you do go the moderation route. If you go the all-tools approach, you may end up having a sick team, but it’ll take longer to produce and a lot of guys you’ll have counted on will bust out. If you do all-skills, then your team will be more average but it will take a shorter time to rebuild, and most guys will pan out.

that’s it.

For example, if you’re a big market team, chances are you’ll always be able to plug up holes on the ML team through FA and trades. You’d probably also have a substantial budget for scouting internationally as well.

Given all of that, if I’m a big market team, I’m going to be willing to take more risks, whether they be signability, injury questions, or someone who is very raw.

The simple reasoning is that with more resources, you could “cover” up your mistakes, and hedge your bets.

On the flip side, if you’re a smaller revenue team, you probably have an international budget but know that you most likely aren’t going to get top flight guys.

You might also abide to slotting a little more often than the large market teams as well.

In the first few rounds, I would look at the BPA on the board regardless of position or needs, and regardless of budget.

As I got deeper into the draft, I would first look at college/JUCO guys before looking at HS pitchers. Its not that I’d completely ignore HS pitchers deep into the draft, but I would lean towards the college guys.

It wouldn’t matter to me in regards to hitters though.

I would definitely try to mix it up between high/low ceilings, and high/low floors as well.

And really do it well. If you look at certain teams that have continued to draft well, they have a specific strategy and stick to it, year-in and year-out. The Braves scout locally extensively and scout the JCs probably more than anyone else and they’ve had tremendous success. Same with the Dodgers who look for athletic, high-school two-way players (i.e. Loney, J. McDonald, E. Martin) and have done very well, especially at choosing which route to take. Dodgers also have done very well finding catcher-conversion prospects (Martin, C. Santana, May to some extent)

The Kansas City Royals spent $11.1 million on the draft last year, more than any other team in baseball history. I see no reason why a major league franchise can’t dedicate itself to maxing out its investment in the draft every year, not when the expenditure is so low in comparison to the moneys required to field a big league team. I think the first dollar a team allocates should be to their draft/amateur bonus budget and only after that coffer is filled do you worry about spending on the big league club.

As for whom to actually draft, that depends a lot on the draft class in question and the organization’s needs. Hopefully your needs lines up with the strengths of the draft class but if they don’t it makes no sense to pass up superior talent to take a guy at a position of need, especially in the early rounds. Ideally, with my 1st round pick I’d go after a player (probably college trained) who could be expected to move through the minors quickly. I’m willing to sacrifice a little bit of upside in exchange for greater dependability but I wouldn’t be adverse to drafting a high school guy if I thought his upside was head and shoulders above the rest of the draft class.

I prefer college trained catchers over high schoolers, but other than that I’ve got no bias towards college or high school bats. I’d always keep my eye out for 3B or SS prospects with the glove to stay at their respective position. When in doubt draft the best pitcher on the board. Cheap, young pitching is coin of the realm and can be used to acquire other pieces later. Taking college trained arms in the middle rounds looks like a good way to find big league bullpen arms. I like guys who can throw strikes with average stuff over power arms who couldn’t hit water if they fell out of a boat. I really like power arms who can throw strikes! I don’t mind having to iron out pitching mechanics but if the guy needs a total rebuild let him do it elsewhere. Unless, of course, we can sign him for slot money in the 35th round.

Raw power potential/athleticism in a hitter means nothing if he’s got zero clue of the strike zone. Show me a guy with a good eye first and then we’ll look at the rest of the package. In fact, show me a guy with 20/10 vision and we can go from there. I love athleticism and speed and will go over-slot to sign a tool shed if he’s got some baseball skills to go with it.

a large scouting a amateur bonus budget I would go after High ceiling college pitchers like a Matt Garza in the draft and Polished bats with good makeup preferably guys that have shown improvement every year. And I would use the international market to find high ceiling toolsy bats there.

I think that if you are the Yankees or a big market team that you should take as many high risk/high reward guys as possible. These organizations aren’t looking for average major league players on their rosters - they are looking for stars at every position. Is a guy like Casey Kotchman all that valuable for the Yankees? I think not.

The smaller teams should, IMO, do the opposite. It is important to limit the misses because the money spent on amateurs is so much smaller - that they must get consistent returns. If this is done, I think it is possible to produce a team that is competitive most of the time. If they are disciplined with their spending, they should be in the position where when that one magical year happens - they can make some moves and put a championship contender out there.

All that said, it is important to pay for the top talent whenever it is there - regardless of the size of the team’s budget. In other words, I don’t think it’s fair to put guys like David Price or Joe Mauer in either of the high risk/high reward or low-ceiling more polished category. These guys have high reward and below average risk - and I think you always pay to get these guys in the organization.

