Porcello's ST debut

It pisses me off

that the Tigers can keep ignoring slot rules w/o being punished in some fashion.

What is the point of having them if there is always one team that is willing to flout them and pay the premium?

by redwolf75 on Mar 2, 2008 2:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

hey

it is very pointless

by playingwithfire on Mar 2, 2008 4:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You want to punish the player cause teams are afraid to pick him? Doesnt make much sense to me. I believe he had the 4th highest bonus and to me that seems about right, considering he was the best H.S. arm and one of if not the top H.S. player in the draft.

Anyways the Rays, Orioles, Royals, Cubs, & Yanks all went a fair amount over slot value. With the Orioles paying the most over the recommended slot value by almost 4 million.

by hybrid on Mar 2, 2008 4:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't hate the playa, playa! Playa hate the game!

It should only last a few more years. It's obviously a huge flaw in the system and teams like the Mariners (who Selig has in his back pocket) are going to realize that giving up their high picks isn't helping the system and they're only hurting themselves. The juggernauts of now will continue to be the juggernauts of the future with the way things are working now. The system only works if every team participates, and if every team isn't participating, then it's Selig's job to make a new system that does work.

But really, who can blame the Tigers and Yankees? You have the money and the player is there for the picking, so you pick him. End of story. Your responsibility is to do what's best for your team, and Buddy's responsibility is to do what's best for baseball. You leave him to do his job, and he leaves you to do yours, albeit in a hissy fit. If he's not doing his job right, that's not your problem.

by elrey34 on Mar 2, 2008 5:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If

If the Tigers were to be punished for violating slot, wouldn't that raise the prospect of collusion?

by sharksrog on Mar 2, 2008 5:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not fair

I don't know what team you are a fan but if he wasn't choosen by the Tigers, he will have being choosen by the Yankees or Red Sox and they will have pay overslot anyway, so it wasn't Detroit's fault. They just didn't let that big opportunity go away like other cheap teams.

by LCT on Mar 2, 2008 7:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Passed Twice

I am a fan of the Giants, who twice passed on Rick Porcello. The Giants had one of if not the best drafts last June, but if they had ponied up the money to draft and sign Porcello, I don't think anyone would be questioning whether their draft (six of the top 51 overall picks) was best.

Can you imagine team already had Matt Cain as a potential ace drafting Tim Lincecum and Porcello in back-to-back seasons?

By the way, I voted for 2010 as Rick's major-league debut year, so I don't think I'm being unrealistic about him (unless I'm being too negative, since I'm above the mean in this pole with my 2010 prediction). But once I saw Rick's motion, I felt I was seeing potential greatness.

I realize TINSTAAPP, but give me Tim Lincecum and Rick Porcello and I'll take my chances.

by sharksrog on Mar 2, 2008 4:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2008

He has a big league deal and is on the 40 man roster. He will be up this year if only to visit. I expect he will get a short relief outing or a double header start in September. I don't expect him to come up and be a regular, but he will be traveling with the team in September.

by NMUWildcat027 on Mar 2, 2008 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

Actually, you're smarter than I. Unless Rick's arm is tired out, it makes almost perfect sense for him to get to pitch in the majors in September, since he's already on the 40-man.

by sharksrog on Mar 2, 2008 4:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You guys clearly misunderstand me.

I never said Porcello should be punished, so I don't know where that's coming from. I just thought this was a good thread to mention the fact.

And I guess my complaint is more a knock against MLB's slot rules in general versus the tigers themselves. Like I said, what is the point of having them if they aren't enforced, no punishment is in order for flouting them, and there is a team always there that goes overslot.

"They just didn't let that big opportunity go away like other cheap teams."

Many of the others teams weren't cheap, they were ACTUALLY trying to follow slot rules. Which brings up my point again.

by redwolf75 on Mar 2, 2008 12:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

They aren't rules

They are slot "recommendations". Now, the commish's office would like nothing more than to make them rules, but that isn't the case. So the only way MLB can punish a team is by, say, not awarding them an all-star game.

by drwmsu1 on Mar 2, 2008 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Slot rules violate the free market

A player like Porcello is a special player with gobs of talent. Because he's so good, he's worth a set amount of money as determined by open bidding for his services. In the case of the MLB, the team drafts him and negotiates to find his worth. That value must be between what the team can afford and what the player wants.

What MLB slot rules do that sucks so much is that it says how much a team can pay for a given player. It changes one entire side of the equation. It sounds fair in principle (keeping those winning big market teams away from premium draft talent and giving small ones a chance), but it isnt. Take a team like Seattle, which greatly outperformed its Pythagorean this year. They're picking 20th next year. How exactly do they get new talent under the slot recommendations? Their only option to get premium talent at that stage is to go over slot. And the slot recommendations aren't going to help a team like the Marlins. If they follow the slot recommendations, then they may be forced to pass on premium talent.

The only way to force these recommendations would be to change both sides of the equation, so that the players would be forced to accept a certain sized bonus (like setting a 5 million dollar cap). Controlling the slots on only one end is a bad idea though.

by demondeaconbaseball on Mar 2, 2008 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

When you stop and think about it

When you stop and think about it, the teams with less money to spend are the ones who should MOST take a gamble on drafting a Rick Porcello. Those teams can't afford to pay $25 million a year to Johan Santana and certainly not $18 million a season to a good-not-great pitcher such as Barry Zito (8 runs in 2/3 inning yesterday).

Yes, it took $7 or $8 million to sign Rick. But it gives the Tigers control over Rick for as long as nine seasons. If he washes out, they have lost $8 million, not $126 million. If he pans out, they have a guy pitching for them for six years for a fraction of the $118 million the Giants are paying Zito over the next half dozen seasons.

And when Porcello approaches free agency, the team can then start the low-price cycle all over again by trading him for several good, young prospects.

But then, aren't baseball execs overall far more unlikely to take risks than execs in other sports?

Why be proactive when one can be reactive? :)

by sharksrog on Mar 2, 2008 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But....

the reason they don't is because they can't overcome a loss, even one as small as that. There a ton of problems with MLB's financial situation but the Pirates can't (well aren't going to at least) drop 8-10 mill on a draft pick when their payroll is 30-40 mill. He isn't a sure thing and if you can't afford throwing 10 mill away, you would rather sign a guy with less of a ceiling but as much of a chance of reaching his ceiling for a 6th of the cost.

Assuming every ball club can spend money if they want to doesn't help. I'm not saying that is what you are doing but that is generally what happens when this conversations take place. Even if that was the case, it doesn't matter because it isn't realistic.

If you have less money, you have to be more cautious with it. Dropping 9 mill on a HS pitcher isn't the safest bet no matter how much of a sure thing he is.

by jfish26101 on Mar 3, 2008 6:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not Necessarily

Having less money might be reason to take MORE risks than other teams. If you take the same risks they do, their added money will almost always allow them to beat you. But if you take big risks, you increase the chances that you will get great results -- or that you will receive horrendous returns instead.

But why shoot for mediocrity? The fans aren't likely to be happy with mediocrity. The players aren't likely to be happy with mediocrity. And you as GM may not be very happy with mediocrity.

Are you trying to win -- or merely to avoid losing?

by sharksrog on Mar 4, 2008 4:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If you have 10 dollars to spend...

do you place a bet on something likely to net you 12 dollars or something with a 25% shot to triple your money? If you fail to triple your money, you have nothing left. If you get your 10 back plus profit, then next time you can take slightly more risk. If you have 75 dollars and make 5-6 of the bets where you potentially net 3 times what you bet, you probably will come out on top.

Saying you should go for broke if you have 1/5 what others have to spend is wreckleass because you aren't going to win anyhow and shouldn't. The league is stacked against them so they have to play for what they can win and hope over time they improve their situation. Saying go big or go home is the American way and more often than not, you go home because you fail. The Pirates could double their payroll and draft budget for 4-5 years and still not improve that team enough to compete. What then? Sell? Real smart business move. I think it's amazing the majority of fans see no problem with a team having huge losses to try and put a winner on the field in sports.

by jfish26101 on Mar 4, 2008 8:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah! The Business Side :)

You bring up a good point here, J. Unfortunately baseball isn't only about winning -- it's also about business, making profits and limiting losses.

And for an owner, it is also about risk tolerance.

Franchise values have exploded over the past 20 years, as attendance has increased and particularly as media revenues have grown. If one buys a franchise, is his primary goal:

. To win?

. To build franchise value?

. To make a yearly profit?

Those objectives aren't mutually exclusive, but each does likely necessitate a slightly different direction when it is chosen.

My comment was made with the idea of building what we consider a winner -- which usually means winning the World Series, since every other team either plays a meaningless last game or loses it.

I think franchises err in going the traditional way and by trying not to rock the boat. If you're a Boston or a New York, you may be able to spend your way into contention. But if you're a Pittsburgh or now even a San Francisco, you need to be a lot better than the other GM's with whom you compete in order to have a decent chance of winning it all (and a lot of luck helps, too!).

If I have twice as much money to spend as you do, you have to work a lot smarter than I and/or have a lot of luck to beat me. What I am suggesting is that rather than settle for the very low odds of winning in even a competitive fashion, teams with little to spend might consider taking bigger risks.

If the risk fails -- well, they weren't likely to be very good anyway. But if it succeeds? Then a small market team (or a team down on its "luck" such as the Giants) might surprise the world.

Incidentally, in such a case, yearly losses can well turn into profits -- and franchise values can quickly escalate.

As a fan, I want my team to work smarter than the others -- and be willing to take calculated risks.

As a Giants fan, I suggested about nine months ago that the team should look at trading every one of its players (probably with the exception of Barry Bonds, whose trade while he was chasing the all-time home run record wouldn't have seemed fair to the fans)for prospects who might help them when they hopefully become a good team again somewhere around 2012.

Small market teams usually can't afford to acquire stars (who win championships) through free agency. Rather, they need to develop them internally.

With that in mind, I would have been DELIGHTED if the Giants had taken that risk on Rick Porcello, who I believe has a fine chance -- despite TINSTAAPP -- to become one of the top pitchers in baseball.

A rotation that had Tim Lincecum, Porcello and Matt Cain approaching their respective ceilings would be the envy of baseball. Personally I would have taken a shot at it. And I would have done it with the money I would have saved by not acquiring players such as Dave Roberts.

Generally speaking (certainly not always), when I have liked a deal or signing the Giants have made, it has worked out well. But when I haven't liked the deal, it seldom has turned out well.

Now I'm just a fan, albeit one who has been around a long time. If I can make the right judgement on a deal made by the Giants more often than not, why in the world can't the Giants themselves do better? And I'm far from the only one who seems to have better judgement than the Giants themselves.

DrBGiantsFan posts here often. He knows his stuff and is another example of a guy who is right more than one would think a layman would be. Over at MccoveyChronicles.com, there are others, as well.

Now I truly like the Giants' 2007 draft. But if they had risked some money by including Porcello and outfielder Kyle Russell, I would have REALLY liked it. And while one could make an argument that the Giants had the best draft of any team in 2007 (with six of the top 51 overall picks), if they had indeed taken Porcello and Russell (both of whom were available to them, with Porcello being available on their first or second picks and Russell being available even on their sixth), I think most would agree that the Giants had the best draft (based on our knowledge at draft time) of any team in baseball.

Instead, the Giants are now quite a way below their salary budget for 2008 -- and WAY below their win budget. :)

Baseball is the slowest of the major sports to change. The other sports are much quicker to adopt new ideas. Some teams have indeed adopted the new ideas available to baseball. And many of those teams have made more out of their budgets than more reactive teams.

I would like to see the Giants change from being reactive to being proactive. I believe they did make significant changes in that direction beginning with their June, 2006 selection of Tim Lincecum with the 10th overall draft choice.

As a Giants fan, I'm looking forward to the upcoming decade. But at the major league level with the exception of a very few developing youngsters, this present decade is over for them.

The Giants' action this year won't be in San Francisco, but in their various Class A affiliates. The Giants' future will be affected as much by what happens in San Jose as in San Francisco.

by sharksrog on Mar 4, 2008 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You have that luxury as a fan though.

To sit back and say well if you failed by taking risks on guys like Porcello, you weren't going to succeed anyway. Is that really a way to run a business? I understand what you are saying but fans need to keep in mind this is their job. This is their business and in business, you make money. Maybe not always but that is the goal. A team like the Pirates might not be able to stay afloat taking risks like you are suggesting and if they fail certainly wont be able to keep the team. A GM of the Pirates can't have the mentality that we are going to take risks and if it doesn't work, well the owner just has to sell. Not only can he not do that, the owner wont let it get that far.

I have a ton of faith in Porcello from what I've read/heard but I have no problems with the Pirates passing on him if they didn't feel it was the best choice (all things considered) for the franchise. Fans, outsiders...even the baseball side of a franchise like scouts have the luxury of saying "take the best player available" but that just isn't always the best option for a franchise. Fans will probably never accept that but it's the truth. If the owners are going to run a team that way, they might as well sell now (which of course would make the fans happy if they got an owner that would spend). Things like "take the BPA" are pretty short sighted even if you are trying to look long term because if you are the Pirates and a HS pitcher with a 9 mill price tag has a has 25% chance at reaching his ceiling and performing in the majors, that means you might have a 75% chance of having to sell in a few years making decisions like that.

I do appreciate the discussion though. It certainly is an interesting subject. This is partly why I wish MLB could get slot money for draft picks. Hypothetically, if the rest of the MLBPA stayed the same, a player like Porcello would be getting millions by the time he was 26-27. Most HS kids and even players fresh out of HS don't know what to do with that kind of money anyhow. It's less risk for the teams. The small market teams could truly afford to handle their draft like you are suggesting. The only real down fall is it isn't an open market and of course somewhat unconstitutional. :D

by jfish26101 on Mar 4, 2008 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

grr

That was reckless...really wish you could edit some times.

by jfish26101 on Mar 4, 2008 8:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Something that I never have understood

Is how baseball's anti-trust exemption actually works. I hear it get thrown into different arguments, but the league is basically the same as lets say the NBA. The NBA is able to dictate, in cooperation with the NCAA, who is draft eligible. The NBA has a rigid slot system, a soft cap, and a soft cap on contracts. The NFL is able to say who is eligible to play in their league and that's that. Why can't baseball have a slot system if its voted upon by the owners? And how does anti-trust laws prevent that?

