Comments on: Daily Prospect Report 8/17/07

By: siddfynch

siddfynch — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:35:56 +0000

Azru,

I agree with you. But when I read Goldstein’s editorial the other day, my take-home message was the 10% / 20% argument….which doesn’t neccessarily hold water.

By: Grant

Grant — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:12:44 +0000

Without a salary cap in baseball, I’m not sure there is a solution to this problem. In the NBA, draft picks get a certain amount based on where they were drafted. They have a set amount of money for each spot in the draft. In that system, teams pick the best player, not the player who best fits the team’s budget. I don’t see anything like that happening in baseball though.

By: SleepyCA

SleepyCA — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 20:40:50 +0000

Agree, Sidd. He also should have compared it to more than one year.

IMHO the obvious solution to the draft problem is to enforce a fair slot amount and have all the money for the draft itself come out of a central pot that all teams contribute to equally, whether they have the #1 choice or the 30th. Draft picks should be chosen based on talent, not signability. It’s not fair to punish poor teams who finished last the year before by forcing them to either fork out a significant amount of their available free agent money for signing bonuses (on players who have a good chance of either fizzling or not being useful for 3-5 years) or lose the chance of signing the best available player.

By: azruavatar

azruavatar — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 20:32:32 +0000

Sidd — I follow what your saying but the point of the draft is for the worst teams to get the best talent. That isn’t happening right now. I don’t have the answers but the system is broken.

By: siddfynch

siddfynch — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:21:53 +0000

The notable omission from Goldstein’s analysis/editorial is any discussion of what bonuses might have been had MLB not tried to cajole teams into respecting slot values. Regardless of whether you agree with MLB’s approach, Goldstein’s absence of discussion of a pretty obvious flip side of the coin left me a little underwhelmed by his article.

If my city starts an initiative to get 100% compliance on emissions registrations of vehicles and only gets 90% compliance the first year, does that mean it was a failure? Maybe so, maybe not…but there’s room for debate.

By: erik

erik — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:20:12 +0000

we put him down as james because firstinning’s player linker only works with that name. We could do it manually, but doing that night in and night out for almost every player that’s name isn’t exactly right gets tedious.

By: fewgoodcards

fewgoodcards — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:14:30 +0000

i believe he goes by deryk

By: Mike J

Mike J — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:09:55 +0000

Paul, at this point I might be more inclined to try the Hoff at leadoff next year moreso than Rasmus, unless Rasmus goes on an absolute tear the rest off the season I think he needs some time in AAA next year. He will also have enough power to be more of a middle of the order type, might as well have some guys on base for all of those XBH’s he collects.

By: Shhh

Shhh — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:02:21 +0000

Who do you guys think has been more impressive so far, Hooker or Mortensen?

Also, do you guys know if Hooker goes by James or Deryk?

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:51:05 +0000

Another interesting thing of note last night—Colby leading off. Maybin and Upton (2 HS OF from same class) already in bigs. Eckstein a free agent. See where I’m going?