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

hey

it is very pointless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+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

Is it just me, or

is that signature really perverted?

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

That just made it worse. Lol.

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

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

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

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

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