Porcello

by Trobone on Jul 1, 2007 9:24 PM EDT Comment 21 comments

Has anyone read anything new about him signing or not? Do people here think the tigers will pony up the money to get him signed or are they happy to get the draft pick next year?

filler

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Too early

The deal won't be announced until the 11th hour, as most over-slot deals are. I would think the Tigers will pony up the cash because (1) they knew the ballpark figure it would take to sign Porcello and wouldn't have selected him if they weren't willing to come close to it, and (2) they know they won't get anything close to a Porcello-like talent with the 27A pick next year.

by CW on Jul 1, 2007 9:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

But maybe

They took Porcello knowing that if they didn't sign him they would get 27A next year. Obviously they won't get a Porcello talent at 27A next year but they won't have to pay him Porcello money either. You see what I mean?

They will sign or not sign Porcello based on how much he is asking for and whether they think he is worth that amount of money. I don't think the compensation pick comes into their decision making much.

Mike Zagurski Fan Club

by Grrranderson on Jul 1, 2007 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sounds Like

Baseball people are split. Maybe 40% of him signing...

Phillip Hughes turning into Barbaro? Odds are that Hughes will probably be put to sleep within the next year. --Bravesin08

by Dfarth on Jul 1, 2007 9:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Baseball needs a slotting system

to avoid crap like this.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Jul 2, 2007 12:47 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

Of course, the Tigers never would have got Porcello then, just as it should be. ;)

by doublestix on Jul 2, 2007 1:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It has one...

what is plan B?

by jfish26101 on Jul 2, 2007 1:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but...

It's a very soft system, being nothing close to what the NBA has. The slotting is more of a "guideline" that is borderline collusion amongst the owners. They really need to address this issue with the next collective bargaining agreement. Otherwise, the rich will continue to get richer and the poor will continue to pick guys like Matt Bush #1 overall and see their long-term futures suffer.

by guru4u on Jul 2, 2007 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

or be smarter

and pick up Joe Mauer?

by playingwithfire on Jul 2, 2007 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure

Bush is kind of a bad example, because other teams have picked up talented players while spending less money...the Royals got perhaps the best hitter in the 2004 draft, Billy Butler, in the middle of the first round, for example.

But it hurts teams when they flat out CAN'T make a pick because of signability issues. Mike Moustakas might turn out to be great, sure...but, as a Royals fan, I'd have taken Wieters or Porcello in a heartbeat, had we known ahead of time that they;d sign for a reasonable amount of money.

by ajohnst1 on Jul 3, 2007 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bush has been converted to a pitcher now

and doing relatively well in 3.1 IP. He has 8 Ks and 1 walk. Sure it's rookie league but I'd keep an eye on him. Sure they have suffered since taking him but if he keeps that up or anything close, this pick could still pay off.

by jfish26101 on Jul 3, 2007 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well....

I didn't really mean to pick on Bush, he was just a very good and recent example of a team making the signability pick and having it backfire big time. SD passed on the clear #1 talent - Verlander - because of how much he was going to cost. Imaging that SD rotation with Verlander rather than David Wells.

The issue here is that teams that can afford to sign the Rick Porcello's of the world are the ones that are benefiting their farm system the most. BA's recent study of the draft showed that the draftees that commanded the largest contracts had a very high success rate in getting to the majors. The "signability picks" had a very poor rate (despite some rare hits like Billy Butler).

Insert a true slotting system, and you cure this issue. But I don't think the big money teams will want to do that, and the players union for sure won't want to either.

by guru4u on Jul 3, 2007 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Clear #1 talent?

The Padres didn't pass on Verlander, they passed on Stephen Drew and Jered Weaver. There were alot of question marks about Verlander, I think Niemann and Bailey were rated higher then Verlander as well going into the draft.

by TheMike011 on Jul 3, 2007 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They Think They Can Sign Him

This was a fairly deep draft. Lots of talent still on the board. No guarantees they could get equal value in 2008. If they didn't think they were going to sign Porcello, they would have picked someone they could sign.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jul 2, 2007 1:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

he probably signs

tigers realize the kind of talent they have, and like previously mentioned, they KNEW it was going to take a lot, but yeah a slotting system has to be implemented at some point, this is a guy that should be going to kansas city or pittsburgh, the tigers honestly dont need him as much as the bottom teams.

"KaoticKlown" on Elijah Dukes : Finally, MLB has the answer to Shawn Kemp it has been searching for since the mid-90s.

by realityconquest on Jul 2, 2007 2:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Slotting System?

How are you going to enforce a slotting system when HS draftees can opt to go to college? The only way I know of to do that is for these kids to lose their college eligibility if they enter the draft. Only problem with that is what happens if a kid overestimates his pro value? Is it really fair to tell him he's stuck and can't play in college? No one held a gun to these team's heads, the Tigers nor the ones who passed on him. I just don't get why it's so important to protect mulltbillionaire owners from themselves.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jul 2, 2007 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why is baseball

the only sport where you can hire an agent, get drafted, then still be considered an "amateur" per the NCAA rules? That part seems very, very confusing to me.

by guru4u on Jul 2, 2007 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Semantics...

Not agents, but advisors. You can be drafted in the NBA and return to college as well.

by cooper7d7 on Jul 2, 2007 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No you can't

You can enter the draft and then take yourself out by the NBA imposed deadline, which I think is a week or so before the draft. But if you stay in the draft, your college eligibility is done whether you get drafted or not. Unless of course your Randolph Morris and you can find some crazy loop hole to go back to college after you didn't get drafted.

by joerote on Jul 2, 2007 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Both wrong?

I misread 12.2.4.2 of the NCAA bylaws

http://www.ncaa.org/library/membership/division_i_manual/2006-07/2006-07_d1_manual.pdf

You do not lose eligibility if you are not drafted.

I was also confusing this with an NABC proposal to allow high schoolers entering the draft to be eligible even if they played professional for 1 year. As the NBA has essentially banned HS'ers from the draft, this is no longer an issue.

by cooper7d7 on Jul 2, 2007 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not true

Once you're drafted, you're done. The NBA has a deadline of when you can pull your name out of draft consideration (which I think is somewhere around 2 weeks before the actual draft date). If you don't pull out by then, your college career is over. The NBA draft is only 2 rounds though, and I cannot remember if there is a bit of a loophole whereby if a player is not drafted at all, he can go back to school if he did not hire an agent. But I do know that if you're drafted, you lose your amateur status.

Maybe it is a bit semantics. Does a Porcello actually sign with Boras to be his client? Is Boras officially considered "hired"? If he's just an advisor and Porcello is not technically his client yet, then the rules are closer than I thought.

by guru4u on Jul 2, 2007 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you were the Tigers....

and you are truly thinking in some budgetary concerns...

I would think you pay him and take it out of next year's (or the following years') draft/international signing money. Heck, if they pick later in the 1st round again next year they could take some "signability" pick and save 2-400 K.

If you get a chance at a a unique talent (especially that late in the draft) I think you pay him.

"Strikeouts are good...groundballs are better. Home runs are okay...but walks SUCK!" Mike Caldwell

by Torncuff on Jul 2, 2007 9:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs