling…uh, I don’t think so.
I would wager that among Cardinal fans, Renteria would be somewhere between JD Drew (horrors) and Placido (yeah, sure), as far as a reprise is concerned..
by the Tewk on Nov 18, 2008 9:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Not sure about JD
I really don’t hold anything vs. JD even w/o considering the haul we got for him. The dude was injured a ton. He produced while he was healthy And he was traded.
born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red
by totalloser on Nov 19, 2008 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you think about it. Renteria’s stats last year are quite similar to those that he had back in 05 when he was with the bosox. I think the national league is were he belongs, and though i dont think that he can put up .330 avg like he did in 07, i think that its pretty feasible that he could put up numbers like he did in 06 which would be a HUGE improvement for us in that pos.
by kopite92 on Nov 20, 2008 4:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
His defense still scares me
He was one of the worst in all of MLB in ’08
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 20, 2008 5:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why does the national league have a magical power to allow him to hit?
It’s not like it is like it was 30 years ago, when there was no interleague and the pitchers never switched leagues. Fenway’s a pretty hitter-friendly park, too. EdGAR’s always been a pretty inconsistent hitter. Perhaps it’s just age and inconsistency catching up to him.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Nov 20, 2008 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously,
has anyone ever heard the phrase, “statistical aberration.”
Space.
It's a problem we face.
So we never go anywhere.
We just stay in one place.
by hazel on Nov 21, 2008 7:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this reminds me of the bizarre contortions people got into to try and explain Looper's
day/night splits last year.
If you see a weird split, it may just be an anomaly. Not that hard to explain.
by tom s. on Nov 21, 2008 7:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He's a Type A...
I believe Renteria is a Type A free agent. Sign him, and we lose a first round draft pick. That drives his value down dramatically, as far as I am concerned, and his salary with it. I’m not sure there is a salary he would play for that makes up for the loss of the pick.
by tarakas on Nov 20, 2008 9:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
To put it another way...
Would you trade Wallace for Renteria? If not, I doubt you’d want to give up the draft pick for him.
by tarakas on Nov 20, 2008 9:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Whatever
I’d be way way way way way more concerned about RenterÃa playing horribly than I would be about the draft pick. He gets you a draft pick back when his year is over, as he will be at least a type B at the end of a two year deal. If he plays well, he gets you two draft picks back.
And draft picks are horrible crap shoots. They just are. There is roughly a 50% chance that a first round draftee reaches the majors at all, and probably something like a 50% chance that, once they’ve reached the majors, that they’ll be any good. And this is all four years after the initial pick is used. We’re wildly overvaluing draft picks, especially considering that 1-15 are protected anyway.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Nov 20, 2008 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Note that I'm not saying to sign RenterÃa
I don’t think he’s going to be good next year. But the fact that he’s not going to be good for the team should be a far, far higher concern than whether he’s going to cost a draft pick.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Nov 20, 2008 10:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What you say is true
about the “crapshoot” nature of the draft, but the other side of the equation is a large majority of the superior players who have outstanding careers also come from the first two rounds of the draft. Albert is far and away the exception.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 21, 2008 12:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And Mike Piazza
and a dozen others that I could name. You can get productive players at different spots in the draft, but most really good farm systems are built by signing good Latin America players and focusing on the deeper rounds of the draft to build depth.
I would agree that most of the best players come out of the first round, but the biggest busts also come out of the first round. Players who have been successful at every level and just don’t make it to the majors. Also, investing draft picks in starting pitching is probably the biggest crapshoot of all, considering how many of those players get hurt or don’t amount to anything.
I wouldn’t say that Albert is a “far and away exception”, there have been a lot of good to great players drafted outside the first two rounds over the years.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Nov 21, 2008 9:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think what we are discussing here
is the relative value of a first round draft pick. It is easy to trot out anecdotal evidence of late-round picks who have succeeded, but no matter how you slice the data a very large number of the best players are picked in the first two rounds. For example, 17 of the top 20 hitters in the NL, as measured by 2008 OPS, were acquired via the draft. Of those, 12 or 71% were drafted in the first two rounds. 47% were drafted in the 1st round. Albert was drafted later than all the other 16.
For the AL, 16 of the top 20 were drafted and 63% of those were taken in the first two rounds with 44% drafted in the 1st round. Depending on which stat you use, you will probably find a similar distribution for pitchers. Sure a lot of guys drafted high disappoint or don’t make it at all, but the top picks are very valuable. Just because the Cardinals don’t have a good track record doesn’t mean we don’t want to keep those picks.
As far as the Latin players go, only 15% of the top 20 in the NL and 20% in the AL were Latin amateur free agents. The numbers above do not include Manny Ramirez as he didn’t have enough PAs to make the list for either league. Of course he was a first round draft pick.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 21, 2008 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that's the wrong argument to make, giveml.
To say “no matter how you slice the data a very large number of the best players are picked in the first round” doesn’t tell us much about whether first round picks are valuable. Most of the best players are carbon-based life forms. Most of them attended kindergarten and are not color-blind.
We are talking about the opposite proposition — how many of the first round picks become great players? If it were true that 90% of all first round picks became great players, then, yes, losing a first round pick would be awful. If it were true that only 5% of the first round picks became great players, losing one first-round pick wouldn’t be awful.
The first round of the 2004 draft brought us Stephen Drew, Jered Weaver, Justin Verlander, and Phil Hughes. On the other hand, the draft also brought us Chris Lambert. That year’s #1 pick has never played in the bigs and didn’t even play in the minors this year. The #5 and #29 pick are out of baseball. The #25 pick is on the DL in Class A and has been since 2007. Most of the rest are either struggling in the minors, or in some cases struggling in the majors. Few look like they’d be worth trading for. Roughly 10 of them are in the majors with regularity. Of the ones mentioned, Stephen Drew clearly falls in the superstar type category. Verlander and Weaver may fit there. I think the jury is still out on Hughes.
So maybe one in every ten first round picks goes on to be great? One in every five goes on to be at least adequate? That’s not something to cry about losing. It certainly does not mean you should hobble today’s team to avoid losing a draft pick.
by tom s. on Nov 21, 2008 8:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You could do that same analysis
across every round and the news gets worse every round. Sure, mistakes get made, bad luck happens, etc., but there is no better opportunity to improve your team than making a good first round pick. Second round picks fail at an even higher rate, as do third rounders, etc.
Fourstick was making the case that “most really good farm systems are built by signing good Latin America players and focusing on the deeper rounds of the draft to build depth.” I was merely stating that the best players, the ones you can really build a franchise around, mostly come at the top of the draft. I sure wouldn’t want to throw away the chance to draft the next Rasmus or Wallace just to sign any free agent, especially not Edgar.
I seriously doubt that taking a chance on losing Edgar Renteria would "hobble today’s team ". There are undoubtedly free agents worth losing a first round pick over, but he is not one. Especially since he likely won’t cost a pick if you just wait another ten days or so. Edgar would have to have a pretty significant rebound just to be as valuable as iz2. After all, a pretty high percentage of free agents are not particularly successful and I cannot image anything more likely to hobble today’s, and tomorrow’s, team than signing a bad free agent.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 21, 2008 9:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was more pointing out that you were looking at it from the wrong angle.
You were using the success of some first-rounders to justify the importance of first-rounders generally. Which is just not logical.
I think there’s definite value to a first round draft pick, but I doubt it’s so important that it should ever cause us to not take an individual Type A free agent. Any Type A free agent will be so expensive in money or years that he will have to have enough value to justify his signing. The importance of the draft pick will just fade against that background. Losing a draft pick will clearly not help a bad signing and it won’t hurt a good signing. I can’t think of a case where I would decline an otherwise good FA deal b/c of the lost draft pick.
by tom s. on Nov 21, 2008 10:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
For me
your last sentence sums up the whole argument. I just may be more selective about what I think constitutes a “good FA deal.” For me, Edgar is not a good Type A signing at any conceivable number of years or cost. He might make sense on a favorable deal without losing the pick.
If we have to have young cost-controlled talent to compete and the first round is by far the best place to find those players, then I think a Type A has to be a true impact player. Most FAs just aren’t worth the money and our track record there is very poor.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 21, 2008 10:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is correct case to make
Fourstick was making the case that "most really good farm systems are built by signing good Latin America players and focusing on the deeper rounds of the draft to build depth.
Of all the championship teams in the last 15 years, how many of each teams top 3 players, their “superstars”, were drafted in the first round by that team? I don’t have time to do an analysis, but I’d venture to say that there may be one or two teams like that, out of 15.
