 |
US Presswire photo Shortstop Deven Marrero is among the players the Nats could draft at No. 16. |
Such is life when you're always among the first 10 selections in baseball's annual draft.
Tonight, when Rizzo and his team of scouts and front-office executives gather in that same war room at Nationals Park, there will be only one consensus among this group of hardened baseball men: They'll have no idea what player they're going to wind up taking with the No. 16 pick.
"It's a lot less clear the type of player we're going to get," Rizzo said. "Picking in the middle of the pack, you put together a list, and the next guy on the top of the list is the guy you're going to take. It's hard to plan."
The Nationals will happily deal with this dilemma, because it means the franchise is finally making progress at the big-league level. After going 80-81 last season, they finished in the top half of the sport for the first time since relocating from Montreal. Thus, their first draft pick has never before come so late in the first round.
So don't expect any Stephen Strasburgs or Bryce Harpers to be available around 8:30 p.m. tonight when the Nationals are finally on the clock. They might not even find any Ryan Zimmermans, Drew Storens or Ross Detwilers.
HISTORY OF NATS 1ST ROUND PICKS
2005: Ryan Zimmerman (4)
2006: Chris Marrero (15), Colton Willems (22)
2007: Ross Detwiler (6), Josh Smoker (31), Michael Burgess (49)
2008: Aaron Crow (9*)
2009: Stephen Strasburg (1), Drew Storen (10)
2010: Bryce Harper (1)
2011: Anthony Rendon (6), Alex Meyer (23), Brian Goodwin (34)
*-Did not sign
What the Nationals will find is at least one player rated by their scouts as one of the 16 best in the country this summer. And no matter what available player is left at the top of their board when the time comes, they'll draft him. No exceptions.
"We're going to take it as we always have," Rizzo said. "We're going to put the board together ability-based, and we'll do our due diligence on the health, makeup and signability of all the players. We're going to pull the trigger and take the best player available."
The process for creating that draft board may not have changed at all, but the process of signing those players has changed dramatically in the last year. After watching draft signing bonuses skyrocket over the last decade -- with the Nationals among the biggest culprits -- owners and players instituted significant changes in the new collective bargaining agreement that was signed over the winter.
Teams are no longer free to spend as much as they want on draft picks, not without incurring some stiff penalties. MLB has set a cap on what all 30 clubs may spend on the first 10 rounds. The Nationals' limit: $4.4 million, significantly less than they paid to any of their last three first-round picks (Anthony Rendon got $6 million last year, Harper got $6.25 million in 2010, Strasburg for $7.5 million in 2009).
If a team exceeds its cap, it faces penalties including taxes up to 100 percent and the loss of future draft picks.
Teams also are no longer allowed to offer major-league contracts to draft picks, as the Nationals did with all three of those aforementioned picks (plus left-hander Matt Purke).
As a result of all these changes, the Nationals no longer have the ability to entice high school prospects to forgo their college commitments and instead accept above-slot signing bonuses to turn pro.
"That all goes under the heading of doing your due diligence, of knowing who you can get and who you can sign," Rizzo said. "The constrictions that we have, the amount of money we can spend, will certainly change the way we run business from the past. But, again, it comes down to getting the right player in each of the right spots."
72 comments:
Funny how Drafts work out, the best part of the 2007 Draft was Jordan Zimmermann in the 2nd round.
Matt Purke may end up being the best one out of the 2011 Draft.
There's a lot of great players chosen outside of the 1st round and the latter parts of the 1st round.
After the first couple of picks I read the talent from 7-8 to about 30 all rates about the same so this will be a test of the philosophy of the scouting department. I'm sure the guy we get the Nats have rated in the top 10 since that will be so variable from team to team; lots of teams will think they are getting a steal.
"That all goes under the heading of doing your due diligence, of knowing who you can get and who you can sign," Rizzo said. "The constrictions that we have, the amount of money we can spend, will certainly change the way we run business from the past. But, again, it comes down to getting the right player in each of the right spots."
Interesting comments. This will even the playing field for many of the agents out there when Boras will no longer dominate the Top 10 picks. I spoke to an agent who thinks his top kid will go in the Top 3 tonight.
It almost seems this was a loud and clear message to Scott Boras and his style of business.
Rizzo has always said he doesn't Draft on need, rather on best available player as we saw with Rendon last year.
Rizzo's got the right idea...stockpile talent in the minors regardless of "need." It works out for trades (Gio) and injuries -- just look at the catching depth he stockpiled when he had two good, young MLB catchers.
I'm all for taking the best player available. Talent comes first.
That said, I hope the Nats find a few more college arms to their liking. While there is talent in the pipeline -- Solis, Rosenbaum, Ray, Meyer, Purke, Karns -- I hope they can restock after dealing Milone, Peacock and Cole.
A middle infielder would be interesting. I think we're about to see some interesting jockeying among Walters, Hague, Kelso and Martinson.
Bill Ladson wrote in his draft preview that Jeff Kobernus is the Nats' future second baseman. I find that hard to imagine with Espinosa, Lombo and Rendon in the picture.
We can agree on this much: Too much talent is a nice problem.
Drew,
Kobernus will turn 24 on June 30th. In this his breakout year he is still slashing only .281 .314 .331 with 0 home runs and he hits right handed.
Espinosa is only 25 with 1 year of big league play under his belt.Lombo won't turn 24 until September.
Rendon with his bad ankles won't end up at 2nd base (IMO). No way they let the entire league slide into these ankles. 3rd base is still the best possibility.
As usual Ladson has no clue about what he's talking about.
I have been very pleased that we have a strong scouting/talent evaluation department. Here's hoping they uncover some gems.
When you are drafting 16th in a bad draft year such as this year the best you can hope for is that the player you draft makes it to the big leagues. It's really a bit of a long shot and a lot of luck is involved.
'That said, I hope the Nats find a few more college arms to their liking. While there is talent in the pipeline -- Solis, Rosenbaum, Ray, Meyer, Purke, Karns -- I hope they can restock after dealing Milone, Peacock and Cole'
Not one of these guys is a sure thing. Rosenbaum will probably make to the majors but is a bottom of the rotation guy like Milone or Lannan (which isn't a bad thing). Purke has the talent but is still very raw. Solis is out with Tommy John so he's a ways away and Ray and Meyer look to be relievers (I know nothing about Karns). So yes we can use some more arms.
My hopes are not high. If anything teams will steer away from "toolsy" players with deep and speculative horizons and ambitions to win national championships for Nick Saban. They've already wasted picks (and signing bonuses) on players like that and can't afford to do it any more.
Why is their limit to how much you spend on drafts and not on free agents?
Faraz, the Players Union wants to reward those that have proven themselves in a MLB uniform which is the right way to go. The only way to limit that side is a hard salary cap.
Again, I feel this new Draft cap and rules is the anti-Boras measure. This will save teams millions of dollars at the front-end of the Draft. The teams that typically are picking towards the end of the 1st round weren't spending that much anyway.
The Nats top picks of the past are very fortunate for the cash they got and also being placed on the 40 man roster.
How about drafting a catcher as depth for the remainder of the year?
So, Bowden drafted 7 guys in the 1st round and only two of them are on the roster and only one has really contributed. And the most recent of those was 4 years ago so we more or less know the result.
Meanwhile, Rizzo has drafted 6 guys in the first round in his 3 years and THREE of them are already on the roster and contributing. And the other three were just drafted last year.
So, Bowden - 2/7 4 years later. Rizzo 3/6 in the present.
Stark contrast.
Of course, Rizzo owes it all to Bowden for producing such horrible teams that he got to draft Strasburg and Harper. I'll always love Bowden for that.
Ghost:
While the Nats' past picks are well-compensated, Rizzo's team was very smart. By upping the ante and launching pre-emptive strikes, they nabbed talent -- Cole, Ray, Purke, Goodwin -- that they could not get today, even if they were in the same draft position.
Well, Avar, Rizzo did come onboard in the fall of 2006, so the '07 and '08 drafts are partially attributable to him. And while we are being fair to Jim (little as he deserves it) we can also add that 1) the failure to sign Crow was more attributable to the Lerners (and Crow's agents) than either Rizzo or Bowden, and 2) the '05 and '06 drafts were done while MLB still owned the team, and the spending constraints were tighter than in the early Lerner years.
So, Bowden - 2/7 4 years later. Rizzo 3/6 in the present.
Small sample size. Statistically speaking, there is virtually no difference between 2/7 and 3/6.
The GM calls the shots. He can listen to whoever he wants but he ultimately decides who they pick so, in my book, Bowden is fully responsible for every pick when he was GM.
From what I've read, it's not clear that more blame goes to Lerners or Crow's agents for that non signing. Granted, it worked out w/ Storen but Rizzo picked Storen so that's complicated.
As for '05 and '06 drafts. Bowden got Zim in '05 and kudos to him for that. But, '06 - it's not like he drafted Marrero and Willems because other players weren't signable on our budget. Those were they guys Bowden wanted and they have done nothing.
Every GM fans on 1st round picks sometimes. My point is that Bowden fanned on 5 out of 7 and you could argue 6 because Detwiler hasn't contributed close to what you expect from a 1st rounder. That's a horrible track record.
who did the Nats get in return from the Cubs for Burgess?
Nats1924, Burgess was part of the Gorzo trade with AJ Morris and Hicks.
uuugh, Gorzo really?
I remember when SI featured Burgess in some article years ago.
Bowden was a real awful gm!
To be fair to Bowden - and I am by no means a Bowden fan - the team and scouting department had been picked over by most of MLB. Rizzo has a larger and better staff at his disposal.
The best part of these new rules is no more major league contracts to these drafties. The Nationals have been giving these out like candy and they can really hurt you at Rule 5 draft time. MLB saved the Nationals from thereselves there.
To bad the new CBA didn't outlaw no-trade clauses too...
The comparison between Rizzo and Bowden in the draft needs to be measured by later picks rather than 1st rounders like SS, Harper and Rendon. It didn't take a rocket scientist to draft these guys; Bowden would have as well.
The difference is that Rizzo has picked over slot and paid the going prices in later rounds while Bowden picked lesser players for signability reasons.
Tcostant, this follows closely what the NFL Players union did also. There has to be concessions on every side and paying unproven amateurs $10 million deals isn't smart business, but the Players Union also knows that money can be spent on MLB players that are part of the union.
In the long run, its a win/win and Strasburg, Harper, Rendon, Purke, etc all got the big money just in time. Strasburg and Harper have already proved worthy of the payout and time will tell on Rendon and Purke, etc.
All
One of the main reasons why our farm was sooo bad for soo many seasons.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/lists/10-worst-deadline-deals-in-MLB-history#photo-title=10+worst+deadline+deals&photo=11531788
The 2nd round of the 2007 Draft had some of the best picks of the entire Draft. Jordan Zimmermann, Mike Stanton, Freddie Freeman, and Zach Cozart.
Stanton and Freeman were actually drafted out of High School where the chance of stardom is much less than drafting a college player.
That Draft also got Atlanta another High School kid named Jason Heyward in the 1st round.
Again, I feel this new Draft cap and rules is the anti-Boras measure.
And, again, kudos to the Nats for completely ignoring "recommended slot money" last year, the last year in which they had that freedom, spending some $15m to sign Rendon, Meyer, Goodwin and Purke.
I knew that we picked Ross Detwiler before Jason Heyward. Didn't know that Mike Stanton was part of that 2007 draft too. {sigh}
... speaking of Harper
He now leads the Nats in OBP _and_ SLG. (2d in BA to Lombo).
More surprising: he and Lombo are already tied for 4th in hits.
I think we'd all agree one of Rizzo's shrewdest moves was assembling this scouting department.
Also, on the surface of things, it still seems to me the Redskins got smacked for 18 million for doing the same thing I'm applauding the Nats for doing--that is: making hay while the sun shines.
I should say--given the new CBA--making hay while the sun was still shining.
One of the reasons this draft is said to have fewer can't-miss talents in the first round is that Rizzo saw the new CBA on the horizon and coaxed Rendon, Meyer, Goodwin and Purke out early.
Any of those four could have gone back to school and become a top-three pick in tonight's draft. Kudos to Rizzo and the Lerners for excellent strategery in 2011.
Steve,
I have to disagree with you somewhat. Getting talent at the draft is some of the best bang for the buck. Consider that Strasburg got $15 mil for 4 years from the Nats to sign and even without any pro experience he would have got at least 3 times that if there was open competition for his services.
While the Nats paid big bucks to players they drafted such as Purke and Cole etc it's still a relatively small investment compared to as an example signing a free agent like Werth to his contract.
Drew,
You are exactly right. The ability to overspend in the draft gave aggressive GM's an advantage over teams which would not spend over slot. This advantage is now gone.
The draft absolutely shafts to draftees because they don't have an open market choice.
I believe they should go for the best available HEALTHY player. They wasted last year's draft pick on Rendon who was known to be damaged goods in hopes that he could overcome his injuries. And possibly wasted another on Matt Purke who had slipped in the draft because of recurring shoulder bursitis.
Anthony Rendon would have been a great fit for the Nats had he been healthy. He is recognized as the best pure hitter to come along in recent years. As a long-time fan of Texas collegiate baseball, I followed his career at Rice and clearly remember the day he hit 4 home runs against my Longhorns. But he had ankle and shoulder problems so severe that he was just used as a DH in his senior year. I was surprised to see him in the draft and not surprised that 5 teams passed him up.
He was not long with Potomac before he fractured his ankle rounding third. He required surgery and is now home in Houston "rehabbing". He recently told the local paper that he probably won't be back this year. I will be genuinely shocked if we ever see this young man in a Nats uniform.
So I would rather they not take chances on more injured players.
carolync,
Your conclusion re Rendon is premature at best. He is still only 22 and had he not been hurt he would have gone no. 1 in the draft; the Nats couldn't pass him up when he fell to them.
I also think that Purke will become an excellent major league pitcher; health is relative in that you are healthy until you are not.
I agree with JD; to write both of these guys off because of their injuries is a bit premature. Unfortunately if you look back 15 years there is probably a similar post about a Yankee fan defending a young Nick Johnson.
To me Harper's best at bat yesterday was in the 8th inning. The pitcher (I think it was O'flaherty) got ahead of him 0-2 and attempted to get him out with low sliders; you know Espinosa, Desmond or even Zimmerman and LaRoche would have struck out but Harper worked a walk with a real professional at bat.
Assuming he is not half the player he will be when at his peak or even in a couple of years I can only imagine what's in store for Nat fans for at least 5 more years.
SC,
LOL. If Rendon is Nick Johnson the Oy Vey.
JD, my point is under the new system teams won't be in a position nor under the pressure to pay amateurs like they did before. I have no issues with any of the Nats recent moves especially Strasburg and Harper.
Mets lost. We are still in first place. Go NATS.
JD wrote: "Assuming he is not half the player he will be when at his peak or even in a couple of years I can only imagine what's in store for Nat fans for at least 5 more years."
JD is in the ballpark here. Guys that hit .290 at 19 are the kind of guys who go 10 years hitting .320 or so.
Of course, I'm just extrapolating, becauuse there are very very few ballplayers (post 1900) who hit like that at 19 -- in fact, the only two that come to my mind are are guys named Mel Ott and Ty Cobb.
Even Al Kaline hit "only" .278 as a rookie at 19, with 4 HR's, before he became all star material the following year. Frank Robinson had one of the all time best "very young" rookie of the year years -- but he did it at age 20.
The difference between 19 and 20-21 is huge. What we're seeing from Harper (again, assuming if he can hit this well the rest of the year) is nothing short of historic.
Yep, now a two way tie for first.
It will be very interesting to see how the Nats do attendance wise for the mid-week Mets series. They are not traditionally a huge draw, though they aren't the Astros either. I'm going to guess low 30's, because the weather is good and the team is really starting to get attention in the media.
I'm still hoping to hear from someone who was watching him at the game whether Bo gave Harper a stop sign or was waving him on on the play at 3rd. Seems to me that's the answer to the quesiton whether it was a good play by Harper to try for 3 or not. Bo has to be judging the game situation too, and combining it with what he's seeing in front of him. If Harper ran through a stop sign, not good. If Bo was waving him on or wasn't giving him a signal at all, you can hardly fault the kid for trying.
Following up on a question raised yesterday, my Nats ticket rep told me today that they do not count complimentary tickets like Red Carpet Rewards in the paid attendance numbers. That could explain why yesterday's 38,000 paid attendance seemed low given that all you could get at the box office were SRO tickets or Prez Club.
More info on the success of succesful youngsters
From Bill James:
Suppose that you have a 20-year-old player and a 21-year-old player of the same ability as hitters; let’s say that each hits about .265 with ten home runs. How much difference is there in the expected career home run totals for the two players?”
As best I can estimate, the 20-year-old player can be expected to hit about 61% more home runs in his career. That’s right—61%.
How much more so for a 19 year old?
See: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15295&mode=print&nocache=1338302923
and
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/bryce-harper-is-making-history/ (which was mentioned here last week I think)
Wonk:
This is why I've been perplexed by the assessments -- floated on Baseball Tonight and by anonymous scouts on MLBTR -- that they'd rather have Trout than Harper.
Look, anyone would be delighted to have Mike Trout. But when I look at Harper, I think: My God, this could be Mickey Mantle without the hangovers! This could be George Brett with 500 home runs!
This could be remarkable.
The folks who say they prefer Trout will be embarrassed by premature evaluation.
Robin Yount and Ken Griffey Jr. also come to mind, although Yount did not hit with the power that Harper has - 8 HRs in 558 ABs. He wnet on the have a great career of course. There really have been more 19 year olds than you think. It makes me wonder why they don't move guys up sooner. It used to happen more in the old days.
Amazingly Ott was in his 3rd big league season at the age of 19. He made his debut with the Giants when he was just 17 years old - amazing.
Re: Harper and the try-for-triple.
I think the world of Harper. That said -- I'd have no problem at all saying "he shouldn't have tried for it." After all, he's 19.
But -- in this case I think Harper was right.
As folks pointed out yesterday: (1) the 3-4-5 guys weren't doing anything anyway; and (2) the general rule is you don't make the 1st or 3rd at third. This wasn't the 1st or 3rd out.
The way 3-4-5 were hitting this weekend, had he stayed on 2nd, the odds were not good that he'd score.
If Bo Porter held him up -- then Bryce made a mistake -- but then Bo did, also, imho. That situation called for a small gamble on aggressiveness, imho.
"The folks who say they prefer Trout will be embarrassed by premature evaluation."
This reminds me of the people in the late 90's who I would argue with about Jeter and Nomar. Some people don't get it. Jeter's still going strong and has six rings. Nomar's on his third year as an analyst and didn't win squat.
Sorry for the venom. RedSox Nation has always rubbed me the wrong way... and I am not a Yankee fan.
Robin Yount and Ken Griffey Jr. also come to mind...
Yep. Griffey also belongs in the comparison. Note, he hit .264 with 16 HR. (again, evidence for my point that 19 solid rookies turn superstar soon after).
Yount hit .267 as a 19 year old, but it was his second season.
Drew said...
Wonk:
This is why I've been perplexed by the assessments -- floated on Baseball Tonight and by anonymous scouts on MLBTR -- that they'd rather have Trout than Harper....
Drew -- based on the Bill James quote above -- I totally agree. Harper might be in Mickey Mantle territory. (OTOH, Trout might not be far behind -- but, indeed, the stats back up much much higher ceiling for Harper, based on the fact that he's 19, and Trout is 20).
(correct that sentence to 19 *year old* rookies...)
The reason the union allowed a cap on draftees but not on free agents is that free agents are members of the union and prospects aren't. Any other explanation is a rationalization.
DC Wonk, I'm with you. Davey isn't, but he's not perfect. Hi Davey! My point though is that all the back and forth over whether Harper made a mistake in not evaluating the situation as Davey did is kind of beside the point if Bo had the stop sign up, or was waving him on. And with the ball hit to right center, all the more reason for the third base coach to make that decision for him.
God that Kid can fly!
If one more person cites Jeter's rings as evidence of his greatness I might snap.
Jeter has had a great career. A no doubt Hall of Fame career. But he won those rings almost entirely by chance. If he'd been drafted a spot earlier by the Reds he wouldn't have any rings. If he'd been drafted two spots earlier by the Orioles he wouldn't have any.
Sure he helped them win several titles. But they likely would have most if not all of them without him. And he certainly wouldn't have won any without them.
The reason the union allowed a cap on draftees but not on free agents is that free agents are members of the union and prospects aren't. Any other explanation is a rationalization.
Yep. And, also, less money to prospects means more money to the established players (who are part of the union). Same reason with the NBA, etc., too.
(And, of course, it doesn't even need to be said that owners want it, so they don't feel pressured to pay gazillions for kids who have no pro experience.)
bowdenball said...
If one more person cites Jeter's rings as evidence of his greatness
Well put. ;-)
Bowdenball,
I take your point. It was the most convenient way to draw the line between the two players - maybe not the best way.
Having said that, I do think that Derek Jeter has those intangibles that make him a "winner". Perhaps those are best defined by saying that he makes those around him better and that he seems to inspire great performances by himself and others at key moments. I am a firm believer that understanding and addressing these chemistry issues are vital to winning organizations. My sense is that Rizzo gets it as I am pleased with the type of people he has brought in to play here.
I hate all drafts. No game tonight. I can't stand anything connected with Keith Law or containing the word "upside."
Tuesday night cannot come soon enough.
I have 2 tickets for tomorrow's game I can't use (section 231). Anyone want 'em?
We're going to miss Santana this week. Terry Collins is giving him two extra days rest and starts him Friday in the subway series.
We get:
Tuesday: Chris Young, just up from the minors, against Zimm'nn.
Wednesday: Jeremy Hefner vs. EJack.
Thursday: That long-awaited matchup of Wang vs. Dickey. May the best man win, so to speak.
Now that is just plain naughty. Funny - but naughty. However will the announcers keep a straight face? Anyone going out to Pfitzner tonight for a Lidge sighting? If he stays for a few days I may be able to check it out.
Swami -- I read somewhere that Lidge expected to rejoin the team for the Toronto series next week, so he's probably around for most of this PNats home stand till then. Big team helping' out the little team's attendance.
bowdenball, while it is your right to say if Jeter is drafted by the Reds then he has no rings, to those of us who believe some guys are just winners we think that the opposite is true; the Reds would have a couple of the rings that other teams own instead of none.
#1 sign your team is having a good season: 3 nights off out of the last 5 is HORRIBLE!
So on how many days rest will JZimm be pitching?
So, should we restart the "Draft Jorge Soler" campaign? He is the last free draft player for awhile. And by free I mean, all he will cost is $$$ no lost picks. He would bolster a solid farm system and provide flexibility both on the roster and in the trade market. It is time to act more like the Big Boyz than the small market teams.
Funny how Drafts work out, the best part of the 2007 Draft was Jordan Zimmermann in the 2nd round.
That was Rizzo's pick, according to Boz, in order to get Zimmermann in that slot Rizzo had to allow the 'senior' (loooooooonnnnng gone with Bowden) ex-Reds types pick the 1st rounders like Michael Burgess. Didn't take long for Rizzo to trade him ... wouldn't have happened under Epstein and Hoyer.
Five picks away and a number of guys mentioned as possibilities for the Nats are still available -- Stroman, the Duke pitcher; Marrero, the shortstop; Wacha, the pitcher at Texas A&M.
I am officially a baseball dork.. I am watching the Draft on MLB network and following on twitter. Trying to figure out the Boras Client list to see who we are going to pick!!! Lord, I can't wait for an actual game tomorrow!! ;-)
Ghost Of Steve M. said...
Rizzo has always said he doesn't Draft on need, rather on best available player as we saw with Rendon last year.
June 04, 2012 10:42 AM
_____________________________
I just saw Mark tweet his. Giolito is still available. Just sayin'
Post a Comment