Thursday, June 13, 2013
Megdal: What’s behind Francisco Liriano’s resurgent season?
(www.sportsonearth.com)
Or as Mitch Williams overly-twitched last night…“FRANCISCO LIRIANO HAS NEVER BEEN CONSISTENT!”
Read More...Still, what Liriano has managed to do since his first start on May 11 has been particularly remarkable. He entered Wednesday night’s game against the Giants with a 1.75 E.R.A. over six starts, 11.8 strikeouts per nine innings, and just 3.5 walks per nine. He’d struck out at least seven hitters in five of the six. He’s been every bit the ace the Twins once believed they had, and the Pirates had to ...
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.
Page 1 of 2 pages
1 2 >They get a comp pick next year if they don't sign him.
A. Sign Appel for, say, $4.5M, and lose your #1 next year
B. Don't sign Appel. They have their #1 next year and a comp pick (afer rd 1?).
Is two picks and 4.5M to spend with them worth an Appel?
Scott, is that you?
If the Pirates don't sign Appel they will have the # 9 pick in next year's draft + their regular first round pick. They only thing they're really losing is the year of development of time. The only way it makes sense to give up a pick is if they don't think they can get a comparable talent at # 9 next year, and given that this year's draft was seen as historically weak I'd lean towards the talent being there (especially with the high-upside guys the Bucs seem to target).
OTOH Appel is looking at going back to school, risking injury, and hoping he moves up enough to get more slot money. And he'll have less leverage as a college senior.
The comp pick would be in the same spot. Or maybe 9th instead of 8th.
You work for the Post?
At the end of the round or the number 9 pick?
so its either sign Appel and lose next year's #1 (guessing it'll end up around #15)
or lose Appel, pick #9 and around #15 next year....
I have no idea
They can't, unless they want to be subject to the 75% tax. And I believe if they offer more than $4.5 mill, they lose their 2013 first round pick.
If they can offer more without losing their #1 next year, they certainly should, even with the tax.
Appel takes it or leaves it, basically.
Put me down for 'take', and this is just bluster to see if anything crazy might happen before the deadline.
Then clearly don't sign him. Wow. That's a pretty big incentive to go along with the disincentive of going over slot.
Appel isn't that great a prospect, he isn't worth that kind of money, and the Pirates could probably do better letting him walk, devoting their remaining pool money this year to someone like Buehler, and taking a comp pick in the top 10 of next year's draft.
I hope the report is accurate, and I wish Appel luck with the rest of his career.
I don't know, maybe unlikely another team could offer more with their budget, but at least give the opportunity.
The crazy thing would be that the Pirates think they got a #1 pick talent that dropped way down. Usually, a #1 pick in one year is worth more than the next year's number #9 and #15 picks, so it's worth it to break the rule. The Pirates need to know that this isn't a usual year, and they'll be fine.
Do they get 'appropriate' slot money for both first round picks next year?
I.e., does a team that gets a comp pick essentially get a larger budget in the next draft (i.e., basically the slot money for BOTH slots)?
If so - then it seems to me it's probably for the best to let Appel go.
I believe so.
Its supposed to be a weaker draft next year, and Appel was pretty close to a consensus #1 this year, so I kinda agree with Craig. OTOH, I don't think Appel has much leverage here.
If teams could trade picks, no first round pick would ever agree to sign with the Pirates.
It's nice of Appel to try and save them from themselves.
Yes.
Law said a week ago that it's weaker, but BA said last month that it'd be stronger, so who knows?
Personally, I think Appel's a bust waiting to happen, so even a guy with a lower book value from next year's draft would be a step up, IMO.
Not really, no. BA had him at #4 in their Top 500. He was getting talked about as a probable #1 pick because he's from Houston and there were rumors that the Astros owner wanted them to go for an "immediate help" type, but that's not the same thing as him being the top talent.
If there was a #1 talent consensus around anyone, it was Buxton.
They can offer Appel $4,312,475 without losing their first-round pick, if they don't sign their 4th- and 8th-rounders and none of the 11+ guys go over $100K. Their budget is $6,563,500, and they've spent $2,579,200. They can spend 105% of their budget without losing a pick, so 6563500 * 1.05 - 2579200. Now, they would be taxed 75% on all the money over their budget, so it would really cost them $4,886,781.25 to sign Appel in that case.
looking at various lists and whatnot, I'd say that Appel was likely the plurality pick, either him or Buxton, neither was a clear #1...
yes, since 1990, those taken 1st overall have accumulated 379.6 WAR
9th overall: 124.8
15th overall: 110.6
the problem is that while 9th and 15th picks are essentially fungible, 1st overall is NOT
If you do not believe that Appel was #1, or what not be #1 in atypical year- then breaking slot for him is a bad idea- if you think he would be a #1 most years, if you think he's the David Rice/Jered Weaver of this year's draft class- then breaking slot would be wise
No, if you don't sign players in your first ten rounds, you lose that slot money. Their pool would drop roughly $500K if they don't sign those players. The $3.8m available remains virtually unchanged. That's why teams drafted college seniors rounds 4-10 or so, that they could sign well below slot and apply the leftovers to other picks.
If so, it's hard to imagine Appel is going to see that kind of offer again.
If you're a MLB GM, do you shy away from Appel in 2013 because he already refused to sign once or do you consider him an easier sign than most other high picks because he will be a college senior?
No. Buxton was long considered by many to be the #1 talent in the draft but the word all along was that the Astros wanted Appel since he was a college pitcher who would make a quicker impact in the big leagues. The Astros being linked to Appel at #1 wasn't a rumor that only developed as the draft approached, it was the word basically the whole year.
Absolutely. Nice pitcher, good dude with some stuff, but hardly someone you watch and go "Wow!"
Appel reminded me a lot of Luke Hochevar when Hochevar was at Tennessee. Both of them had all the ingredients you looked for in a top pick college pitcher but when you watched 'em pitch they didn't look dominating.
I believe the pool is adjusted picks a team doesn't sign so that, for instance, a team cannot not sign a second round pick and give the money to somebody else.
Also, if teams were allowed to trade picks I am almost certain that MLB would set it up so that the pool money would follow the player and there would be no benefit. MLB has taken many steps to prevent gaming the system, though teams have come up with some strategy for it.
Actually, the reverse was true. He started out very slow, and then redeemed himself down the stretch. He didn't get his K/9 over 9 until about two weeks before the draft, IIRC.
He did get blown up in his first postseason start. Maybe that's what you were thinking of?
I guess it was people nitpicking his performance then. Most of the scouting reports I read were like "he was really really good, but not great like I expected, so he's no longer our #1."
Sounds like Appel isn't going to sign, but the Pirates have done well the past few years taking guys thought to be tough signs and signing them. So we'll wait and see.
This is what I don't understand. I mean, unless Appel really just doesn't want to be a Pirate and it's worth it to leave money on the table and end up in another organization next year, I don't understand what kind of leverage he thinks he has. Teams have a huge incentive to not substantially exceed slot, and significant incentive to under-draft college seniors and tell them to take it or leave it, and that doesn't appear likely to change soon. Unless Boras is planning on busting the slot system and has convinced Appel (and/or other clients) he can do it, this doesn't make any sense as more than posturing.
Well, they screwed up when they took him, rather than one of the better players who wanted less money, but since then I can't complain much.
Stated by one semi-legitimate source, and then refuted by the team the next day. Were they telling the truth? Who knows?
I can sympathize - I certainly don't want him to be a Pirate, either.
For what it's worth I've never cared a lot for him as a prospect. Feels like if things break right for him he might have A.J. Burnett's career.
Picking your MLB team based on the organization's prior performance sure worked out well for Todd Van Poppel (and the Braves thank-him very, very much).
That would be a lot better than Luke Hochevar's career.
Yeah, that's true, thanks.
Page 1 of 2 pages
1 2 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.