I am just now reaching the age of Dusty Baker prospectdum. maybe i should give Krivsky a call

by Terry Ryan Jr on Mar 2, 2008 2:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Players Union

MLBPA is the strongest--by far--of the player unions. The union would have to agree to a slot system, and they won't. Collective Bargaining is a hell of a thing.

by drwmsu1 on Mar 2, 2008 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Draft a non union issue...

My question is how can the draft be a MLBPA issue if nobody involved are technically MLBPA mambers?

I understand how the MLBPA can have a hand in structure involving type A and B free agents, but not entirely sure how MLBPA can affect slotting with non union players?

Just a thought.....

Batting practice tomorrow you be there....I have Pop, everyday

by laxtonto on Mar 2, 2008 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bargaining

The draft is an MLBPA issue because they have won that right through negotiations. As I said, their union is incredibly strong. So for them to give up their say in the draft (and accept something like the NBA's draft/slotting system), the owners would have to give the union a concession somewhere else. Since the draft is comparitively inexpensive for the owners, they have no real reason to want to fight for more say in the draft, especially since it would cost them somewhere else.
As I said before, collective bargaining is a hell of a thing.

by drwmsu1 on Mar 3, 2008 6:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One of my pet peeves is when bottom half

teams like KC, Orioles, TB, Pirates will waste millions of dollars signing lower tier FAs and won't invest in the draft.

KC paid more to Reggie Sanders and Scott Elarton last year than they spent on their entire draft budget. Yet, they pass over guys who want an extra $100-200K. Or won't invest in the DR or international scouting.

Ask the Orioles in a year or two when Matt Wieters is an AS catcher if they regret spending the extra money. Wonder if the Pirates miss BJ Upton?

by daveyork on Mar 2, 2008 3:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1

You're better off gambling on a Porcello then signing a Silva.

by demondeaconbaseball on Mar 2, 2008 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Is it just me, or

is that signature really perverted?

by redwolf75 on Mar 2, 2008 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That just made it worse. Lol.

by redwolf75 on Mar 3, 2008 1:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Up so soon?

Why are people voting for him to be in the majors so soon? Some are voting for him being in the majors this year? I don't think there is any way in Hell the Tigers bring up a 19 year old kid, fresh out of high school to the majors this year. None. The last 19 year old to pitch in the majors was Felix, but he had also spent a few years in the minors. Before that it was Doc Gooden I believe. I would bet the farm against Porcello seeing any time for the Tigers this year.

And, I really doubt he does next season either. If you ask me, he spends this season in Low-A and maybe High-A. He pitches about 100 innings at most (maybe 110), and if he gets that high I bet he gets shut down before the end of the season. The next season he starts again in High-A or Double A, maybe makes it all the way to AAA for a couple late season starts. Pitches about 130-140 innings and can finish the season.

Then in 2010 he probably starts in AA, maybe AAA. Depends on where he starts I think he gets a September cup of coffee plus maybe some double header work for the Tigers during the season. He'll be 21 during the season, and will probably get about 150-170 innings in total. Letting Porcello see one inning of work before 2010 would be a mistake for the Tigers, and I am quite sure they know that. You don't push high school pitchers. It's irresponsible.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Mar 2, 2008 3:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

You make a good argument

You make a good argument here, Boxkutter, as is usually the case. But I wouldn't think it would be a bad idea to call Rick up this September, let him learn from the major-league atmosphere and even throw an inning or two.

by sharksrog on Mar 2, 2008 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

If he is as good as everyone makes him out to be, I don't think it's at all out of the question that he could get a Sept. call up in 2009. This year, yeah to soon IMO, but you always have to expect some people to vote on the least likely option.

Anyways, it's very reasonable to me that they would let him pitch in relief just to give him a taste of the big leagues. Also if he stays healthy I see him more in the 120IP range as guys like Kershaw/Galllardo have done in the recent past.

by hybrid on Mar 2, 2008 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Clayton Kershaw

Clayton Kershaw. Not THERE'S another prospect I really like. Unfortunately as a Giants fan, I see Clayton playing for precisely the wrong team.

But I have to say that I am quite impressed with the guy.

I'm thinking right now the top guys from the 2006 draft would be Evan Longoria (gotta love his "sister" :), Kershaw and Tim Lincecum. Any others that I have missed?

by sharksrog on Mar 2, 2008 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs