RealGM

http://www.torontosun.com/sports/baseba ... 1-sun.html

Guess who plans on being big spenders come next June?

Word in the lobby at the winter meetings is:

Your Toronto Blue Jays.

“It’s going around the scouting community that Toronto is set to spend $16 million next summer on the June draft signing players,” said an envious scouting director of a large-revenue club.

“I don’t know how they are going to spend $16 million,” said another scouting director. “It must be counting international players signed.”

This summer the Jays spent $4.895 million in signing bonuses. In 2008, the Jays spent $4.359 million. The Washington Nationals were the biggest spenders this summer forking out $11.511 million in bonuses, while the Kansas City Royals spent $11.148 million in 2008.

$16m would be entirely unprecedented; it's just a ridiculous amount of cash. It's enough to swing for the fences with a few of our nine picks in the first three rounds (assuming that someone signs Barajas, and we don't sign a Type-A FA), still spend freely on the others, and be active in the Dominican and Puerto Rico. I've been trying to temper expectations of the AA era, and some of his early moves have definitely helped that cause. But five top-50 picks and a bunch more thereafter with an open pocketbook can turn a franchise around in a heartbeat. ****, do it right and we have a top-10 system overnight.

Of course, the same was said about 2007, and the results from that bunch have been less than stellar. And if the organization is just **** with me again, this might be the only way they'll ever disabuse me of Jays fandom. Now that they've put that out there, I don't care how the money gets allotted, I want every cent of that $16m spent, dammit.

I'm not that in tune with the baseball drafting system, so I don't realize how spending (or lack there of has impacted our drafting over the last number of years. Are there any examples of players we avoided due to an inability to sign them had we picked them, where this new strategy would have allowed us to pick them?

If we can grab 3-4 studs out of this draft, thats a 3rd of a starting lineup down the road we can control with entry level contracts....great idea if it works.

$16 million seems way too high of a figure (unless they have a Porcello or two in mind) but if they actually spend that amount on the draft then that would be great. I just hope they actually sign all of their picks this time and don't reach for signability picks too much. Regardless, if the Jays are trading Halladay and fully intend on sucking at the Major League level, then I have no problem allocating more to the draft and international signings. In fact, that's probably the best way to go. Go overslot, don't nickel and dime on top prospects, take advantage of the international market, and actually build a system that can not only produce talent at the MLB level but also become an asset in trades.

That's really the only way I will be able to stomach another rebuilding phase.

kelso wrote:I'm not that in tune with the baseball drafting system, so I don't realize how spending (or lack there of has impacted our drafting over the last number of years. Are there any examples of players we avoided due to an inability to sign them had we picked them, where this new strategy would have allowed us to pick them?

Hard to provide specific players that we might have taken if not for signability issues, but every draft has at least a dozen (more if you include the HS kids who aren't particularly interested in turning pro, but might for an exorbitant amount of money) players who tumble because teams are scared off by their demands.

In recent years, though, a number of smaller-market teams have joined their well-heeled peers and come to the realization that you're still getting incredible value, even if you're shelling out a pretty hefty amount of money to an 18 year old who won't see the majors for four years. Combine the downward movement in the slot recommendations (the bottom picks of the 1st round in 2009 saw the smallest bonuses for their positions in close to a decade, IIRC) who want to push the envelope -- and are aware that an ever-increasing number of teams are defying the slots -- and you end up with a two- or three-tiered market.

For a long time, we were one of the teams on Bud's good side...we'd go overslot from time to time, but not with any frequency. Last year, we committed to going overslot to get the best players...and we did, kinda, drafting a number of kids that were looking for above-slot money. Unfortunately, though we signed a couple (Jake Marisnick, KC Hobson, Daniel Webb) we didn't end up coming to terms with three of them over rather trifling amounts, and the general feeling was that the organization pulled out the rug at the last minute (rather than 'standing on principle', which was essentially Beeston's explanation).

The hope is that, if they're willing to bust the bank, we'll be one of the teams picking off sliders for a change...and actually getting them under contract when we do.

$16 million would EASILY be a new record.

Even IF that includes international signings, if that is what we end up spending then AA is definitely on the right track.

