Not sure what to make of this

by joltinjoe on Dec 2, 2008 5:38 PM EST Comment 9 comments

So I was reading an article by Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports and came across this.

OK, so Arizona doesn’t want to get stuck with Adam Dunn next season at the $15 million or so he’d get through arbitration. Fine. It’s a short-sighted maneuver not to offer arbitration – he’s bound to get a multi-year deal somewhere – but with the Diamondbacks offering arbitration to Orlando Hudson, Juan Cruz and Brandon Lyon, one scouting director wondered whether it was to avoid a glut of draft choices and the signing bonuses that accompany them.

While two sources dismissed the idea, one pointed out that with Dunn, Hudson and Cruz all Type A players likely to sign elsewhere, it would have left the Diamondbacks with seven high picks, including their own first-rounder, and eight if Lyon doesn’t accept arbitration. According to Baseball America, Arizona spent only $4.49 million on its draft choices last season, the seventh-lowest number in the game.

Still, the specter of high draft picks, which most teams consider extremely valuable, did not scare off the Brewers or Dodgers. Each is in position to have six top picks if they cannot re-sign their eligible free agents, all of whom are unlikely to accept arbitration.

It seems odd that a team wouldn't want a bunch of high draft picks, since young players that suceed are much more cost efficient than veterans. Granted, many high draft picks end up busts, but I'd think the risk/reward ratio would end up favoring the team. Maybe the D-Backs have some financial limitations that are forcing their hand on this, but it seems awfully short sighted to me, especially with the current state of their minors.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-arbitrationroundup120208&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

0 recs | Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

If that's their reason for not offering, they are imbeciles

which wouldn’t really surprise me. No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of baseball executives.

At the very least, having high picks means you can draft guys you think will sign for below slot and make sure you get them, or use the picks to “hate-draft” guys you think want above-slot bonuses so that the Red Sox won’t get them.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 2, 2008 5:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

haha

i wonder if “hate drafting” really does exist

by blalock84 on Dec 2, 2008 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If it doesn't, it ought to

It makes a ton of sense, particularly when you get past about the 10th round where the only prospects still worth a damn are guys holding out for big bonuses.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 2, 2008 6:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you wouldn't feel

the least bit unethical drafting a guy knowing you do not intend to even think of making him an offer close to what he would like knowing that there are other teams out there who would, and your pick would deny him a chance to play pro ball?

by nms on Dec 2, 2008 7:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's good buisness

Ethically, these guys can sign for slot (and in that case you probably wouldn’t turn them down), or go back into the draft. At worst, you just prevented the rich from getting richer.

by demondeaconsbaseball on Dec 2, 2008 9:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not even remotely

The draft is a game. I play games to win, personally.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with the people who invented the draft process. If I was king of baseball, I’d decree that the draft go to a fixed bonus system (and that the bonuses be raised to at least double what they are now). But as long as the rules are what they are, I’m playing to exploit them to the fullest extent possible.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 3, 2008 3:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt the draft is the issue

I would have an easier time believing that they think there’s a realistic chance they get stuck with Dunn for 15 million than believing they see risk in having extra draft picks.

There’s literally no risk from a blowing the draft budget perspective since they’re not required to sign all the players they draft. and the only risk of having extra picks and not signing them is perhaps the onslaught of hatemail they’d receive from readers of minor league blogs, and that hardly seems as if it would factor into their decision making

by sublime8414 on Dec 2, 2008 6:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1

My thought was that the Diamondbacks perceived that Dunn would run the risk of not getting a long-term deal that would warrant him turning down what basically amounts to him getting a guaranteed $15 mil next year. With a team being forced to give up a draft choice in the process as well, Arizona thought the risk was too high of Dunn accepting arbitration, leaving them with no room to fill out the rest of their roster. I would say it is far more likely that they didn’t want to be locked into paying $15 mil on Dunn than that they didn’t want to pay a draft pick $1-$2 mil.

With Dunn not costing a draft pick, it is entirely likely that he’ll get a deal that would generally make the Dbacks look silly for not offering him arbitration. It’s all a risk assessment.

by ajake57 on Dec 2, 2008 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Delgado

That’s close to what happened with the Jays with Carlos Delgado. Personally I think it was a mistake then, as I do now. If he accepts the Arby, just trade him and his one year deal for a B+ prospect and don’t each much of the salary.

Rios is the next Juan Gonzales, thats right, I said it.

by KaoticKlown on Dec 3, 2008 6:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs