Jump to content
Yoda

Top 10 Draft Slot Watch

Recommended Posts

Also, the number of QO's offered effects the value of the Tigers second pick since many of those QO's will turn into sandwich round picks ahead of detroits 2nd rounder. This could change their draft slot by 5-10 spots. Not a giant change but a change nonetheless. Does anybody know if being pushed down the draft order due to added sandwich round picks would change the size of their draft pool money?

It would, but a lot of that is offset by the teams forfeiting their first round picks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BetMGM Michigan $600 Risk-Free bet

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is now available! Start betting at BetMGM Michigan now and get a $600 risk-free bet bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan Now

It would, but a lot of that is offset by the teams forfeiting their first round picks.

True true, forgot about that. It'd probably just about even out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recall your corner scenario because you responded to one of my posts accusing me of attaching infinite value to draft picks and used your hypothetical to show how that was wrong. I called it a strawman and stand by that.

If I remember correctly you presented two different free agents who required contracts that were extremely different when considering both length and dollars.

I'm not going to dig up the thread, but if you were offended by what appears to be a misunderstanding, then I apologize for that.

I don't believe the scenario you presented had a lot of value in trying to frame the discussion, as there was an obvious answer to your scenario where everyone would elect to sign the one player even though he cost a draft pick when the only alternative presented was a much higher priced player.

I stand by that scenario as a case where it makes sense to sign the guy attached to a draft pick. There's an assumption on the outside that the market is pretty linear and fair, and it probably isn't. Different teams, depending on what their scouts or analytics guys see, value players very differently.

For the record, I think it's difficult to assign a monetary value to giving up a draft pick, and I think it's also difficult to determine surplus value when deciding to sign a free agent. It's far from an efficient market because every player is different and attempting to project performance and the monetary value of it even if you can project it accurately is extremely fuzzy.

If your analytics team can't assign a mean value, be it monetary or some other method, to assess the value of the pick attached to a player, then they are probably way behind the curve at this point.

I think the team should attempt to fill its vacancies first with players that don't require giving up a draft pick.

I think teams should adjust for the value of the pick and sign the player with the highest projected net surplus value who will take the contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even better... let's say somehow we can afford Cueto & Heyward (extremely unlikely, unless Ilitch says "go for broke & don't worry about the taxes"...) and they agree to contracts with the Tigers:

I certainly would be willing to give up 2nd and 3rd round picks for those two!!!

Even better... You wouldn't have to give up a pick for Cueto, since he was traded midseason.

Samardzija seems like an interesting FA candidate. He's had a really tough year. 4.85 ERA. 1.29 WHIP. 7 k/9. His FIP is 4.06 and xFIP at 4.13, so better there. The Ballpark in Chicago is certainly not helping his numbers.

Even with his tough year, he still seems a very safe bet to get the QO. But with the off year, the QO and a SP-rich FA class, his market will surely have taken a hit.

Could he be this year's Ubaldo/Ervin Santana? When does he look like a bargain? 4/60? 5/75?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even better... You wouldn't have to give up a pick for Cueto, since he was traded midseason.

Samardzija seems like an interesting FA candidate. He's had a really tough year. 4.85 ERA. 1.29 WHIP. 7 k/9. His FIP is 4.06 and xFIP at 4.13, so better there. The Ballpark in Chicago is certainly not helping his numbers.

Even with his tough year, he still seems a very safe bet to get the QO. But with the off year, the QO and a SP-rich FA class, his market will surely have taken a hit.

Could he be this year's Ubaldo/Ervin Santana? When does he look like a bargain? 4/60? 5/75?

It also wouldn't shock me if he took the QO. He grew up a white sox fan and $16 million a year is about what he can expect on the open market. Hope for a bounce back year and then get that long term deal at age 32.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think teams should adjust for the value of the pick and sign the player with the highest projected net surplus value who will take the contract.

Agreed wholeheartedly. I would love to not surrender draft picks, but so would everybody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It also wouldn't shock me if he took the QO. He grew up a white sox fan and $16 million a year is about what he can expect on the open market. Hope for a bounce back year and then get that long term deal at age 32.

It isn't impossible, but there hasn't been a player yet who has accepted the QO. Samardzija has only had one really good season and he isn't a particularly young FA at 31.

That ballpark has not been a good fit for him either. He could gamble on a strong bounceback, but he'd still have the QO attached and be a year older, so I wouldn't bet on him doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not going to dig up the thread, but if you were offended by what appears to be a misunderstanding, then I apologize for that.

I stand by that scenario as a case where it makes sense to sign the guy attached to a draft pick. There's an assumption on the outside that the market is pretty linear and fair, and it probably isn't. Different teams, depending on what their scouts or analytics guys see, value players very differently.

If your analytics team can't assign a mean value, be it monetary or some other method, to assess the value of the pick attached to a player, then they are probably way behind the curve at this point.

I think teams should adjust for the value of the pick and sign the player with the highest projected net surplus value who will take the contract.

That's fine and I'm not against that approach per se. I just don't think a team needs to treat things like this as rigidly as you suggest. That approach works with a large enough data set but there is just so much noise, especially considering the non linear talent range that you mention.

I would err toward spending more inefficiently if it meant a higher overall talent level or depth in the system.

There are no prizes awarded for best net surplus value signing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's fine and I'm not against that approach per se. I just don't think a team needs to treat things like this as rigidly as you suggest. That approach works with a large enough data set but there is just so much noise, especially considering the non linear talent range that you mention.

I would err toward spending more inefficiently if it meant a higher overall talent level or depth in the system.

There are no prizes awarded for best net surplus value signing.

Sure there are... More money to spend on other players, and it gives you some objective way to weigh options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff Samardzija simply looks like a White Sox pitcher.

I don't want him on the Tigers for that completely irrational reason / emotional basis.

Edited by Mr. Bigglesworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure there are... More money to spend on other players, and it gives you some objective way to weigh options.

That's true if you assume that the free agent budget is a zero sum exercise and that the money spent will approach that level.

That could definitely be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's fine and I'm not against that approach per se. I just don't think a team needs to treat things like this as rigidly as you suggest. That approach works with a large enough data set but there is just so much noise, especially considering the non linear talent range that you mention.

I would err toward spending more inefficiently if it meant a higher overall talent level or depth in the system.

There are no prizes awarded for best net surplus value signing.

I agree with this. While it's true that teams should have an objective way of assigning a value to every player, the pool of available players is too small to allow for ideal rigidity. If you need a player to increase your odds of making post-season, sometimes you might want to obtain him less efficiently than ideal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no prizes awarded for best net surplus value signing.

This is an odd statement. Is there a prize? I guess technically no, but the goal of every transaction should be to get the best value possible. What else matters if not that???

- at the least, the "prize" is a complete strawman

Edited by Nastradamus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an odd statement. Is there a prize? I guess technically no, but the goal of every transaction should be to get the best value possible. What else matters if not that???

- at the least, the "prize" is a complete strawman

Often statements do seem odd when you take them out of the context of the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an odd statement. Is there a prize? I guess technically no, but the goal of every transaction should be to get the best value possible. What else matters if not that???

Winning a championship. Now, consistently getting good value may increase a team's chances of winning a championship, but a team might occasionally want to abandon the best value approach to obtain a rare commodity that will help them more than a better value player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Winning a championship. Now, consistently getting good value may increase a team's chances of winning a championship, but a team might occasionally want to abandon the best value approach to obtain a rare commodity that will help them more than a better value player.

I think that you could easily argue that having the most talent increases your chance at a championship, and that getting the best value can help a team maximize talent when all other things are equal, but they are not always equal, and acquiring players is not a zero sum exercise. The big budget Yankees teams are a good example of good talent with relatively poor value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Often statements do seem odd when you take them out of the context of the conversation.

I don't think its out of context at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that you could easily argue that having the most talent increases your chance at a championship, and that getting the best value can help a team maximize talent when all other things are equal, but they are not always equal, and acquiring players is not a zero sum exercise. The big budget Yankees teams are a good example of good talent with relatively poor value.

agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think its out of context at all

Given that I think that the rest of the post that you omitted does a fairly good job of explaining the sentence that you find odd, I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that you could easily argue that having the most talent increases your chance at a championship, and that getting the best value can help a team maximize talent when all other things are equal, but they are not always equal, and acquiring players is not a zero sum exercise. The big budget Yankees teams are a good example of good talent with relatively poor value.

I agree, but I think there can be an occasion where it's OK for a team to obtain a good talent for relatively poor value. It depends on the team and the pool of players available. It wouldn't be wise to do it on a regular basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, but I think there can be an occasion where it's OK for a team to obtain a good talent for relatively poor value. It depends on the team and the pool of players available. It wouldn't be wise to do it on a regular basis.

I think that it would be prudent to delineate between objective and subjective prudence as well. When a team has a hole to fill, they are probably less concerned with the $/WAR that they get, or more appropriately perhaps, we could say that we have a real "replacement" player to compare with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It isn't impossible, but there hasn't been a player yet who has accepted the QO. Samardzija has only had one really good season and he isn't a particularly young FA at 31.

That ballpark has not been a good fit for him either. He could gamble on a strong bounceback, but he'd still have the QO attached and be a year older, so I wouldn't bet on him doing so.

Surprisingly, I heard on the radio broadcast a week or so ago that Cellular Field has been the best pitcher's park in the AL this year, strictly by the numbers. Dan and Jim were stunned by that when they said it, but apparently it is (or at least was then) the truth. Gotta figure part of that is due to Sale pitching a bunch of games there. Not sure what other factors account for it though.

And I echo the comments about Samardzija being a White Sox type of guy and therefore not really someone I'd want anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an odd statement. Is there a prize? I guess technically no, but the goal of every transaction should be to get the best value possible. What else matters if not that???

- at the least, the "prize" is a complete strawman

The goal is to build the best possible team you can afford.

An 80 win team that spent 100 million got better value than a 90 win team that spent 200 million. What exactly does the 80 win team get for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The goal is to build the best possible team you can afford.

An 80 win team that spent 100 million got better value than a 90 win team that spent 200 million. What exactly does the 80 win team get for that?

Maybe the 80 win team has a better farm system or more money to play with for mid-season reinforcements. See Blue Jays, Toronto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the 80 win team has a better farm system or more money to play with for mid-season reinforcements. See Blue Jays, Toronto.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

Maybe if they had spent more in the offseason they wouldn't have needed to trade away all those prospects for rentals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan launched online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. We have selected the top Michigan sportsbooks and casinos that offer excellent bonus offers. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - Get a 100% up to $250 deposit bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Click Here to claim $250 deposit bonus at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - Get a $1,000 risk-free bet at FanDuel Michigan on your first bet.

Click Here to claim $1,000 Risk-Free Bet at FanDuel Michigan

BetMGM Michigan - Get a $600 risk-free bet at the BetMGM online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan

   


×
×
  • Create New...