This is potentially good news, but you'll have to forgive me for not being excited. Where was all this money during the previous signing period when the Jays threw away half their picks? Until they take that 16m and put it where their mouth is next year, I'm going to put about as much faith in this story as I did the 120m payroll.

Spending 16 million on 18 year olds who won't make a difference(if they ever) in gate revenue for atleast 4-5 years would be a ballsy move by Rogers. Maybe they already realize the apathy creeping into the Jays fan base and the only way to really win someone back is to build a contender through short term pain and long term gain.

This could be great news but I wouldn't want this annouced and some of the kids will use this as leverage to ask for more $$. I think it includes Latin America spending also but in the end talk is cheap. We will have to wait until June to see if it happens. Hopefully Bryce Harper drops to us because of absurb demands..

Garmfay wrote:This could be great news but I wouldn't want this annouced and some of the kids will use this as leverage to ask for more $$. I think it includes Latin America spending also but in the end talk is cheap. We will have to wait until June to see if it happens. Hopefully Bryce Harper drops to us because of absurb demands..

Exactly, talk is cheap. They talked a big game in February and didn't follow through in August. Ironically, their reasoning for not following through was not wanting to ruin their leverage going forward. Well, how does announcing you're going to spend heaps of cash help with that?

OK, from a fan- standpoint, I can see why they will announce that they will do it.

However, from a business standpoint, this is dumb. I can see Scott Boras licking his chops at the prospect of all that money. Then a record will be set and the bar goes higher and higher.

By the way, MLB has the dumbest entry draft ever. It goes like 30 rounds, picks can't be traded and there is no rookie salary cap or entry level contracts. Also, players can re-enter drafts and the team's rights to that player is held for a very short time ie a signing period. So, basically, a 1st round player can makes millions of dollars off the bat and yet may never make it past double A ball. AND the Jays want to invest more in this crapshoot?

LieCheatSteal wrote:So, basically, a 1st round player can makes millions of dollars off the bat and yet may never make it past double A ball.

Or you can spend $20 million a year to have Vernon Wells play at below-average production.

It seems like a lot but when you break down the facts you begin to understand that even hitting on a few picks will more than pay the amount you spend on a draft and then some. There is nothing more valuable in baseball than home grown talent. You control those kids for pennies on the dollar for multiple years, and then you get first stab on resigning them to very budget friendly deals before they blow up (see: Aaron Hill's extension, Evan Longoria's extension). Think of how much Hill and Lind made last year: the answer is a combined $3,001,800. 3 freaking million for 71 home runs and 222 RBI's. Compare that to how much we paid to have Bj Ryan go home and sit on his couch for the rest of the season.

I've made posts about this before so I wont repeat myself, but several of the historically bad celler dwellers have switched to outspending big-market teams in the draft because it simply is the only possible way to compete in a cap-less league. You can spend $10 million a year on the draft and bring in loads of talented prospects, the majority of which will amount to nothing...however...you hit on one Hill, maybe a Cecil, you find a very good reliever...you've stretched that $10 million into a boatload of value. What will $10 million buy you on the open market? Absolutely nothing. Hell, we're paying John McDonald $1.5 million a year to do what? Sit on the bench for 70% of the season?

LieCheatSteal wrote:By the way, MLB has the dumbest entry draft ever. It goes like 30 rounds, picks can't be traded and there is no rookie salary cap or entry level contracts. Also, players can re-enter drafts and the team's rights to that player is held for a very short time ie a signing period. So, basically, a 1st round player can makes millions of dollars off the bat and yet may never make it past double A ball. AND the Jays want to invest more in this crapshoot?

Yes. Absolutely, they want to spend more money on it.

As Met noted, it's incredibly easy for a team to recoup the costs of draft picks. Let's say that we spend $16m on the draft, and somehow manage to strike out on every player except one (to the extent that none of the others make it to the majors at all), who turns into an above-average pitcher. So let's look at the costs over the course of their pre-free agency time with the club:

- First, second and third years (because I'm lazy, this imaginary kid didn't reach Super-2 status): roughly $1m for the three years combined, because they make what we give them, essentially.

- Fourth, fifth and sixth years: arbitration eligible. I'll use Ervin Santana's ask price (before re-signing to a long-term deal) here...he was looking for $4.325m, the team offered $3.6m, and with raises over his arb years these three seasons might cost an additional $18m.


So, using the worst-case numbers, the team has invested $16m in the draft and $19m in the player, or $35m overall. Which seems like quite a bit...however, $35m over 6 years for an above-average pitcher is a sweetheart deal, so even here the team ends up winning. And this is the absolute-worst-case-never-gonna-be-this-bad scenario, where we bust on eight out of nine top-100 picks, and fail to get any value from the 40+ rounds thereafter, either.

This is great news for the rebuild. Finally no more mediocrity.

Well we have to employ a new strategy somehow... It will be nice to build from within, albeit with less immediate gratification/returns at the MLB level. Guys like Shad and MetA4 who are way more plugged in than me at the prospect level should be able to enjoy an increase in draft-related investment and strategies all the more...

Relentless88 wrote:This is great news for the rebuild. Finally no more mediocrity.

If recent drafts have taught us anything it's that you don't count your Ahrens, Arencibia, Jackson, etc.. eggs before they hatch.

I'd much rather spend on picks and internationals than FA's with this roster, but spending on the draft doesn't ensure anything to me.

If I were AA I would've kept my mouth shut and shelled out the money at the draft and not disclose any numbers.

Why would an agent not want to keep pushing their client's contract higher and higher?

northernpuppy wrote:Why would an agent not want to keep pushing their client's contract higher and higher?

It really wont have that much of an impact. Every kid has an amount they will sign for and that number is usually known. Trying to get more than this number is risky and in the MLB draft it just doesn't really happen.

Schadenfreude wrote:

LieCheatSteal wrote:By the way, MLB has the dumbest entry draft ever. It goes like 30 rounds, picks can't be traded and there is no rookie salary cap or entry level contracts. Also, players can re-enter drafts and the team's rights to that player is held for a very short time ie a signing period. So, basically, a 1st round player can makes millions of dollars off the bat and yet may never make it past double A ball. AND the Jays want to invest more in this crapshoot?

Yes. Absolutely, they want to spend more money on it.

As Met noted, it's incredibly easy for a team to recoup the costs of draft picks. Let's say that we spend $16m on the draft, and somehow manage to strike out on every player except one (to the extent that none of the others make it to the majors at all), who turns into an above-average pitcher. So let's look at the costs over the course of their pre-free agency time with the club:

- First, second and third years (because I'm lazy, this imaginary kid didn't reach Super-2 status): roughly $1m for the three years combined, because they make what we give them, essentially.

- Fourth, fifth and sixth years: arbitration eligible. I'll use Ervin Santana's ask price (before re-signing to a long-term deal) here...he was looking for $4.325m, the team offered $3.6m, and with raises over his arb years these three seasons might cost an additional $18m.


So, using the worst-case numbers, the team has invested $16m in the draft and $19m in the player, or $35m overall. Which seems like quite a bit...however, $35m over 6 years for an above-average pitcher is a sweetheart deal, so even here the team ends up winning. And this is the absolute-worst-case-never-gonna-be-this-bad scenario, where we bust on eight out of nine top-100 picks, and fail to get any value from the 40+ rounds thereafter, either.

Yes. Of course, no one realizes this because it makes too much sense. MLB owners/GMs don't realize they've been getting away with highway robbery for decades. The MLBPA under Fehr has been very fair (sorry) with MLB over the last few decades. If that changes, the owners will have it coming to them.

-MetA4- wrote:

northernpuppy wrote:Why would an agent not want to keep pushing their client's contract higher and higher?

It really wont have that much of an impact. Every kid has an amount they will sign for and that number is usually known. Trying to get more than this number is risky and in the MLB draft it just doesn't really happen.

It doesn't really happen because teams generally do not disclose how much they're going to spend. If your going to spend x amount, shut your mouth and spend it.

If the kid tries to get more than his number and doesn't come to an agreement, he just goes back into the draft system anyways so it's win/win for guys drafted by the Jays. Economically and practically, this is just stupid.