Why not Miller?
At the risk of inundating the blog with yet another Andrew Miller thread, I think it important to take a look at what really happened yesterday, now that I’ve detached myself from the fanboy disappointment of the first pick. There’s been a lot of speculation on why the team went for Morrow over Miller, ranging from Howard Lincoln calling the shots to Frank Mattox tying up Fontaine and stuffing him in a closet. Thankfully, none of that happened. So what did?
First, you have to understand how MLB is attempting to deflate signing bonuses for draft picks. While there is no official cap, the commissioner’s office sends every team a list of “recommended” signing bonus’ for each pick in advance of the draft. Bud Selig and Bob Dupuy regularly remind the owners that they are part of a team attempting to hold down the costs of doing business, and every time that one owner exceeds that recommended slot bonus, they make it harder for the league to institute its defacto salary cap on the draft.
For the #5 pick, the recommended slot bonus is about $2.5 million. Last year’s #5, Ryan Braun, signed for $2.45 million. MLB has a strong interest in seeing to it that this year’s #5 signs for somewhere in the same neighborhood.
Now, going along with the commissioner’s recommendation is not mandatory, and they have no legal authority to do anything to a team that exceeds the slot recommendations, but if you want to know how much power these slot recommendations hold, look back to last year’s draft. Among the first 300 picks (or, essentially, the top 10 rounds), you know how many players signed for significantly more than the slot recommendation?
Four. Justin Upton, the #1 pick, got $6.1 million when slot was $4.5 million. Mike Pelfrey, the #9 pick, got a major league deal worth about $6 million when the slot was about $2.2 million. Cameron Maybin, the #10 pick, got $2.68 million when slot was about $1.9 million. Finally, Taylor Teagardan, the 99th pick, got $725K on a slot of about $400K.
That’s it. Four times out of 300, the team decided to go against the MLB recommendation and give a player what it took to sign him. The D’Backs, the Mets, the Brewers, and the Rangers all took the trade off of experiencing the wrath of Bud in exchange for getting the player they wanted.
The Mariners, as an organization, were not willing to make that exchange this year. Now, I know everyone loves to blame Howard Lincoln or Chuck Armstrong for anything dealing with money, but this really was an organizational decision. It didn’t happen in the draft room yesterday. Going into the draft, the club made a decision that they were going to pay slot money for the fifth pick. Period.
Due to his contract demands, Andrew Miller was not an option once that decision had been made. The club wasn’t going to fight Bud Selig on this issue. While we might all despise Seligula, the owners love him. He’s made them huge amounts of money and turned the public reaction against the players in almost every labor dispute. When Bud tells the ownership of every club to do the right thing to hold down costs, they listen, whether we like it or not.
The M’s didn’t look at Andrew Miller and Brandon Morrow and say “you know, we think Morrow is almost as good and we can save a few million bucks here.” The club looked at Miller’s contract demands, realized there was no way in hell he was signing for anything close to the $2.5 million they wanted to offer that selection, and chose to draft the best player remaining on the board who would fit into the recommended slot.
There was no war between the scouts and the front office. Fontaine didn’t have the rug pulled out from under him, though I guarantee you he’d trade Morrow for Miller once both players have been signed and their bonuses paid out. This wasn’t a case where the organization “went cheap” to save money. The Rockies went cheap, getting a far inferior talent for below slot. If you want a fan base who has a right to be pissed at their front office, it’s those people in Colorado.
But the M’s just bowed to pressure from the commissioner, just like pretty much every other team does. They did the “solidarity, brother” thing with most of their fellow owners, refusing to shake the boat and cross the commissioner’s office. And so they took the best player they knew they could sign within those constraints.
Is it frustrating? Yea, it is. But it’s not worth torching Safeco Field over. I’ll have a post on Brandon Morrow in a little bit, and guess what, I actually like him as a pitcher. I’d rather have Andrew Miller, but I understand why the club passed on him, even if I wish they had given Bud the finger anyways.
It’s possible that the Mariners scouts simply did not agree with your assessment of the relative merits Miller and Morrow. I’d imagine they’d seen Miller as often as you, and Morrow considerably more often.
You don’t need to invent Machiavellian shenanigans or speculate about financial motivations if you’re prepared to accept that your opinion is simply one opinion, and might not be the considered opinion of professional scouts. For example, ChadBradfordWannabe, a baseball primer poster and minor league pitcher says of Miller:
Out of curiosity, what are the chances that the Tigers dont sign Miller?
It’s possible that the Mariners scouts simply did not agree with your assessment of the relative merits Miller and Morrow. I’d imagine they’d seen Miller as often as you, and Morrow considerably more often.
No, its not.
Out of curiosity, what are the chances that the Tigers dont sign Miller?
Probably less than 10%. Detroit exceeded slot last year to sign Maybin, and they’ll do it again this year.
I’m not sure towing the company line and agreeing to not exceed slot just to appease Selig is the right thing to do. Someone is going to get a superior player than they should have been able to get from their draft position. Might as well be us, would be my opinion.
Oh well, from everything I have read since I came off the ledge after the Morrow pick, has been pretty positive about him. Plus my wife has child onset diabetes so its kinda cool the M’s new top pitching prospect has something in common with her, maybe she’ll have a new favorite player (sorry Johjima, you might get replaced)
I’m not sure towing the company line and agreeing to not exceed slot just to appease Selig is the right thing to do.
I agree. It’s not the decision I would have made. I’m not trying to defend the move. Clearly, I’d have taken Miller.
However, I think its at least important to understand why the team made the selection. Criticizing the organization without understanding their thought process isn’t going to do anyone any good.
“The Rockies went cheap, getting a far inferior talent for below slot. If you want a fan base who has a right to be pissed at their front office, it’s those people in Colorado.”
Thanks for pouring salt in the wounds, Dave. At least I am a Mariners fan! Of course both teams are in last place in their respective divisions. I wouldn’t say that Colorado is really underachieving, but they risk any contention this season by not shaking things up enough to get out of their funk, just like . . .oh, I don’t know . .the MARINERS!! This is depressing. I am starting a dual petition – Hargrove and Hurdle out by the All Star break! Let’s send H&H on a romantic get-away far from any baseball team that I love or, by geographic default, am forced to watch in person. The draft was a double-edged bummer for me, at least.
Well, that’s a very interesting perspective. A couple points:
It’s worth noting, that teams that are willing to spend big, apparently against Selig’s will, appear to be doing just fine with that strategy. I’d say the Tigers are pretty happy with Maybin, the D-Backs are pretty happy with Drew/Upton, etc.
Is the draft really the place for MLB to worry about labor costs, while teams, the Ms being a prime example, spend millions on mediocrity like Washburn and Everett? It seems pretty silly.
Also, what is it about Detroit and Arizona that make them so bold?
Sorry Dave, but I don’t buy the ussmariner line of your infallibility. Care to back that up with an explanation?
How many times have you seen Morrow pitch in person?
How is this slot recommendation different from collusion?
Sorry Dave, but I don’t buy the ussmariner line of your infallibility. Care to back that up with an explanation?
I doubt there’s anything I can say that will make you believe me. It’s the truth, though, and it’s really up to you if you want to believe me or not.
How many times have you seen Morrow pitch in person?
0. I’ve seen ridiculous amounts of video on him, and have talked to a dozen pro scouts who have seen him in person frequently, including those in the M’s organization. I’m pretty well aware of how the M’s feel about Morrow and Miller.
Since you feel unable to share your sources, I feel that I have to judge your statements on your track record:
Last year you said “[Felix] is a frontline major league starting pitcher right now. No improvement necessary”, and wheeled out a projection system that had him pinned in a narrow band between Bob Gibson and Sandy Koufax.
This year you said “Felix has to learn how to pitch.”
You’ll forgive me if I take your pronouncements on pitching prospects with 17 tons of salt.
Do whatever you want. It doesn’t change my life one bit.
If you’re into track records, though, you’ll note that I said the M’s would draft Brandon Morrow back on April 4th.
So, maybe, I’m not an idiot.
I thought Hansen went above slot last year as well. Isn’t that one of the reasons he fell to Boston?
“How is this slot recommendation different from collusion?”
I am an attorney, so I finally get to say something worthwhile on the site. MLB enjoys a fairly broad anti-trust exemption. Under a series of odd cases (early ones being noted as in error, but leaving the exemption in place because Congress had not acted to change it) that exemption remained essentially in tact (putting aside free agency and interesting CBA happenings) until Congress passed the Curt Flood Act of 1998. That removed the exemption for labor relations, but left most of the rest of the exemption in place. The Act specifies, however:
(b) . . . This section does not create, permit or imply a cause of action by which to challenge under the antitrust laws, or otherwise apply the antitrust laws to, any conduct, acts, practices, or agreements that do not directly relate to or affect employment of major league baseball players to play baseball at the major league level, including but not limited to -
(1) any conduct, acts, practices, or agreements of persons engaging in, conducting or participating in the business of organized professional baseball relating to or affecting employment to play baseball at the minor league level, any organized professional baseball amateur or first-year player draft, or any reserve clause as applied to minor league players;
So even though “suggesting” bonuses might not be strict collusion, if it were found to be, the anti-trust laws don’t apply to drafted players, and the owners can get together in the smoke-filled room and collude away.
I am grossly oversimplifying, but you get the point. It’s not looked at with the level of scrutiny that salary-fixing at the free agent or active player level.
Nice call on the Morrow selection back in April, Dave.
But it looks like you whiffed on Beltre. 34 homers? Most improved? Oh, how I wish it was true.
When I was a kid, I got into a little spat at my babysitter’s that resulted in a shoving match. We were instructed to knock it off by the higher authorities, so I stupidly listened. Of course, the other guy didn’t listen. That got my head knocked onto the corner of a coffee table. Basically, all I got for abiding by the rules was a trip to urgent care and 9 stitches in the back of my head. It sounds to me like the Tigers just shoved the M’s head onto the corner of a coffee table.
This was really interesting to read, though, as it’s nice to hear more about what went into the decision-making process yesterday. I knew that the commish was looking for slotting, but I didn’t know that he was already this far along in his conquest.
Yeah, well that’s what’s so frustrating about this team…a bit more pop from Sexson and Beltre and Hargrove is irrelevant, and we’re challenging for the AL West. It’s Betre AND Sexson AND Hargrove that’s so infuriating….
Nice call on the Morrow selection back in April, Dave.
It was a guess. A somewhat informed one, but still a guess. I take no credit for a guess turning out correctly. I just figured if GWO wants to harp about track records, he might want to know that one.
But it looks like you whiffed on Beltre. 34 homers? Most improved? Oh, how I wish it was true.
Yea, and the Felix predictions are clearly off as well. It’s the nature of predictions – they don’t show any kind of actual acumen. They’re just guesses.
Which is why basing who you listen to on the past results of their guesses isn’t really the best way to live your life. But to each their own, I guess.
Dave, great post. I had forgotten about the recommended draft slots from the commissioner’s office. Good insight.
#12 If you do a little Googling you’ll find that it’s not just Dave’s opinion. A significant majority of scouts rated Andrew Miller the #1 prospect in this draft (not necessarily including Hochevar since it was still possible he could have signed beforehand). Dave’s not on an island here.
It’s worth noting too that the M’s ownership group, historically, has been sheep in the flock on every Selig issue of note. They’re not Reisdorf-etc vocal advocates, but they’re loyal soldiers.
Houston’s another example of a team that did this last year, when they let a pick walk rather than exceed the recommended slot bonus.
For more recent examples, just last week, the Mets and Orioles both let prominant draft-and-follow players walk away from deals and re-enter the draft. Bryan Morris was just selected by the Dodgers with the 26th pick after the new Tampa management decided not to incur Bud’s wrath and pay over $1 million for a late round pick, and Petro Beato was selected by the Orioles with the 32nd pick after the Mets let him walk rather than blow the slot recommendation out of the water.
Bud has made some serious inroads in getting teams to go along with his defacto cap.
It’s also possible that, in many of these cases, the teams don’t feel like paying that much to the draft pick. They don’t have the money, they don’t think the draft pick is worth more (especially at the rate these kids seem to fizzle out), or they just don’t want to spend it, preferring to squander it on over-rated free agents. The money may not figure into payroll, but it still comes from someone’s pocket, and $6+ million for a yet-unproven player is a lot of money for teams with low risk-taking thresholds. Put that together with Selig’s draft slot recommendations and you have a reasonable explanation for the stats Dave cited.
#23 Good point. And one could make the further argument that signing a Carl Everett is better for public relations. I’m assuming that casual fans far outnumber us geeks on the Internet, and they’re not going to know who Andrew Miller is, but by-golly Carl Everett was a “key component” to the 2005 World Champion White Sox!
#24. That’s exactly right. The average fan (no matter how we may feel about the low level of knowledge required to hit that mark) has no idea who these players are. It might as well be the horses running in the triple crown. Until you start watching ESPN the week before (or if you happen to have one pitching phenom in your state), you’ve never heard of them before. The MLB draft is much different in that way than the NFL draft, or even the NBA draft. There’s just not that much hype on these guys, and it’s harder to get intel for the average joe on a consistent basis. It helps the other drafts that college basketball games — or in Lebron’s case High school games — and college football games are more regularly televised. You don’t see a lot of out-of-market college baseball games until the college world series.
Not to belittle my frustration of the Miller vs. Morrow slection, but looking at the young “stars” of this team: Soroiano, Bentancourt, Lopez, Felix, and even Johjima and Ichiro are all undrafted free agents. The question is: Will this trend continue? It seems more and more Seattle has focused their money and efforts in foriegn scouting knowing they can get more bang for their buck than what they are going to get from the draft.
So if exceeding the recommendation for slot gets you “Bud’s wrath” but no other discernable penalties, it seems like a better idea for all 30 clubs to simply ignore the recommendation, and take the player they want. As Dave mentioned, the Tigers exceeded last year and will almost certainly do it again this year. If it gets you off of Selig’s Christmas card list, so what? Why does any club pay the recommendations any mind at all?
Replying to #15.
Collusion is prohibited by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA)not by the anti-trust laws. After Koufax and Drysdale held out, the owners wanted a term in the CBA that would end such tactics. Term forbids collective action or something like that. It’s been six years since I read the MBL CBA. It was under the CBA that the arbitrator awarded the severe penalties for collusion comitted in the late 80s.
So, the question stands: how are the slot recommendations not collusion under the CBA?
As a lawyer once familiar with these matters, I don’t know HOW such a recommendation is tolerable. I must have forgotten or not learned something.
Drafted players are not yet members of the MLBPA, and aren’t till they are placed on the 40 man roster.
So if the CBA is trully what collusion falls under, these players wouldn’t be protected by it.
Interesting. It sounds as if the owners didn’t learn their lesson when the players won, what, about $0.5B from the owners for conspiring to peg players’ salaries, IIR. Could the draftees bring the same case, or would baseball’s antitrust exemption protect it? Sounds like a case worth trying.
Speaking of which, it has always amazed me how little regard the players’ union members have for their juniors, who are still working their way up through the system. Virtually all the players were minor leaguers once, and they all came up earning minimum for years. You’d think they’d want to improve the lot of junior players (say, by decreasing minimum service time, or increasing AAA minimum), having been there once. But apparently not; having grasped the brass ring, they just look out for themselves.
Reading about the body types of Miller and Morrow it sounds like Morrow is more like what scouts want to see a power pitcher built like. Did that play any part in the draft?
To clarify my question Miller is 6ft 7in and thin. Morrow is 6ft 3in and 190lbs.
I am pretty sure that 29 is right about the CBA and collusion. And, the MLB draft is protected by the anti-trust exemption. The NFL and NBA drafts are not and subject to their respective CBAs. I just forgot how to sort it all.
Very intelligent post, Dave. Thank you for putting things in perspective. Nonetheless, if Miller is as good as everyone says the Mariners should have made an exception to toeing the slot line this time because it could well have set the tone for the next decade. Without doing any reaerch, I’m of the opinion that if there’s one key to winning championships, it’s having a pair (or more) of lights out starting pitchers at the top of the rotation. With Felix already here, the key acquisition going forward will be to find that second “ace”. Maybe it will be Morrow, but it seems more likely it would have been Miller. It’s going to be a bitter pill if it turns out that Bonderman, Verlander and Miller are the pitchers that form a dominant rotation for a new Tiger dynasty while the Mariners fumble along in mediocrity.
Dave –
Jason Churchill seems really high on Chris Tillman. I think you had some negative information on him — can you elaborate? Do you think Tillman was a good pick in round 2 (some projected him for late in the first round)?
Ooops, that word was “research”….
Not to belittle my frustration of the Miller vs. Morrow slection, but looking at the young “stars†of this team: Soroiano, Bentancourt, Lopez, Felix, and even Johjima and Ichiro are all undrafted free agents. The question is: Will this trend continue? It seems more and more Seattle has focused their money and efforts in foriegn scouting knowing they can get more bang for their buck than what they are going to get from the draft.
That was the philosophy in the past. That’s not the philosophy now, as I understand it from Bavasi.
For my money, it was a stupid philosophy. Why not have BOTH? Great international scouting and great draft scouting? If you’re going to spend money, spend it THERE (or at least bring your draft scouting to league average)…the players you get from that expense will be under free market value.
#29 #30 and #33 — That’s right. The anti-trust exemption still applies to the draft (i.e., the anti-trust laws of the U.S. do not apply to drafted or minor league players). Further, drafted players are not covered in the CBA, and are not union members quite yet. So, they essentially fall through 2 cracks. Now it’s a PR nightmare to collude out in the open (“the owners and Selig publicly sign an agreement to keep signing dollars at specified levels), so you see slot recommendations instead. Same effect? pretty close.
#27 – owners like to save money. If they can appear to “go with the flow” and most of the other owners will pay the recommended amounts too, they don’t have a lot to lose. Clearly a few teams don’t abide by the recommendations, and so the very top prospects will continue to hold out and drop down the draft ranks for “signability” reasons, in the hopes that the Detroits of the world will step up.
I also understand that there really wasn’t much of a point to put too much effort into the draft during Gillick’s reign since the M’s never got a high draft choice!
It’s fun to look at successful teams and see where they get their players. Excluding teams like the yankees and red sox, most teams use a combination of international talent, a few home grown draftees, a few trades, and a few FA signees. I can’t really think of another team that has as many young home grown international undrafted free agents as the M’s….Contradiction in terms, “home grown international”, but you know what i’m saying.
If anybody is interested, Brandon Morrow is going to be interviewed on KJR in the next few minutes.
Absolutely awesome thread. This is exactly why I can’t end the day without coming to this blog.
#40. only if they can find him a land line.
and while you wait, you can listen to Sandmeyer tell you why Lincecum is a far better pitcher with far better ‘pure stuff’ than Morrow.
I’m not sure towing the company line…
Toeing. Toeing the line.
Sorry. Pet peeve.
Although in the case of the Mariners, you need a tugboat to tow the line of this sinking ship…
Jason Churchill seems really high on Chris Tillman. I think you had some negative information on him  can you elaborate? Do you think Tillman was a good pick in round 2 (some projected him for late in the first round)?
I had negative things to say about everyone yesterday.
But, I have one scouting report on Tillman from a friend who covers the area. He wasn’t a fan. That doesn’t really mean much, in the grand scheme of things, though. If Fontaine liked him, that’s mostly good enough for me (though Ricky Orta really stretches that line of thinking).
For the most part, it’s hard for any of us to have enough information on guys drafted after the 2nd round to have really intelligent opinions. There can be exceptions (Varvaro and Uhlmansiek the last few years, for example), but for the most part, getting really excited or angry over who we took in the mid-rounds of the draft is a waste of energy.
So, if I understand this thread correctly then….Mariner Management is a herd of cheap bastards who are afraid of Bud Selig. Thanks. I feel much better about the Mariner’s future now.
I think you missed the point Chester. Reread.
#21– hmm. the 4 teams that bucked Bud are either single owners or strong majority owners…. D’Backs, Jerry Colangelo; Mets, Fred Wilpon and his Sterling Equities partners; Brewers, Mark Attanasio with John Canning Jr., Harris Turer and David Uihlein, David Lubar with Attanasio as controlling partner; Rangers, Tom Hicks
Even if there is collusion, I think that this would be a hard-to-win case for Boras or whomever filed the suit. I don’t think you’d find the paper trail the Andre Dawson collusion case had, and I really doubt you could get Darth Selig on the stand saying, “Yes, I enforced a set of bonus ceilings, is that so wrong?”
I do think, though, that there WILL be an NBA-style draft pay scale written into the forthcoming CBA. It’s clear the union doesn’t think it’s a major issue, and they’re going to focus more on avoiding the salary cap and trying to win a salary floor.
I’m wondering if Dave/DMZ/etc. thinks we’re going to avoid a strike or lockout with this next round of CBA negotiations.
Dave, thanks for all of the insight.
Has anyone, like Baseball Prospectus or Hardball Times, run a study to estimate the value of a draft pick? One data point is that part of the state the M’s are in is a result of throwing away many of their #1 picks the past 5 years. But I wonder if in general because so few players actually make it, if the signing bonuses are worth it. My hunch is that they are for top 10 picks (because the reward is so high) and those picked after the tenth round (because the risk is so low) but not for those in between. But it’s just a hunch.
IIRC the BP guys DID do such a study for the NFL draft and the best ROI was somewhere in the second round. Of course that may be influenced by the salary cap and free agency system in the NFL.
Has anyone, like Baseball Prospectus or Hardball Times, run a study to estimate the value of a draft pick?
Yep. Nate Silver’s take at BP.
Here’s his conclusionary paragraph:
Dave, thanks for the context. It makes me feel slightly better that the team is bowing to Selig, as opposed to freaking about about costs and hosing the scouts.
That being said… yeah, I’d rather they bit the bullet like Detroit did and go “screw the secret cap this year, we want our guy”. Especially since Detroit is looking like they are starting to come together, Miller’s a great addition to them.
I got the point…
I’m just willing to accept it yet. I still need a day or so to vent.
That being said… yeah, I’d rather they bit the bullet like Detroit did and go “screw the secret cap this year, we want our guyâ€Â. Especially since Detroit is looking like they are starting to come together, Miller’s a great addition to them.
That probably describes my feeling as well. Disappointed, but not abjectly dejected. Wish they’d bucked the budget and Selig, but this, perhaps, was not the person to do it on.
While I understand the decision _logic_ (Miller @ $X million doesn’t outweigh Selig Wrath), I’m still a little fuzzy on the decision _calculus_.
Do we know what potential consequences of going over slot the M’s saw of feared that made them say “Whoa, in the long run it’s just not worth it to go over slot to take the best pitcher?”
Another point that needs to be highlighted from Dave’s post(and Jason’s recent post on prospectinsider.com) on Miller is that he did not want to come to Seattle, and the only only way to get him here was to “overpay” for him. So despite many sportswriters, agents, and a few players saying “what a great organization the Mariners are” and what a great place Safeco is, the Mariners are still viewed by many more as a losing franchise that is going nowhere.
Hopefully the Mariner management use the money they saved on Miller to help improve their image so they don’t have to overpay for many more years to come.
#50, I am not sure it is necessary to do that. The owners and Bud Selig can agree to such a scale without the Players Ass’n weighing in at all. The Ass’n has no input to give. That is unless they redefine the bargaining unit, and expand the scope of who is included the MLBPA. The eligible members of the MLBPA are as follows:
“All players, managers, coaches and trainers who hold a signed contract with a Major League club are eligible for membership in the Association. In collective bargaining, the Association represents around 1,200 players, or the number of players on each club’s 40-man roster, in addition to any players on the disabled list.”
Note the distinction between membership, in general, and those who are eligible for representation in labor negotiations. It’s limited to the 40-man roster. If you look at the CBA itself, the contract is between defined parties, who contractually purport to represent limited groups:
“In making this Agreement the Association represents that it contracts for and on behalf of the Major League Baseball Players and individuals who may become Major League Baseball Players during the term of this Agreement, and the Clubs represent that they contract for and on behalf of themselves, any additional Clubs which may become members of the Major Leagues and the successors thereof.”
Without expanding the scope of representation of the MLBPA (i.e., including draft picks, both for membership and in the bargaining unit for the CBA), there is no reason to include mandatory draft scales in the CBA. The owners and Bud can just agree to do it and the MLBPA doesn’t have much to say (sure, they could gripe and hold out over it until it became a bargaining point, but they won’t).
As far as litigation goes, there’s no case to be made under these circumstances for anti-trust practices, regardless of evidence. The Curt Flood act makes clear that no cause of action exists under U.S. Anti-trust laws in this circumstance for draft picks. You’d get thrown out on your ear.
Didn’t the Mariners go over slot with Tui? How many times have they done so anyone?
The Mariners did go well over slot for Tui, but they didn’t have a first or second round pick in 2004. Tui was their first selection, and he received a bonus comparable to what a mid first round pick would have gotten.
They also went way over slot to sign Michael Garciaparra, but that was before Bud really began his crackdown.
Re #50: the problem with that logic, iirc, is that it has been established that MLB cannot unilaterally change the rules of the draft, because doing so will have effects on the MLBPA. That’s why MLB’s effort to allow the trading of draft picks had to be included in the CBA negotiations along with their effort to change the structure of draft compensation for loss of free agents. (The latter is, I believe, the specific reason why draft changes must be negotiated with the union; if they dropped draft-pick compensation for FA signings, I think they could do whatever they darn well please with the draft.)
Anyway, re: Miller vs. Morrow — Miller’s clearly the better bet, but bad bets do sometimes turn out. I guess now we just have to hope that in the end, Morrow’s the better pitcher (and that he’s a good pitcher for us).
[spelling, punctuation]
It hasn’t been established by any means. The MLBPA argues that that’s the case (but without wanting to represent draftees), the owners have argued that they can implement draft caps, etc etc without consulting the MLBPA.
This came up in the last CBA negotiations, when it appeared that the compensation pick thing had been dropped entirely until they disagreed on what they’d specifically agreed to, and now it lives on. Neither side seems particularly eager to take this to arbitration or otherwise get a clear decision on it.
Gee, sorry for a couple of spelling errors and a mis-used apostrophe. One thing I know how to spell perfectly is P-E-D-A-N-T-I-C.
Here’s your gold star.
Hopefully the Mariner management use the money they saved on Miller to help improve their image so they don’t have to overpay for many more years to come.
Marketing does not win ball games. I know that we all know that but the Mariner’s FO doesn’t seem to get it. They are not going to fool any players with slick marketing.
We did overpay for Sexson, Washburn and Beltre. Likely because they and their agents knew we’d have to. If we had a long standing tradition of winning in Seattle along with ownership that was committed to winning, the Ms would not be in the position of having superior players trying to avoid us.
Hopefully they use the money that should have gone to Miller to sign Matsuzaka. I’ll get over it then
In that list of players who signed over slot, you didn’t include CFer Austin Jackson, who got an $800,000 bonus as an eight round, #249 overall pick.
“Ownership isn’t committed to winning”
I despise that phrase. It’s not true.
Ownership is totally committed to winning (how are Microsoft people, rulers of the known computing world, not committed to winning?). It’s just that they’re less than competent at it, and think they know better than baseball people.
Personally, given that draft rules have been made a part of the collective-bargaining process, I’d say precedent has been set and the matter is established.
Even if the two sides don’t agree that draft rules are part of the collective bargaining process?
Okay.
If ownership isn’t committed to winning, they aren’t committed to maximizing the value of the franchise- as it’s pretty clear the bloom is WELL off the rose (attendance down 1.4 million from peak).
I would also point out that KC and TB have mastered the art of paying bupkus for your roster and still getting 10-15 million a year in operating profit thanks to revenue sharing kickbacks and MLB national TV money+licensing revenue+ etc- and the Mariners basically spent the 1980s doing the exact same thing.
Spending 90 million to lose 90 games is hugely inefficient.
It’s just that they’re less than competent at it, and think they know better than baseball people.
You don’t think a GM who’s the son of a GM isn’t baseball people? How about a scouting director who’s the son of a scouting director?
If they’ve made it part of the process, that’s a fact on the ground that carries a fair bit of weight, at least on my read. If you insist something isn’t subject to bargaining, then you subject it to bargaining, where’s your credibility on your initial position?
On another note, I was mildly amused to see that the M’s drafted Scott Maine again (this time in the 23rd round). Given the way going to school has turned out for him, maybe he’ll sign this time.
I applaud Derek’s pedantry.
Look, the only reason the owners aren’t allowed to collude with regard to free agent contracts is because they agreed not to in the CBA. Unsigned amateurs aren’t in the union, and thus they have no protection. The only thinkg stopping collusion there would be the Sherman anti-trust act, but baseball is exempt from that.
I think this whole thing will come up again in the next CBA one way or another, and the owners’ refusal to concede that the draft has anything to do with the CBA is a lot like some of their other prelude-to-a-fight positions of the past.
tgf said: So if exceeding the recommendation for slot gets you “Bud’s wrath†but no other discernable penalties, it seems like a better idea for all 30 clubs to simply ignore the recommendation, and take the player they want.
I am not an expert on game theory, but this seems to me to be a classic example of the situation where if every team acts in its individual best interest (i.e., signs players for over the slot), then all teams collectively lose (because the players are getting more than they otherwise would). Put in the opposite way, the owners save money collectively, and keep inflation in check, by followng the draft guidelines, just as they would if they (legally) colluded on free agency. The outliers are of course undermining the system, but so long as most of the teams follow, they will collectively benefit. From this point of view, the Mariners’ choice to uphold the system can be seen as a rational economic one; if they contribute to undermining it, they may have to eventually pay $8 million to the Morrows of the world, rather than the Millers. Look at what has happened to signing bonuses since Arod signed as the #1, for example.
Overall, this column was the most cogent and logical explanation I have seen as to why teams passed on Miller.
#73 – That’s not right. Establishing bargaining topics is a complex and hard-fought process, and any “precedent” of including some aspect of the draft itself in a CBA does not concede bargaining rights on all aspects of the draft, nor does it guarantee that the parties have been properly including draft topics to that point. Via arbitration and litigation (which often center around bargaining unit definitions), those items are eventually ironed out. Often parties won’t push the issue to avoid “definitive” answers when they live with the status quo. The bottom line here is that the Player’s Association doesn’t care enough to jeopardize more “meaty” ($$) issues at the negotiation table.
Perhaps ‘not committed to winning’ is too strong a phrase?
Let’s put it another way. The current executive demeanor is like high school politics. They chose friends (players) that they( think others will like them for. They appear to act as though if their friends(players) are popular then they’ll be popular(butts in seats) which will translate into success.
The trouble those of us who care about well-played baseball (aka winning) is in that many of us (not me, but many smart people here whose opinion I respect) can see better ways of selecting players who have the ability to play well and furthermore utiizing those players during a game.
I’m sure the FO would love to win games but they hope it will happen rather then make it happen. They are the antithesis of leadership. Try working that word into everyday web posting….
#78–Let’s put it another way. The current executive demeanor is like high school politics. They chose friends (players) that they think others will like them for. They appear to act as though if their friends (players) are popular then they’ll be popular (butts in seats) which will translate into success.
if that were the case, wouldn’t they have gone for Lincecum?
#74 –
“Look, the only reason the owners aren’t allowed to collude with regard to free agent contracts is because they agreed not to in the CBA.”
Prior to 1998 that is pretty much true. Negotiation and a handful of key decisions shaped that point. Since 1998, however, the anti-trust laws of the U.S. provide a separate framework that could prohibit certain types of collusion apart from any CBA provision. It’s now law that cannot be negotiated away.
“Unsigned amateurs aren’t in the Union, and thus have no protection. The only thing stopping collusion there . . ”
Pretty much. Unsigned ameteurs aren’t in the Union, and MLB is MOSTLY exempt from the anti-trust laws, and are certainly exempt with respect to draftees (by definition in the Curt Flood Act). The Sherman Anti-trust Act has been modified and amended (and interpreted) in part by subsequent legistlation and case law, and no longer stands on its own as the sole anti-trust statute at play here.
In all of this, it is important to remember that MLB is not exempt from federal labor law, even where it may be exempt from anti-trust laws. Those labor laws set the rules of engagement that MLB and the Ass’n must follow in negotiating the CBA, and the requirement of good faith dealing is still in play.
I think that MLBPA will readily agree to any system of limiting bonuses to draftees if they can be assured that a significant portion of the money saved will wind up in the bank accounts of their members.
This could take the form of negotiating quid pro quo: we’ll agree not to request arbitration on slotting if MLBPA increases the minimum salaries by $xxx,xxx.
They appear to act as though if their friends(players) are popular then they’ll be popular(butts in seats) which will translate into success.
Armstrong was here for the 80’s. Alvin Davis was Mr. Mariner. The Mariners still didn’t draw, because they sucked (worst winning percentage in MLB for the entire decade).
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance
Right now, the team is 18th in MLB for attendance, and is on pace for 2.1 million for the year, and the AL teams below them are ALL teams who don’t spend money- TB, KC, Oakland, Minnesota, Cleveland (and TB and KC basically have in effect decided to be MLB farm teams). That goes for most of the NL teams below them as well (like Florida, Pittsburgh). Many of those teams have been bad for years, or are bad now.
The idea that fans will keep showing up even if the team sucks is demonstrably false, and unless you are asserting that Armstrong, Lincoln et. al. are lying and do not believe their own public statements where they acknowledge that winning is what puts fans in seats (because they have made those statements to that effect), they most certainly know this from the attendance numbers.
This is different from the question of “Are they able to execute a strategy that makes them a winning team?”, but the idea that winning is completely secondary is simply ridiculous. The Mariners are not the Cubs, where they’ll get 3 million regardless of being awful because they have generational loyalty, Wrigley and a huge potential fan base to draw from- and even the Cubs WANT to win, even if they aren’t competent at doing it.
Collusion . . . game theory . . . talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
Isn’t it possibile that the M’s simply believe that Morrow at $3M is better risk-management than Miller at $8M. In order to make a case for Miller at $8M you have to ignore the simple fact that the odds are against him (or any other college pitcher) living up to expectations, or you simply don’t care about the dollars involved.
Given the fact that most young pitchers fail, and given two pitchers who aren’t all that far apart in current or projected ability, it’s a no-brainer to gamble on the significantly less expensive option.
I find it ironic that advocates of “replacement level” philosphy are so bent out of shape over the M’s unwillingness to throw an extra $5+ million at someone who, history tells us, will probably NOT live up to expectations.
(I hope this gets past the censors this time.)
I think that MLBPA will readily agree to any system of limiting bonuses to draftees if they can be assured that a significant portion of the money saved will wind up in the bank accounts of their members.
Also, they seem to favor seniority-based vs. merit-based pay anyway. See: arbitration. They’ll still likely pretend like they don’t want it at first to try to get as much leverage out of this as they can, but I doubt it would be something they would fight so hard that it would come to a work stoppage.
In all of seamheaddom, has anyone ever normalized the value of a dollar spent in different contexts in terms of general major league production. I.e.,
1. Draft bonus dollar
2. Free agent dollar
3. Contract extension dollar
etc.
One would guess that the contract extension would be most valuable, with the draft dollar a distant third, but in light of post 52, the obvious and intuitive might not tell the story.
I’m not talking Conventional Wisdom here, but stats. (I can see your eyes light up over cyberspace.)
Aside from the stink of collusion, (I think) I think MLB’s slot recommendations might just be a good thing. Not so much because teams are paying less for draftees, but, perhaps, might it also prevent some players from holding out?
Let’s say Player A — who isn’t going back to school — get’s picked 6th overall, and his agent (let’s call him Scott B. No, that’s no good, let’s call him S. Boras) convinces him to hold out all year, and go play in the Northern League, or something. And in the next draft, he gets picked 10th overall. And with almost all the teams in a slavish devotion to the slots, he gets less than he would have got the year before. With less of a chance for a big payday in the next draft, wouldn’t a draftee now be a little less brazen to hold out?
Of course, I am curious about what position players are usually picked after holding out the year before. Do they usually get picked higher, or lower? It seems that Luke Hochevar got lucky, but is he the exception, or the rule? Like to hear some thoughts on this….
[mentioned in another post]
if that were the case, wouldn’t they have gone for Lincecum?
Not necessarily. They’d still have to pay for it and incur the wrath of heir parents( Bud).
Armstrong was here for the 80’s. Alvin Davis was Mr. Mariner. The Mariners still didn’t draw, because they sucked (worst winning percentage in MLB for the entire decade).
They sucked and played in the Kingdome. There really is no hope in that situation.
83 – In the context of a $90 mil payroll $5 mil is very little to pay for a higher reward….also nearly every draft site I have read places Miller’s upside and projected ability as better than Morrow’s.
On a team needing pitching as badly as this one, and considering the farm system’s nearly bereft of quality starters that’s $5 mil well spent in my opinion. Certainly more well spent than giving Raul a 3 year contract or letting C-Rex’s option vest.
#88- huh? Bud wouldn’t care who they drafted as long as they paid him in the approved slot– and Lincecum would take slot money.
#87 – Thiel shouldn’t write columns like that. Someone might just believe it’s true.
Isn’t it possibile that the M’s simply believe that Morrow at $3M is better risk-management than Miller at $8M. In order to make a case for Miller at $8M you have to ignore the simple fact that the odds are against him (or any other college pitcher) living up to expectations, or you simply don’t care about the dollars involved.
Miller’s not getting $8 million. He wouldn’t have gotten $8 million from the Mariners, either. Miller will sign for somewhere between $5.5-$6 million, in all likelyhood.
Here’s a quote or 2 from 87’s post:
Picking up a phone to answer a call from the Seattle Mariners, highly regarded pitcher Brandon Morrow suffered an injury to his pitching elbow Tuesday that may have to be repaired by “Tommy John” ligament replacement surgery.
“I don’t know what happened,” said a distraught Morrow, a right-hander from the University of California. “I just reached for the phone on the table and all of a sudden I had this sharp pain. I heard a little pop. Honestly, I didn’t do anything unusual.”
The call was to tell him that the Mariners selected him with their first-round pick, fifth overall, in the amateur baseball draft. Club general manager Bill Bavasi cautioned that nothing about the injury was definitive.
“We know a little bit about pitching injuries, and there’s always a possibility it’s just a cramp,” Bavasi said. “He told us he can’t pick up a can of soda without severe pain. But you know how kids exaggerate.”
Wow… Somebody had better wrap King Felix in bubble wrap and fast.
Somebody like #94 apparently.
I’m not familiar with the columnist. That bad?
I was mildly amused to see that the M’s drafted Scott Maine again (this time in the 23rd round). Given the way going to school has turned out for him, maybe he’ll sign this time.
I don’t believe that’s right, he got drafted by the Rockies this time. They did redraft Joe Agreste from last year, who moved up from the 38th to the 32nd round, which I’m sure will make loads of difference in terms of a signing bonus.
Helps to read the whole article I see. That’s what I get for reading off of message boards.
No, Thiel’s just making the story up to stress the fact that the M’s have an injury problem with pitching prospects. There’s been some discussion on this site about whether that is an organizational problem, an institutional problem, or just an inevitable problem when men violently move their arms repeatedly in ways not natural to us.
Jake Locker taken by the Braves in Round 40.
# 93 Watch out! That pedantry is showing again. Or is it just hubris?
I say Miller won’t sign this year for less than $7.5M. So there.
You all need to look at this not from a statistical perspective, but from an economic perspective.
Virtually everyone agrees that Miller is a better prospect than Morrow. But nobody can say that they are certain that Miller will be more successful. Based on the past performance of scouts in evaluating college pitchers, the best anyone (even all-knowing USSM-types) can say is that there is a slight chance that Miller willl be more successful than Morrow. But there’s also a not-insignificant chance that Morrow will be better than Miller. So how much are you willing to pay for the potential incremental benefit? I say not $5 million (or not even $3 million).
So we can chalk the M’s decision up to 1) risk-management, 2) incompetence, or 3) conspiracy.
#100 — it was the Angels… 40th round, #1212. Prob. not really going to tempt him from the UW.
How is following MLB’s lead conspiracy, Nick?
Nick, there’s a difference between Dave and DMZ. Learn it before you start calling them pedantic and arrogant, even if they are.
Ah, collusion was a synonym for conspiracy the last time I checked. If you want to be P-E-D-A-N-T-I-C about it I suppose you could look it up.
How is following MLB’s lead conspiracy, Nick?
First we have the M’s going on the cheap, now we have the M’s following Bud Selig’s conspiracy (because that’s exactly what it is). Oh draft day is so much fun!
In any event, Dave:
Miller’s not getting $8 million. He wouldn’t have gotten $8 million from the Mariners, either. Miller will sign for somewhere between $5.5-$6 million, in all likelyhood.
Which would be above slot, but if the Tigers truly don’t give a flying damn about Selig and his slot recommendations, they could fully pay the 8 million that Miller wants. I’m not saying they will, but they have paid a lot for at least one previous draft pick and way over slot, why not now?
Nick,
Act civilized.
I know the difference between Dave and DMZ. I would say that USSM as a whole is pedantic and arrogant, not necessarily any one individual.
Sorry. Just a little frustrated over having a post deleted because of a couple of typos.
Not really sure why several people here are criticizing Dave and/or DMZ for their posts which speculate on the reasons why the M’s did what they did. This is one of the few places where you can come to get good information on the Mariners draft and the M’s rationale for various picks.
If Dave had stated his views: this is what happened, then I would understand the counter-critiques. But instead he offered it up as speculation.
If gwo and Nick and others want to express their differing opinions as speculation, then I have no problem with that. But criticizing the guesses of the authors smacks of being argumentative for no reason.
I once had a history teacher (no not even English teacher) mark research papers down full letter grades for close-call run-on sentences. These guys at least let you re-post.
I know the difference between Dave and DMZ. I would say that USSM as a whole is pedantic and arrogant, not necessarily any one individual.
While I agree with this, I also would say that “if one actually knows what they’re talking about, has sources that allow them to reach beyond their normal means for information, and provides quality opinions and well thought out essays on the state of Mariners baseball: a little arrogance is ok.”
I don’t even try to pretend that I know as much about baseball as DMZ, Dave, and Jeff, and I sure as heck don’t have insiders helping me out. The fact that they disseminate information to the rest of us on a quality level free of charge means that we have to put up with a smidge of attitude? Meh, I’m ok with that. Let the cock crow, it’s what they’re supposed to do.
Meanwhile I’ll argue and debate on a rational level with them whenever I feel like it.
If Dave had stated his views: this is what happened, then I would understand the counter-critiques. But instead he offered it up as speculation.
Quoth Dave:
I doubt there’s anything I can say that will make you believe me. It’s the truth, though, and it’s really up to you if you want to believe me or not.
His post may have been sepculation, but some of the comments he’s made below lead more to believe that what he’s stating is closer to fact then opinion.
At the risk of having even more people hate me, I’m not speculating. What I wrote in the post above is what happened.
If that makes me a prick in your eyes, so be it. Its impossible to please everyone, and I’m not going to try.
And as for the “pedantry,” it’s generally confined to matters of grammar, and I think that respect for the reader as conveyed by the use of full and properly punctuated sentences is one of the greatest charms of USSM.
If you are a prick, I hope you keep being a prick for a long time.
In otherwords, I think you seem like a good guy, and I thank you for what insight you have and can share with us.
To clarify, I don’t think I’m a prick. My prevailing weakness in life is, believe it or not, that I’m too nice.
But I do understand that with any kind of audience will come people who will not like you. I’ve learned to accept that people will think I’m a prick. I can deal with that.
I don’t have Dave or Dereck’s contacts, and all my Internet resources are of the “free” type, but I do know something about teaching baseball.
The first thing you realize as a coach is that projectibility is incredibly difficult to quantify. The best you can do is look at what someone is doing, then make an educated guess about what they can do. Inevitably, you will end up surprised by some guys that outperform their projection, and dissapointed by some guys that underperform their projection. Why? The capacity for learning; the desire to improve; the ability to find a “zone” and keep it in the face of adversity; physical development; work ethic, etc. etc. etc.
In the case of Morrow vs. Miller, the scouting reports that I have read say Morrow’s top side is pretty impressive – if he can learn a thing or two about consistently locating off-speed pitches. Of course, any power arm that can do this is going to be elite. The question of Morrow vs. Miller obviously is tainted by economics. However, economic risk assessment being what it is, I’m guessing the M’s believe Morrow’s top side is just as good as Miller’s, simply because they are starting with the “best pure arm” in the draft – and they believe he can learn to locate the off-speed stuff.
Pitching and projections are that simple to describe, but oh so difficult to execute.
I’m reminded of Dave’s description of the general public opinion surrounding A-Rod’s big contract.
People thought he was a prick for demanding he be paid like he was the greatest free agent in the history of sports, but the fact remains that he was the biggest free agent in the history of sports.
A quick question, and if this has been addressed already I apologize. But to those in the know, what are the abilities of the organizations (the higher up front office decision makers) to meet with the prospects face to face? I know in the NFL and NBA this is much easier to do, the players are no longer in school or season, and there is a smaller pool of players that they would have to meet with. The NFL has the combine and can interview players and give them their “wonderlic” tests, and NBA teams can bring in multiple players for individual workouts and workouts against other potential picks as well as interviews to determine any concerns they might have about character issues or what not. Do the MLB GM’s have this oppurtunity or is it delegated solely to the scouts?
As a reminder, A-Rodrigo kept saying it wasn’t about the money, then signed with a losing program for the money. A-Fraud he was, and A-Fraud he remains.
Post #14 mentioned this but was ignored. Craig Hansen didn’t sign a bonus over slot, but he signed a major league contract worth $4M. That isn’t exactly towing the company line by the Red Sox. They drafted about 15 signability picks this year, I’m sure they will completely ignore Bud’s calls yet again. If Bud was so concerned with teams paying slot price for draft picks, perhaps he should hold the line against the union on this one. I think many people are predicting this for the near future.
The Rangers weren’t a losing program when he signed with them. But, people will see what they want to see. Want to hate A-Rod? Make up stuff that helps you do so.
You may believe that I, and others like me, believe A-Rod betrayed the M’s. Hardly. I firmly believe players should sign for wherever and for whatever they please or can get.
A-Fraud is an applicable moniker simply because he signed for reasons counter to his stated objectives. Texas had to bid against itself to sign Alex, and that certainly isn’t his fault. But if you recall the media coverage of the day, A-Fraud gave up his true ambitions for the money. A-Fraud has continued to be the most prominent example of a player that manipulates his image – he doesn’t keep it “real”.
I don’t have to make anything up. I, actually, can read and form opinions for myself. Neither do I need to put anyone down to make myself feel better.
Dave (or anyone), I can’t seem to find anything online to tell me how slot dollar figures are determined. Do you know what factors figure into the formula used by MLB to determine slot figures?
Re: #97 — just going by the draft blog on BA, where Alan Matthews had the M’s taking Maine in the 23rd. You’re right, according to their draft list; so I’d presume Matthews just mistyped.
It’s not technically public information. Based on the numbers, though, it appears to be something very close to the following:
2006 Bonus = (2005 Bonus + 2%)
I highly doubt MLB would make that sort of thing public. I don’t even think roster rules are public.
A-Rod said he wated to sign with a winning team. The Mariners didn’t look like one. The Rangers did. Once he’d picked the Rangers, he drove up their price (bidding against themselves, you said) as high as he could. Good for him.
I don’t like A-Rod, either, but it’s that slap in 2004 that turned the tide for me.
As far as risk management goes, it is a valid question whether Morrow at $3M is a better risk than Miller at $6M, but an honest answer needs to account for what the opportunity cost of that extra $3M would be. DKJ touched on this with the question about the relative value of dollars put into draft bonuses vs free agent signings etc.
Is 6 years of cheap Morrow with X% chance of being a superstar + 1 year of C. Everett greater than or less than 6 years of cheap Miller with Y% chance of being a superstar? Depends on what X and Y are, but given that Miller was considered a #1 talent and the team would enjoy the performance differential for six years vs. one year of (marginal) contribution from our favoirite Dinosaur expert, I know what I’d decide.
I’m going to have to side with the slot explanation on this one. Free agents are pretty risky too (c.f. Beltre, Adrian) and way more expensive. The fact is, with the FA system, teams underpay for guys with 6 years service time. I’m pretty sure Bavasi and Lincoln know that. Quality draft picks are already a major bargin, even with a signing bonus, so it would seem financially disadvantageous to skimp on spending money there.
Argh, stupid me, forgot that angle brackets don’t work very well on web pages. (Hmmm, wonder who I can talk to about that?). anyway, #129 should have said
“teams underpay for guys with less than 6 years service time and overpay for guys with more than 6 years service time.”
A-Rod was a master politician in his move to Texas. If he didn’t have an image consultant, he should become one. We all should have known he was going (and that the M’s offer was not going to get it done). I, at least, knew that. Texas had a lot of promise (A-Rod, Palmeiro, Pudge, Juan Gon (‘02) Carl Everett (cough, choke), and I certainly feared the prospect of facing them the next year. The Texas deal (and his motivations for taking it) will not hurt his place in baseball history. I think his move to NY and to 3rd base may have some impact, though. He went to NY to get a ring, more lucrative endorsements and a higher profile. He may yet get the ring, he likely has some sweet deals, but he’s not even close to the most popular player on his team. I wonder if he expected Jeter to fade faster, and hoped that George would demand he take over at short. A-Rod could have been one of the best shortstops of all-time, but no more. Of course he can still be one of the best all-around players, which is not bad at all.
I don’t like A-Rod, either, but it’s that slap in 2004 that turned the tide for me.
Amen to that, brother! That was punk… pure punk.
Thanks for the post, Dave.
I’m personally glad DMZ didn’t give up policing the threads, and I highly value what I read here from the site authors. Thanks for all the insight, and making baseball that much enjoyable for me.
For the
fracking moronsposters that don’t agree with the owners of the site: go somewhere else. From what I’ve seen, they will listen to well-reasoned and well-supported arguments, but “’cause I said so!” won’t hunt. This is a site for Dave, DMZ, Jason et al to post their views, insights and opinions. You don’t have to agree, but you DO have to behave. They can do what they want, quite frankly… it’s their dime.Jimmie
#121– hmm. the only person I recall using the phrase “it’s not about the money” was Steve Phillips when he announced the Mets didn’t want Alex.
“Rodriguez wanted the team to get better; he wants to win, it’s one of his expectations of any team he will play for. We agree totally and we’re trying to improve with him.”–Pat Gillick, before Alex signed with anyone.
“While visiting the Texas Rangers, the free agent shortstop wanted to know about their minor league and scouting organizations. “I really want to educate myself with the landscape of every ballclub, the future, how I involve myself in the equation, and what I can do and what the team can do for me. It should be a two-way street. If a common denominator is winning a championship, that’s what I’m about.”– Alex Rodriguez before signing with anyone.
#128– and FWIW, a few thought from Hicks on his team, Alex, baseball business vs sports business vs business business…
RE #129
I, too, would rather see the Mariners spend “extra” money signing a better prospect than keeping an overpaid FA, but that’s not their dilemma. Their dilemma is how to maximize value/minimize risk in a highly risky part of their operation. Try to get closer to X and Y by lookng at it this way . . .
Suppose you could put a probability of a pitcher acheiving a certain level of success equal to that of known quantities. For the sake of argument, let’s imagine a continuum of success running from a value called “Kofax” on the high end to a value called “Franklin” on the low end.
Now, what probability does Miller have of acheiving each level of success? We might say something like:
Kofax: 0.2%
Franklin: 75%
Morrow’s probabilities might look like:
Kofax: 0.15%
Franklin: 72.5%
I think that, regardless of where you calibrate X, the corresponding Y value isn’t that much different. That is, Miller has a higher probability of acheiving “Kofax” than Miller does but the probability isn’t very high. And, on the other end of the spectrum, the likelihood that both Miller and Mollar will achieve “Franklin” is relatively similar.
Also note that, sadly, there is a relatively high probability that neither player acheives even “Franklin.”
Another way to think of this is as a wager, giving odds that Miller turns out better than Mollar or vice versa.
You can bet $X and get Mollar as say a 5:4 underdog, or bet $2X and get Miller as a 1:5 favorite. Payout is the same regardless of who succeeds. 2X is a helluva premium to pay for a relatively slight improvement in odds.
And that’s why you pay more for free agents. They’ve already developed, so you already know whether they’re as good as Franklin.
Geez . . . now I’ll get taken to the woodshed for “Mollar” . . .
That certainly is the relevance of A-Rod. Sports is business. I’d certainly argue that A-Rod to Texas was a business move, and that all the baseball double-speak was to blunt that fundamental fact. However, I’d also like to believe that the Morrow pick was mitigated by baseball factors, but there is no arguing that business factors ruled the day.
In my model “Franklin” and “Kofax” are merely constructs, not actual players.
Mollar = Morrow kinda like Doyle = . . . well, you get it, I’m sure
One thing in all of this discussion that I do not understand and that does not seem to follow USSM Baseball philosophy is why do we feel like it’s OK to spend $8m on the likes of Miller who hasn’t pitched an inning in Major League Baseball but deem it ridiculous overspending for a professional player who has performed to high standards in the League? Of course there will be argument on where to draw the line on that veteran player, but it appears to be the general consensus on USSM that any amount that high is too much. And there will be arguements that Miller won’t get as much. That’s yet to be determined, but suffice to say he’s made it clear what he wants.
Please help me out with this conundrum.
Yeah, we should just give all M’s pitching prospect nicknames as a precaution, given our history with injuries.
Sorry for the double post.
The name that popped out at me when looking at the list of draftees on the second day was 26th round selection Greg Moviel. If memory serves me right Greg was Dave’s USS Mariner prediction for selection in the supplemental round in 2003. (Adam Jones was taken instead and Moviel went in the 15th round to CWS)
If I’m correct your reason for making the prediction was that he fitted the ‘type’ of player normally taken by Mattox at that time. Maybe things haven’t changed that much!
#134:
BP does something like this on their PECOTA cards, with their Stars/Scrubs percentages. Of course, they’re relying mostly on data from professional (Major and Minor league) ball performance, which doesn’t yet exist for Miller or Morrow (maybe not even for Mollar, depending on who he is). For comparison, I think King Felix projects as something like 50% chace of being a superstar over the next 5 years, while Liriano is closer to 10%. When you’re talking about first round draftees (especially top-5), I think the superstar quesition is the right one. Maximizing your odds of getting a supertar is a better bet than maximizing your odds of adding role players.
Put it this way – if the M’s had not signed C. Everett in the offseason, and somehow woke up this morning leading the AL West by 6 games, what are the odds they could add a little “left-handed sock” for the remainder of the year to help them contend? Pretty good, I think.
I’ve always cringed at the “A-Rod betrayed the Mariners” crowd. If you’re going to be a fan of any professional sport, get used to a player you like leaving your team and going to another team.
Personally I think A-Rod is an ass just because – to me – he seems to have a smarmy, phony public persona that just rubs me the wrong way. It’s just me personally.
But to say he’s an ass because he took a ridiculous amount of money that nobody on earth would turn down is a little silly. I don’t care what he said previous to that contract offer.
Ed (142) – I suspect it has something to do with the length of time the team has control of young players. Miller can be held in the minor leagues as long as the team deems approriate, and upon reaching the majors is still under team control for 6 seasons.
For a college player, 6 seasons takes you through his peak. That’s hugely valuable, because his salary will be depressed throughout that period.
Evan-
Thanks. Makes sense.
I’m still confused about something, and sorry if I’m just a blockhead: given the “slotting” and whatnot, is the thinking that Miller will sign with Detroit for less than he would have with Seattle because
(a) he dropped one more spot in the draft
(b) Detroit doesn’t have as deep pockets as Seattle (or is perceived that way)
(c) all of the above
Or is there some other reason? Detroit is still going to pay more than it’s “supposed to” for the 6th slot, but is it going to pay as much over its slot as Seattle would have likely paid over the 5th slot for Miller?
Or is Miller going to get his number regardless, and Detroit is just willing to ignore the collective will of the owners (as expressed through Selig) whereas Seattle is not?
That very last thing you said.
I’m sure that you’re right on this one, Dave. As Derek said, the Ms have hewed very close to the MLB line since the Strike in ‘92. The Ms are very eager to get picks slotted, get a tacit cap on total dollars to premium big league free agents, etc., etc. The org also has a history of not seeing any one player as a reason to break ranks on the broader business strategy, both at the team level and at the MLB level. However fine Andrew Miller may be, he wouldn’t be the one for whom they would throw out the business plan. And yes, if the Ms were locked in at $2.5M, there’s no way they’d get Miller locked up for that; not happening. Detroit has lost so big, so bad, for so long, and their owner is an “I made it myself” kind of guy: in their situation, I can see them throwing out the guide book to regain some credibility for the franchise.
Re #140: The other thing, Ed, is that your description of the general consensus is way off base. For instance, when the M’s signed Beltre, you could hear Dave doing cartwheels through the monitor — and for another instance, Dave has said more than once that A-Rod is worth the deal he signed with Texas. Where Dave and DMZ (and others who post here, myself included) find that sort of deal ridiculous overspending is when the player’s probable future performance doesn’t match the money, whether due to age, to the player not really being that good, or what have you.
Re 117: Anybody who has ever met Dave and spent more than 5 mimutes with him knows he’s not a prick. Not even arrogant; opinionated, maybe, but in a good and engaging way. Unfortunately, that doesn’t always come through in the written word.
These “you’ll have to take my word for it” posts always draw the same questioning comments. I find myself thinking “Hmmmm, I wonder how many scouts Dave talked to? I wonder how high up in the system they go? I wonder how many of them were scouting Morrow vs. Miller (since it isn’t a given, with the exception perhaps of higher-level scouts and cross-checkers, that a given scout would have seen both other than perhaps on film)? How close to Fontaine do his sources go?” All of this will help fill in the cracks in my opinion/reaction to how close I think Dave is to “fact” or “speculation” on what is really a continuum. But in the end, Dave has more sources than just about any of us, he’s a smart guy, and if you want him to keep sharing stuff he can’t say much about you have to have a certain level of trust and respect.
Re 118, JAS — that nailed it for me about as much as anything I can say in putting myself squarely in the “I’ll trust Fontaine’s judgment for now” camp. There are just so many variables in this decision that it is unfair and simplistic to ever say “this is about a roughly equivalent talent evaluation” or “this is about money, period.” It is a very nuanced decision about both of these factors and many others, and it’s impossible to ever know precisely what the group-decision-making process was.
In the end, we got a premium arm. He may or may not end up being better than Andrew Miller, but he definitely will be cheaper and less trouble for the organization (great point about the slots, Dave; hadn’t really thought about that angle). We may not like it, but this is a defensible decision on a lot of fronts.