2012 draft

[roadrunner]

I asked a similar question in a PG (?) chat.  The club has $7.2M for the first pick and probably ~$1M or so for the supplemental.  Theoretically, they could take two guys for top 4 money (slot is $4.2M).  The dream scenario is they draft someone willing to sign for that and have a healthy Giolito fall to them at #41.  But, you can't have predraft deals and you're at the mercy of the advisor not getting every penny possible.

Klaw reported that there is some talk that clubs will use this strategy.  He said clubs may reach for guys in order to have more savings under the cap.  It sounded like it was more teams at the back end of the top 10, though, and not the Astros.

[Uncle Charlie]

I'm curious about how this draft may work with the restrictions on bonuses this season.  IIRC, Luhnow noted something about not really knowing how the draft will shake out because of these until right about draft time.  With no true 1-1, does he take a 1-12 type player that he can give 10 overall money to and use the 'savings under the cap' (so to speak) to try to entice better players late in the draft?

If this truely is a terrible draft as the pundits are saying...you have to wonder if they have considered the 2013 draft and if they wouldn't mind being stauch on negotiations knowing they can get a 1-2 pick next year if they fail to sign?

[astrosfan76]

Klaw reported that there is some talk that clubs will use this strategy.  He said clubs may reach for guys in order to have more savings under the cap.  It sounded like it was more teams at the back end of the top 10, though, and not the Astros.

It would depend on how much Giolito is asking, also.  If it's going to take $4M+ to keep him from UCLA, you're limiting the number of clubs who have a high enough pick and enough extra picks to make that work without killing the rest of their draft.  If a club at the back of the top 10 has ~$2.5M for their pick, they'd have to save $1.5M over the next 9 rounds, which would be tough even if they have a supplemental pick worth $1M+, since the value of the picks dwindle.  You can't just fill the rest of your draft with senior scrubs.  There probably are teams who could make it work, but not many.

One scenario that I saw mentioned yesterday was for a team like the Yankees, who always pick at the back of the draft, to buck the system and offer him whatever it would take, even if it cost them their next two 1st-rounders.  It would cost a lot pick-wise, but they'd be getting the most-talented player in the draft. 

I don't expect us to draft him, but it will take special circumstances for whoever does.

[astrosfan76]

If this truely is a terrible draft as the pundits are saying...you have to wonder if they have considered the 2013 draft and if they wouldn't mind being stauch on negotiations knowing they can get a 1-2 pick next year if they fail to sign?

I'm sure they'll try to spend as little as possible with each pick, but I don't mean that in a bad way.  I don't expect them to pick the guy they have pegged as 7th-best on their list because he'll sign for less.  But, when they make their selection, I imagine they'll try to sign him for as little as possible and, on the other end, the agent will try to get as much as possible.  That's just the way negotiations work.  In the end, though, the club still want to sign the player because he will automatically be the top prospect in the system and they need the talent moving through. 

[jbm]

It will be interesting how teams approach it, but I'd be surprised if it didn't play out as it is drawn up.  With both penalties, the tax and the loss of picks, it will be hard to game in a major way.  I can see a team using a mid round pick on someone they figure they could entice with small savings gathered from skimming off other picks, but not a wholesale disregard of the rules.  It is just too punishing.  It will also be interesting watching the agents come to grips with the system.  

[Reuben]

In the end, though, the club still want to sign the player because he will automatically be the top prospect in the system and they need the talent moving through. 

I'm not completely sure this is true. I've seen pundits say that Springer would've been in the mix for #1/1 in this class, and Singleton is now rather highly regarded as well.

[OregonStrosFan]

...but not a wholesale disregard of the rules.  It is just too punishing....

This.  The penalties are severe. 

And while 'pre-draft deals' may not be allowed, I've little doubt that there are 'handshake agreements' out there.  You tell a kid that may be a #12 overall that you'll take him #1 overall if he'd agree to #8-#10 money, I would certainly imagine he and his agent would consider it strongly (as #10 money is obviously better, and there is a 'prestige factor' for being 1-1), and while there may be some consideration that the agent and player could renig/hold out, the fact is that the agent still has to work in the business -and- the kid still has to play in the system.  Both significant reasons IMO to keep all involved 'honest'.

It certainly wouldn't surprise me to see Luhnow try to get a $4M player at 1-1 and a $3.5M type player at 1S-41... but... what do I know...

[astrosfan76]

I'm not completely sure this is true. I've seen pundits say that Springer would've been in the mix for #1/1 in this class, and Singleton is now rather highly regarded as well.

I've seen that Appel would have probably been #8 last year, many like Buxton more than (or at least comparable to) Starling, who went #5.  I don't know if Gausman/Zimmer would fit in the same spot as Appel (I guess depends on who you ask), but those guys would likely go before Springer.  Either way, the point remains, you don't want to not sign this guy.  You would be setting the organization back.

[moriartp]

Either way, the point remains, you don't want to not sign this guy.  You would be setting the organization back.

Not to mention the complete PR disaster they'd create. The new regime has already shown itself to be far too image-conscious to let something like that happen.

[astrosfan76]

This.  The penalties are severe. 

And while 'pre-draft deals' may not be allowed, I've little doubt that there are 'handshake agreements' out there.  You tell a kid that may be a #12 overall that you'll take him #1 overall if he'd agree to #8-#10 money, I would certainly imagine he and his agent would consider it strongly (as #10 money is obviously better, and there is a 'prestige factor' for being 1-1), and while there may be some consideration that the agent and player could renig/hold out, the fact is that the agent still has to work in the business -and- the kid still has to play in the system.  Both significant reasons IMO to keep all involved 'honest'.

It certainly wouldn't surprise me to see Luhnow try to get a $4M player at 1-1 and a $3.5M type player at 1S-41... but... what do I know...

I wouldn't want to see a club at the back do that, either, but there is logic to the argument.  If you are sure that you'll be picking at the bottom of the heap over the next 2 seasons and you have a chance to pick up the draft's best player, a guy with ace stuff, you have to give thought to it.  Most of the guys you'll run into in that range are going to be raw or have #3 ceilings.  If penalties have never been a determent before (i.e. luxury tax), would you be willing to give up two of those lower-ceiling/higher-risk players to get a stud, knowing that you'll still have ~39 more picks each season?  

[Reuben]

Either way, the point remains, you don't want to not sign this guy.  You would be setting the organization back.

Very true. It's odd, I don't think I've seen any questions raised about Buxton's signability, but of course that could be a factor too. Logic says that there's no financial incentive for him to forgo signing for college if he's already the 1st overall pick this year, but with this year being the litmus test for the new rules, who can say for sure what'll happen.

[astrosfan76]

Very true. It's odd, I don't think I've seen any questions raised about Buxton's signability, but of course that could be a factor too. Logic says that there's no financial incentive for him to forgo signing for college if he's already the 1st overall pick this year, but with this year being the litmus test for the new rules, who can say for sure what'll happen.

I haven't either, though I don't know if I've seen him slipping out of the Top 5 (maybe PG), rarely the Top 2.  With a lot of his value being tied into projection, he'd really have to want to go to college to skip what he'll be offered a month from now.  I don't see the slot values changing a whole lot in the next 3 years; I'm sure they'll go up, but not a huge amount. 

[hostros7]

The point is that you can't go higher than 1/1.  I'm all for education, but no one should pass that up and no one ever has.  It's truly not a risk (assuming the org is fair on negotiationswhich it will be).

[Fynn]

I was curious which of the top prospects have Boras as his agent.  That could rule someone out quickly-going way over slot to get a guy could ruin your entire draft strategy.

[OregonStrosFan]

I was curious which of the top prospects have Boras as his agent.  That could rule someone out quickly-going way over slot to get a guy could ruin your entire draft strategy.

I don't recall hearing his name associated with anyone this year yet (like it was with, e.g., Josh Bell last year).  [And not giving you crap, just a misc. note that they aren't "agents" until the player is signed (general rule), they are "advisers" (stupid arcane and unrealistic NCAA BS...).

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

Moreover, Crane doesn't have baggage with Boras like McLane did.  I'm not saying that it won't still be an issue, but Crane certainly won't hold Beltran against some draft pick.

[Fynn]

Moreover, Crane doesn't have baggage with Boras like McLane did.  I'm not saying that it won't still be an issue, but Crane certainly won't hold Beltran against some draft pick.

Wasn't Boras the "advisor" to Jacoby Jones?  Of course no one knows what our final offer was for Jones, but McLane did have post-Beltran dealings with Boras-none successfully however.

[Fynn]

I don't recall hearing his name associated with anyone this year yet (like it was with, e.g., Josh Bell last year).  [And not giving you crap, just a misc. note that they aren't "agents" until the player is signed (general rule), they are "advisers" (stupid arcane and unrealistic NCAA BS...).

No crap noted here.  Thanks for your work on the board.

[OregonStrosFan]

Wasn't Boras the "advisor" to Jacoby Jones?  Of course no one knows what our final offer was for Jones, but McLane did have post-Beltran dealings with Boras-none successfully however.

Yes, and seems there was a $2M'ish rumored offer to him (I could be way off on that, but that number sticks out), but my impression was that Bubba Jones was running that sideshow more than Boras was...

[moriartp]

Yes, and seems there was a $2M'ish rumored offer to him (I could be way off on that, but that number sticks out), but my impression was that Bubba Jones was running that sideshow more than Boras was...

I remember Heck saying they made a "substantial" offer, but there's really no telling what that means. $1M was the number I saw mentioned on the webs (can't remember if there was a solid source).