My point is that you can’t base the running of a team around drafting “superstars” in the first round. As tom s is saying, if 90% of those first round picks turned into superstars than losing that first round pick would be a disaster, like it is in the NBA, where a large proportion of those players become All-Star caliber talents.
But baseball is different, there’s a large proportion of turds in every first round, it’s just that nobody knows who they are, and nobody can predict injury or the inability to hit a big league curveball when they’re playing high school baseball. You can scout all you want, but you’ll never know exactly what you’re getting every time, while you have a much greater idea of the return you’re going to be getting from a Type A free agent.
The really good farm systems, the Atlanta Braves, the Boston Red Sox, are able to find good talent in the middle rounds of the draft, find good diamonds in the rough in Latin America, and then are able to parlay that depth into available players via trade, or develop middle round talent into functional parts of their major league team. Since when has Atlanta or Boston NOT gone after a type A free agent that they really thought would help their ballclub?
All we are saying is that losing a first round draft pick does cost you value in the draft, but the draft is such a crapshoot most of the time that you can afford to lose a pick occasionally when going after a free agent that can help your ballclub immediately, starting the very next season.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Nov 23, 2008 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well let's see
Philadelphia Phllies in 2008: Chase Utley, Pat Burrell, Cole Hamels and Brett Meyers were first round picks by the Phillies. Jimmy Rollins was a second round pick.
2008 Tampa Bay Rays: Longoria, Upton, Kazmir, and Baldelli were first round picks with Crawford in the second.
2007 Colorado Rockies: Troy Tulowitzki, Todd Helton, and Jeff Francis were all first round picks by the Rockies.
2006 Detroit Tigers: Justin Verlander and Jeremy Bonderman were first round picks with Brandon Inge in the second and Curtis Granderson in the third.
2005 Chicago White Sox: John Garland, Aaron Rowand and Paul Konerko were all first round picks although Konerko was somebody else’s.
2005 Houston Astros: Lance Berkman, Craig Biggio, and Brad Lidge were first round draft picks of the Astros
2002 Anaheim Angels: Troy Glause, Darin Erstad were first round picks with John Lackey and Jarod Washburn being picked in the second.
This quick look for the most part doesn’t include 1st round picks drafted by other teams, but most of these teams had multiple of those and we all know the Yankees and Red Sox have been collecting other teams first round picks for years. Not to mention that one reason why the Red Sox have been so good recently is they have been drafting guys like Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester, and Buchholz high in the draft.
The elements you cite (e.g. later round finds, amateur free agents) are also undoubtedly important, but are even more of a crapshoot than 1st round picks. I don’t think you will find a team that consistently screws up its first round picks in the postseason very often unless they have the luxury of a much higer payroll than the Cardinals. Just imagine how successful the Jocketty era would have been if Drew and Ankiel could have stayed healthy and productive. Trading Drew for Wainwright (another first round pick) was key in positioning the Cardinals for the next several years.
Please try to remember that the original discussion that brought us to the subject of the value of first round picks concerned giving up a first round pick so that we could rush out and sign one Edgar Renteria. I still think that is a colossally bad idea and if you think it’s not then we will just have to disagree. I totally agree that “you can afford to lose a pick occasionally when going after a free agent that can help your ballclub immediately, starting the very next season.” I just completely disagree that Edgar is that guy. After all, I did say above, “There are undoubtedly free agents worth losing a first round pick over…”.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 23, 2008 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Jeremy Bodnerman wasn't the tiger's first round pick
they got him from the Yankees in the Weaver trade, if I remember right
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Nov 23, 2008 7:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and the Yankess got him from the A's
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Nov 23, 2008 8:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kazmir wasn't drafted by the Rays
He was gift wrapped to them by the Mets.
You still didn’t answer the actual question either. Very few of those teams picked all of those guys, and I really question whether Darin Erstad, Rocco Baldelli, Brandon Inge, and Jarrod Washburn qualify as “superstars” or even as one of the top three players on their team sniff test.
Do I think giving up our first round pick to get Edgar Renteria is a good idea? No, I don’t, mainly because we can probably get him without giving up our pick if we simply wait 3 weeks until after the arbitration. Our entire offseason does not rise and set with signing one Edgar Renteria. Would I give up our first round pick to sign Rafael Furcal? Yes, I would, since he’d make a big difference on next years team.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Nov 24, 2008 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Again, you can nitpick
my rapid browsing accuracy all you want, but my point has at least as much validity as yours that is essentially first round picks don’t mean very much. We are essentially in agreement here on the real question at hand – Edgar Renteria is not worth a first round draft pick. That is the only point I tried to make here.
Yes, I would give up a first round pick to sign Furcal, but lucky for us that is not necessary. We won’t sign Furcal for the same reason we didn’t sign a top tier FA in 1997 and 1999 – we are not willing to pay what it takes to get those guys. I don’t think the decision process on the part of the club has ever had much to with the cost of surrendering a pick. Given that the only successful free agent signing the club has made in the last dozen years or so was Jason Isringhausen, it has been pretty clear they are unwilling to pay premium price for premium players. So, we get the Ron Gants and the Tino Martinezes of the world instead.
The fact that the A’s got Joe Blanton as compensation really doesn’t matter.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 24, 2008 12:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kyle gets no love?!
$4m for the number 2 or 3 starter for this year.That’s good money there.
by tom s. on Nov 25, 2008 3:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure
I was thinking in terms of hitters, but he would probably be the pitching equivalent of Gant and Martinez in terms of the range of the market. Hopefully, we will perform well on his new contract.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 25, 2008 10:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That depends on what you mean by successful
Braden Looper, Reggie Sanders, David Eckstein, Cal Eldred, Mike Matheny, Andy Benes (the first time around), Tom Henke, and Bob Tewksbury, all had successful seasons in St. Louis after signing as free agents. They all filled the roles they were supposed to fill on the team. You could probably even put Juan Encarnacion in there as well. He was a league average outfielder for a championship team. I agree that none of those players were superstars, but most of the all-star types in the Jocketty era came in via trade, because that was his model of running a franchise.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Nov 25, 2008 11:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you feel comfortable
calling those guys premium players, then go ahead. To me, those are just more examples of settling for second tier players. I don’t recall, but were any of those Type A?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 25, 2008 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't call them premium players
And I didn’t. You said that Isringhausen was the only successful free agent signing on the last 15 years. I was merely pointing out that all of those signings have resulted in productive seasons for the team. They came in and filled a need that the club had that particular season. It depends on what you define as “successful”.
If you think successful signings involve type A superstar players then it’s time to think about becoming a fan of the Cubs, Red Sox, Angels, Mets, Dodgers or Yankees. Being a fan of any other team in MLB is going to be disappointing because most of the other teams do not have the revenue or pocketbooks to pony up for game changing free agents when they are available. A few of those contracts work out great (Manny, A-Rod, etc.) and some of them go down in flames (Zito, Jason Schmidt) and leave your team holding a $100M bag of bones with no production to show for it.
I’d rather go after one big time free agent every few years at a club friendly level, or continue to do what we’re doing: which is signing veteran players for need, being extremely good in the Rule 5 draft, stockpiling talent in the minors to fill more holes and trade depth for big name players in the last 1 or 2 years of team control. This model has worked pretty well for the Cardinals over the last 15 years, and with our improved drafting under Luhnow I think it will be a more successful model in the future.
I would also like to see the Cardinals be a major player in the Latin American market in the coming years. It’s a good place to get medium priced talent without using draft choices, and upside for a lot of those players is pretty damn good.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Nov 25, 2008 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry for not saying
successful Type A free agent signing. I thought it was pretty clear from the context.
You really have me confused. First, you argue that I am overvaluing first round picks because I didn’t want to give one to sign Edgar Renteria, now you tell me I should be a fan of free spending big market teams if I want the Cardinals to go out and sign a bunch of big free agents. Then you say big free-agent signings are not usually successful. Just exactly who are you arguing with here?
All I ever said is that we shouldn’t give up a first round pick unless we can get an impact player and that is something the Cardinals really haven’t done.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 25, 2008 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I'm not being clear
So I’ll break it out and bold my point for you:
The loss of a first round draft pick should not be the deciding factor when signing Type A free agents. The amount of money and years in the contract, coupled with whether that player fills a specific need on a team that is ready to win now should be the important factors.
That doesn’t mean that the player even need to be Type A, he just needs to fill a need, like a LOOGY and middle infielder would this year for the Cardinals.
Also, I’m not arguing with myself, I’m trying to decide what you mean by impact. The Tom Henke signing was an impact signing for a team that had no closer. He was incredibly good that year, but the team wasn’t very good. That doesn’t mean he didn’t have an impact, it’s just that other factors didn’t work out properly. Our team, the Cardinals, cannot afford to go out and spend, spend, spend on 28 year old free agents an give them ridiculous contracts, especially right now, when we have the best player in the game coming towards the end of his deal.
I outlined above how I think the organization needs to run, and it does involve drafting well, but that doesn’t mean that I value draft picks more than I do getting a good veteran free agent that helps the ballclub immediately, especially when that ballclub is in position to make a run at a division title and World Series. I believe that if a couple things break right for this team that we are in that position right now
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Nov 25, 2008 10:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The loss of a first round draft pick should not be the deciding factor when signing Type A free agents
It should be taken into consideration as much as anything.
Furcal
by JI on Nov 26, 2008 3:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
So losing the pick should get as much consideration as how much that player would make over what number of years, and how that player fits into the current team?
If all things are equal, what you’re saying is this:
We have Players A and B, and they are respective A and B free agents. They are of similar talent, and both play SS. They are both 30 years old. Player B wants a 5Y$50M contract while Player A will sign for 2Y$20M so he can be a free agent again at age 32. If what you’re saying is true, we should consider signing player A just as much as player B because we don’t lose our first round pick when we sign player A.
That’s the most ridiculous thing that I’ve ever heard. It would make more sense to sign player A even though we lose the draft pick, then to be on the hook for $30M more dollars over 3 more season and keep our draft pick.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Nov 26, 2008 11:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with everything you say
as I have for sometime now. However, if you think signing Edgar Renteria is a move that makes the difference between making the playoffs or not, then we will have to disagree on that one.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 26, 2008 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just to be clear
I don’t think that he’s the difference, and my point isn’t in respect to any one player.
What I am saying is that when evaluating free agents, losing a draft pick shouldn’t be the first thing considered. We should consider whether the player helps our team at a modest price and contract length and then worry about whether the draft pick is worth foregoing later on.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Nov 26, 2008 11:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just to be clear
I never said it should be the first thing or the primary thing considered. The entire conversation was about whether Renteria should be signed. The argument is that he won’t be offered arbitration, he isn’t all that valuable, he has some risk, and consequently it isn’t worth throwing away a pick just to sign him in advance of Dec. 1st.
That’s all the argument has ever been and I don’t understand why you can’t seem to get that.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 26, 2008 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
Just imagine how successful the Jocketty era would have been if Drew and Ankiel could have stayed healthy and productive.
Just imagine how much more awesome the Jocketty era would have been if we had given up those two first round picks to acquire top tier free agents for the 1997 and 1999 seasons? We still would have been able to make the Rolen and Edmonds trades and might have had another top starting pitcher to pair with Morris and a true leadoff hitter playing second base instead of Vina.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Nov 24, 2008 11:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We wouldn't have had to give up JD Drew
he was the #5 pick overall.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Nov 24, 2008 12:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and ankiel was a second round pick.
So I think he would have been safe, as well.
Adam Kennedy was our first round pick that year, and he was a key part of the Edmonds trade; I’m not sure it is safe to say that “we still would have been able to make the edmonds trade” if we had given him away to sign a type A FA.
god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs
by SleepyCA on Nov 24, 2008 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Lets look at this another way
For how many of the following TYPE A free agents would you be willing to give up your first round draft pick. I don’t know which ones would be offered arbirtation, but obviuosly that factors into it:
Jason Varitek
Mark Texeira
Orlando Hudson
Orlando Cabrera
Edgar Remteria
Pat Burrell
Adam Dunn
Raul Ibanez
Manny Ramirez
Bobby Abreu
A.J. Burnett
Derek Lowe
Jamie Moyer
Oliver Perez
Andy Pettitte
CC Sabathia
Ben Sheets
Brian Fuentes
Jason Isringhausen
Francisco Rodriguez
Kerry Wood
Doug Brocail
Juan Curz
Bob Howry
Darren Oliver
Russ Springer
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 24, 2008 12:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Am I paying them league minimum?
If so, then almost all of them.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Nov 24, 2008 12:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And how much I have to pay them and for how long
would be a much, much more important factor for me than the draft pick.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Nov 24, 2008 12:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And Darren Oliver is a Type A?
Wow, now that is an absolutely amazing fact.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Nov 24, 2008 12:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
oh, he's been kind of solid since he reinvented himself as a LOOGY
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Nov 24, 2008 12:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is that the record for self-replies?
I think so.
by spants on Nov 24, 2008 2:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That less ridiculous than Varitek
The dude batted .220!
by vivaelpujols on Nov 24, 2008 1:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wouldn't the key factor really be
whether they were likely to be offered arbitration and whether any team with a draft position of 16 or lower was interested in signing them? I think the rest of your comments are pretty useless or mocking or whatever.
Just assume you have to pay them all the going rate, that most of these players will not be offered arbitration, and few of them are in high demand by teams that select prior to 17th. Then tell me which ones would be worth a first round pick just to be sure they don’t get snapped up by someone else in the next week.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 24, 2008 9:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously?
He made an important point that you missed because you think you’re being made fun of.
If they all cost league minimum salary, I’d take every single one of them, except Varitek who should retire anyway, and give up my first round pick. That’s simple player valuation: Is the player in question worth more than a 25% (I’m being optimistic here) chance of drafting a superstar player that might help me in 2-4 years? Yes, all of them are because they help me now, which is the only reason to sign Type A free agents in the first place, when you’re in the “win-now” mode.
As he said, what the year and dollar amount they’re looking for has MUCH more to do with whether I’d sign them or not, with the loss of a draft pick being quite a ways down the list.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Nov 24, 2008 10:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You seriously
think that stating you would sign every Type A FA for league minimum is an important point? Has any Type A FA ever signed for anywhere near league minimum: NO! That is just a ridiculous statement of no importance whatsoever.
Of course it depends on what you have to pay them and how long – that is patently obvious. Nevertheless, as I stated the real issue is whether you can actually sign them without giving up the pick and the answer here seems to be yes. If you agree with that, then it is just silly to rush out and sign them and throw in a pick as well. I guarantee you the Edgar Renterias of the world don’t care whether the team that cut them loose gets a pick and they want to wait until the largest possible pool of suitors is available. Of course, if someone wants to make a ridiculous offer in the meantime I am sure it would get considered.
If you think the picks who are so unimportant then tell me how many teams so far have signed Type A FAs that will require them to surrender their first round pick? I’m not sure, but I think that number is a big fat zero.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 24, 2008 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1000
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Nov 24, 2008 10:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just Because
there is a mixed record of success for 1st round draft picks, it does not mean they are not valuable. Studies consistently show that each round of the draft produces less value than the round before it. That some teams make poor use of their draft picks (Lambert was pretty questionable at the time he was picked, for example) doesn’t mean that pure luck is the only factor in determining success in the draft.
by tarakas on Nov 24, 2008 12:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I never said they weren't valuable
I’m not stating that at all. I’m just saying that when you’re evaluating Type A free agents, you should make the decision to sign them based on the fact that they help your ballclub and that they’ll sign for a reasonable amount of money and years that the team can afford. The fact that you’re losing a first round pick shouldn’t be the deciding factor in whether or not to sign a guy.
Furthermore, while the picks may be valuable, here is a list of every first round draft pick by the Cardinals since 1965. I don’t see a single HOF player on there, although Ted Simmons deserves some consideration, IMHO. I see very few All Star players on there either. So if you’re saying that we should keep picks instead of signing an above average veteran free agents like Ron Gant that fill a hole on the current MLB roster, then I have to disagree with you. Ron Gant had better numbers with the Cardinals than every position player drafted in the first round by the Cardinals in the 5 years before he was signed.
Has the team gotten better at evaluating talent lately? I think so: Look at our last 4 drafts since Luhnow was put in charge. We’ve gotten Perez, Colby, Wallace, Mortenson, none of whom have extensive big league service time yet, but they all look to be players that can contribute to the ballclub. Even then we still ended up with Ottavino, McCormick, Greene, and Herron — who haven’t shown yet that they will be able to contribute in the MLB any time soon.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Nov 25, 2008 10:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The list means nothing
If you want to talk All-Stars, here is a quick number for you: of the 18 position players selected to start the 2008 All-Star game, half them were first round draft picks (Mauer, Jeter, A-Rod, Hamilton, Ramirez, Berkman, Utley, Jones, Braun)
by tarakas on Nov 25, 2008 12:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Once again
it’s not how many all-stars are first rounders
It’s how many first rounders become all-stars.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Nov 25, 2008 11:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW
I just put together a list of the top 104 players in 2008, half starting pitchers and half positions players. They were selected on PRC and GPA, respectively. Of those, 40 were first round picks, 17 were amateur free agents, 13 were second round picks, and 19 were taken after the 10th round.
A lot of first rounders fail, but they are still the single most reliable source of talent. At least I would imagine there are more than 30 amateur free agents signed each year.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 26, 2008 1:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, it's a little bit of both
Yes, at least 40% of the all-starts in any given year come out of the first round. But 55-60 of them usually come from other areas as well.
Time is a factor that the above argument doesn’t consider. We drafted Wallace last June. He probably won’t be ready to play until at least the end of next year and most likely 2010. If we had signed a Type A free agent SS in the offseason last year to a three year deal (and I’m being hypothetical here, I know there wasn’t one out there), we’re getting two years of all-star level play before Wallace ever takes the field for the team that receives our draft pick. This team is in position to make a run at a division title next year, if we can find a type A free agent that helps us do that then it’s worth giving up the draft pick that won’t help us until 2011, 2012, or 2013.
The Cardinals have drafted high in every single draft since 2005 and done very well with those picks. Now that those players are starting to come together in the high minors, it may be time to forgo high draft picks for a couple of years to get some needed players to help make a run at a title.
Albert Pujols is just entering his prime. We will have at least 3 of those prime seasons, and up to 6 of them if we can re-sign him and he retires a Cardinal. While I think that long term planning is important, I think that we have the young talent in the minors now that we need to make that run, and that a good Type A pitcher (such as Derek Lowe) or a good Type A middle infielder (such as Raffy Furcal) in the next 18 months could give the team a better shot at a title.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Nov 26, 2008 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're missing the point
No, it has nothing to do with the rate of success. If half of All-Stars are first rounders, then it is far and away the best source for them. Denying your team access to that source is a bad idea. All other rounds have a much LOWER rate of success.
by tarakas on Nov 29, 2008 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That argument makes no sense
we’re talking about the value of an individual draft pick. That’s all we’re talking about. And the only way you can evaluate the value of that draft pick is to estimate the outcomes of that pick, assign approximate probabilities and values to those outcomes, and then multiply and sum.
The fact that other, wholly unrelated things might have a less favorable distribution of outcomes is completely immaterial. Especially considering that another source of All-Stars on your roster is SIGNING THEM AS FREE AGENTS.
A smart free-agent signing is almost always going to have a vastly higher rate of success than a first round draft pick. And it will have that success instantly, rather than after a four year delay. The problem with free agent signings is the dollars and the years. The costs associated with dollars and years, in fact, vastly outwiegh the lost draft picks.
Especially when you get the draft picks back twofold at the end of the FA contract.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Nov 30, 2008 3:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just wait until Dec 1st
The Tigers aren’t going to risk Edgar accepting arbitration (kinda like Eck and us last year) and therefore the Tigers won’t offer him and signing Edgar (which we shouldn’t) after Dec 1st won’t cost a pick.
by ubeddie on Nov 20, 2008 11:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Looks like the Giants are in the lead to get Edgar.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081121&content_id=3688385&vkey=hotstove2008&fext=.jsp
So I wonder what plan B is or maybe it’s plan C for Mo when it comes to our SS hole?
We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
by KYCards on Nov 21, 2008 9:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Thank god is all i can say.
Space.
It's a problem we face.
So we never go anywhere.
We just stay in one place.
by hazel on Nov 22, 2008 10:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
TO THE GIANTS!
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/11/giants-sign-edg.html
I think we just dodged a bullet.
by astrostl on Nov 24, 2008 3:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Pricing Renteria...
Apparently 2 yrs/$18 mil.
Good job for Edgar getting that kind of cash, but if I were going to 9/year for Renteria I’d probably just jump to the next level and try and get in on Furcal.
Edgar would have been a fine shortstop for us at about half that cost, but that was never going to happen.
by Beware the Molinas on Nov 24, 2008 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Unnecessarily flushed a draft pick too.
by astrostl on Nov 24, 2008 4:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
At least at will
be a 2nd rounder. I wonder who else he thought was going to sign Edgar prior to the arb deadline?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 24, 2008 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good question
The Giants two biggest issues: age and position player talent level. This fixes neither.
The Giants first two signees: Jeremy Affeldt and Edgar Renteria.
Affeldt isn’t old, but he’s not young either, and he’s a relief pitcher. Renteria is MI who has been playing in the majors since 1996, is on the wrong side of 30, has a hitting toolset that doesn’t age well (a semi-hacker with a BA dependent OBP and not much power), and isn’t much of a fielder at SS anymore.
The Giants should be hoarding draft picks, not letting them waltz away for aging players with questionable futures.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Nov 24, 2008 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course, this is assuming that deal actually goes through...
One never knows
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Nov 24, 2008 6:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the giants play in the worst division in baseball, and while 12 (or 16 pyth) games is a lot to make up, when your starting infield has ops+’s of 83, 109, 74 and 45, it’s also a lot easier than usual to make those games up.
by greenback06 on Nov 24, 2008 7:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
beh, the dodgers underperformed pyth too, so it’s an even bigger difference. of course the dodgers may be losing a few players…
by greenback06 on Nov 24, 2008 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think
…that is a wise way to rebuild a team. Saying, “well, we weren’t good last year, but neither was our division as a whole, so we’ll make dumb moves that will marginally upgrade our team to have a shot at winning 80 games and making the playoffs,” is a poor way to win. They need a rather dramatic overhaul…get younger and/or get more power, and they don’t seem willing to do that.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Nov 25, 2008 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the giants have a lot of low-hanging fruit, so a dramatic overhaul isn’t all that difficult. it certainly doesn’t require a massive shift in philosophy such as a pure youth movement. and upgrading a bad infield today beats sitting around for five years, doing nothing and hoping the baseball equivalent to david stern’s ping pong ball goes your way.
aside from the problem with failure rates of high draft picks already discussed, while you’re waiting on the farm to ride to the rescue, you run the risk of poisoning the well. a good example of this danger sits in oakland. for all of beane’s brilliance about how to build a winner, his teams have had conspicuously low attendance. if it’s ultimately about money and not just win/losses, then much of beane’s philosophy has to be regarded as a failure.
by greenback06 on Nov 26, 2008 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t have predicted that my most positive moves of the “Cardinal” offseason so far would be the A’s trading for Holliday and the Giants picking up Renteria, heh :)
“Orioles targeting Izturis” BTW – http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/11/orioles-targeti.html
Love to get Escobar, happy to get Greene if not part of an expensive Peavy deal.
by astrostl on Nov 24, 2008 4:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
false
5:02pm: Via an email from ESPN’s Jerry Crasnick, Renteria’s agent Barry Meister says the report of Renteria signing is not true. Renteria is at home in Colombia; nothing is close.
by bearcatcardfan on Nov 24, 2008 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
looks like a crosby trade to STL will follow
if and when A’s/Giants sign Furcal/Renteria either today or tomorrow
by Asfan4ever723 on Nov 24, 2008 5:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Surely you can't be serious
tell me you are joking
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Nov 24, 2008 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
so...
… we get Crosby + somebody useful + cash, and the A’s get a 12-pack of Bud? maybe some toasted ravioli tossed in as a sweetener?
by kindred on Nov 24, 2008 8:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
a 6 pack of Schlafly Oatmeal Stout and a frozen custard is my counter offer
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Nov 24, 2008 8:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
throw in some imo's & you've got yourself a deal
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
by gdm426 on Nov 24, 2008 11:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
just to make it clear
that is my offer to Oakland to not send us Crosby
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Nov 25, 2008 6:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
where did you see this?
god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs
by SleepyCA on Nov 24, 2008 9:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
tell me you mean sidney crosby to the blues
i’m not sure i can handle bobby crosby
by VolsnCards5 on Nov 24, 2008 9:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It would flipping
rock if the Blues had Sidney Crosby. I might actually start watching hockey again.
by spants on Nov 25, 2008 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The words...
…Bobby, Crosby, and Cardinals put together like that give me involuntary seizures. The dude is a bad baseball player, plain and simple. If he were a dumpster dive that would be one thing, but getting him in a trade? No.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Nov 25, 2008 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I still prefer Khalil Greene
Keep your draft pick, pay less money, at least get some defense out of the deal.
Space.
It's a problem we face.
So we never go anywhere.
We just stay in one place.
by hazel on Nov 25, 2008 11:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like Khalil too if we can't get Furcal
if he can be had at a reasonable price
Furcal
by JI on Nov 26, 2008 3:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
