User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets. |
We have baseball tickets, the NFL schedule, college football tickets and Cowboys tickets. We have NBA tickets like Celtics tickets and Lakers tickets. Plus, buy Giants tickets, Patriots tickets and Colts tickets. Also check out our MLB baseball schedule |
Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers |
Page rendered in 0.5478 seconds
81 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
If the Pirates could turn a top 5 pick into multiple early-round picks, and spend about the same amount of money to sign those multiple players, would that be a bad thing?
It would certainly make the draft a lot more interesting, and it would allow MLB to put mandatory bonus slotting rules in place. If a big spending team wants to sign a superstar Boras client, they'll have to give up later round draft picks (or players) to trade up further in the draft, rather than just waiting for them to drop.
Who knows, they might stumble upon an actual major leaguer.
It'd never happen. They'd trade down and take senior signs or overdrafts, just like they always do, and then spend nothing on them becuase they're senior signs and overdrafts. I don't want them to have another built-in excuse to not do the right thing. I want them to actually invest in the ####### team. Allowing them to trade down will just make it harder to apply external pressure, since they'll have plausible deniability.
"It would certainly make the draft a lot more interesting, and it would allow MLB to put mandatory bonus slotting rules in place. If a big spending team wants to sign a superstar Boras client, they'll have to give up picks to trade up further in the draft, rather than just waiting for them to drop."
1) Draft slotting rules could be implemented without allowing teams to trade picks. They aren't chained at the hip.
2) Draft slotting rules need to be collectively bargained, which means that the owners would need to give MLBPA something very tasty in exchange for the rights to do so.
3) Tradable picks, if implemented without draft slotting (as seems likely), would give Boras considerably more power to steer his clients to the markets that he wants, making the talent distribution of the draft even more uneven than it already is.
So he's not like the Uptons as a prospect. I wonder why he's being compared to them.
I don't think the owners would need to offer much. Draftees aren't members of the union, so I don't think the MLBPA is too concerned about their welfare.
Get rid of draft compensation for signing free agents if that's what it takes. That's something else that isn't working properly (it rewards rich teams for being able to offer arbitration to crappy relievers), and the union should be ecstatic to get rid of it.
Besides, a well-designed slotting system would give every draftee about the same bonus they get under the current system.
In my view, the owners should adopt a slotting system and allow the trading of first round picks only. And they should reduce the number of rounds to 30.
So he's not like the Uptons as a prospect. I wonder why he's being compared to them.
They're all black! What other similarities do you need?
They aren't, but they know that this is an item of serious value to the owners, and they'd want their pound of flesh in exchange for providing that.
Other than drug testing, when was the last time the players gave the owners something for nothing?
"Besides, a well-designed slotting system would give every draftee about the same bonus they get under the current system."
Why would the owners want an agreement that de facto preserves the status quo? Far more likely that they'd try for a system that'd hold bonuses down (which was, after all, the original purpose of the draft in the first place).
This looks like a draft with lot of college pitching. Littlefield must be cursing his luck that he isn't around this year!
That's very disappointing to hear. I just wish we could see behind the hazy veil of decision making in the Mets organization. It's frustrating to root for a team that makes intelligent decisions half the time, and has its head up its arse the other half of the time.
I don't know that anybody will, but I'd like to think that the Mets would take a player that does slide. I think there is an outside chance that Hosmer could be available (rumored $7 mil bonus demands) and Alvarez is a bit of a wild card. I'm not too concerned with that scenario though - the Mets have been willing to bust slot in the 1st round before (Kazmir, Pelfrey). I'm more concerned by the failure of the Mets to use their resources to take signability guys in the mid to late rounds.
My two cent speculation - the Commissioner's office gave the Mets the extra two hours to sign Santana in return for the Mets' promise to be good citizens in the draft.
Join the club.
//white sox fan
As far as talking about some of the prospects -- anyone have thoughts on Gordon Beckham? Just from reading a handful of scouting reports, is it fair to say his ceiling is somewhat limited? They (the scouting reports) read like he's a guy who's average or slightly better-than-average in multiple areas but not great in any one. And I'd also be concerned about the hints that 2B, not SS, is where his future lies.
I haven't read anything about him moving off of SS. And, if he is a guy that's good in tons of stuff but not great, that makes him what, Tulowitzki without the D? Or is that too much of a bat?
Either way, the Sox haven't produced a good middle infielder in their minors in what seems to be decades OR gotten crap from the first round in a while either, so if Gordon Beckham will play, I'd take him.
It's not like they have the same offensive upside. While scouts are no longer actively questioning Beckham's power, nobody sees it as a real plus tool for him like it is for Hosmer.
19 years old, 1.74 ERA in High-A. 28 hits allowed in 44 IP.
Lookin' pretty good for the Tigers there. I kinda want them to get Eric Thames but #21 might be too high.
From what I understand Porcello's limited trouble has been later in games. When he gets to the 5th or 6th inning he's tired and struggles just a bit.
EDIT: Porcello's season stats
His WHIP 0.997. Gamelog looks pretty good from minorleaguebaseball.com
Hit prevention IS important for minor league pitchers, as Clay Davenport has demonstrated; Porcello's H/IP (and his in-play BA, which stands at .213) are important indicators. He's also throwing grounders at an extreme rate, which is normally a very good thing for a young pitcher as well. Unearned runs are a fact of life in the low minors; I tend to discount those to some extent below AA. You'd like the K's to be higher, especially in the FSL, but as ian said in 26, the kid IS just 19 and pitching in high-A.
-- MWE
-- MWE
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Prospects are essentially investments - assuming the Mets have the capital to invest in both Latin America and the draft, then they should be doing so (provided they think both investments are +EV). If the Mets are spending less money on the draft in order to sign more Latin American talent, then they're making a mistake. If they're not spending on the draft because they don't think the same caliber talent is available or whatever, then that's another story.
I can only see two good arguments for draft spending to have anything to do with Latin American spending:
1. You don't have the capital to spend on both. This should damn well not be an issue for the Mets. I'm not saying they have an infinite budget, but that's a different issue. A given minor leaguer is either +EV or not at a given price - that's the question which should be determinative assuming you have the capital to make all +EV investments.
2. You're afraid of playing time issues if you sign a lot of premium talent. This is a pretty theoretical risk it seems to me, but I guess if the Mets sign two top Latin American shortstops, and the only top draftee who falls to them is also a shortstop, then it might make sense for them to pass on one of these guys.
Short of that though, the two should operate largely independently.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main