I think the key is to be able to adjust depending on the myriad factors that affect a draft. If you lean toward prep player/tools you need to be ready to go the college/skills route when a draft class dictates it.

Personally I would begin with a philosophy of rating the Top 15 picks in the first round based on talent alone. I wouldn’t worry about any other factor (bonus demands, college vs. prep, etc.). All things being equal I would take the guy closer to the big leagues, but that’s hardly different from any scouting director out there. I’m not sure if this makes sense, but the further the talent drops the more I would rely on those secondary factors to make decisions.

Beyond the Top 15 (and again, with strong draft classes you might adjust upward to the Top 20, with the reverse being true for weak draft classes) I would start with a slight emphasis on college pitchers, corner OF , 1B and C, in that order. I would lean toward prep players up the middle - SS, 2B, CF, C - again in that order. I would still go with BPA at each pick, but I would determine positional rankings using that value scale.

From there I would adjust based on who is available when I pick. I would not skimp on scouting either way.

I think a balance is key that way you aren’t stuck with guys who never recognized a curve ball or 4th outfielders and 5th SPs.

However, I would never want to get into position where you feel like you HAVE to take one type of player or the other….I wouldnt want my scouting director to say “well we really like this high schooler, but we already took 4 this draft”

PS. for you guys you have to write 5 paragraphs for your approach - if it is that difficult for you to put into words, it aint a good approach, especially since teams have a minute to pick sometimes.

I would just draft tools, tools tools. While my system would have a very large percentage of busts, if Only a small percentage realize their potential I would have a few star level players on my team.

I also think that the market size and ability to fill holes via free agency would influence me a bit here.

Internationally:
Sign only 1-2 international free agents per year, and only the very best player in that 16-17 year-old class. Internationally is not a place where I’d want to diversify my risk, but I wouldn’t want to use a bunch of 40-man roster slots on these guys when they’re 21-year-old and fringy in five years. I love what the A’s did with Inoa this year. Huge concentrated investment, unquestionably the best player available, and it doesn’t create an eventual roster squeeze, the way it would to sign 5 less-talented guys for $1M each.

Domestic:
Never, ever worry about position in the first few rounds or whether player B is “blocked” by player A at the big league level. Take a great player and the rest will sort itself out later. If your team has a great trade piece and and a league-minimum replacement waiting in the wings, it’s a good problem to have. If instead you draft a shitty 2b in the hopes that he’ll eventually replace your shitty incumbent 2b, all you have is two shitty 2b…and a hole that still needs to be adequately filled via FA.

I also agree with others who have noted that wealthier teams can afford to take greater risks. Look at the Yankees at the end of the first round with Brackman(sp?) and Cole. I’m not knocking those picks, I think they are very justifiable picks for the Yankees. Middling talent wouldn’t crack their pitching staff, anyway. The worst 5% of pitchers in MLB don’t ever pitch in Boston or NY - they pitch in the NL.

Last thought: I think that some times prioritize having a “winning minor-league culture” more than others. Not sure how important that one is. If you draft “tools” guys exclusively, and fail to sign a bunch of people, you’ll have more holes and weaknesses at various positions in your farm system, which will yield worst W-L records for the farm teams. Losing is less fun than winning, which might have some impact on your prospects. The flip side is the A’s, who haven’t produced enough high-end talent internally, but have great minor league teams.

My top picks are always going to be the guys who I am pretty sure are going to make it. I’m not drafting pitchers with obvious injury questions (terrible/not easily fixed mechanics or a bad history). I’m not taking raw toolsy guys in the first round. I’d lean towards college players early, though that’s not a strict rule.

Where I experiment and reach and take chances is with over-slot guys in later rounds. Here I might end up wasting some money, but I won’t ever be “wasting the pick” because not nearly as many late-round players make it, so if the toolsy guys flame out, that’s fine.

You take the best overall HS hitter with your first pick. Then you go for a bunch of pitchers and some college hitters. In the end, you go about 27-28 pitchers, and 22-23 position guys.

You take some chances here and there, but you get sure pick guys early. Then rounds 6, 7, or 8, you take one of those HS kids that’s $1Million or nothing! I’m going to Vanderbilt!

(esposito last year)

In the first 5 rounds I would go with BPA. Obviously those players are scouted more than the late rounders, therefore making it easier to figure out who the BPA is.

After that I’d take mostly high school guys with tools at a 3-1 ratio over college guys with skill.

I think that a high schooler with great tools can be taught to play and use his tools. I dont think I would draft a HS kid with skill and little tools. HSers arent nearly developed and stats are skewed imo. A college guy with tools but not much skill likely wont improve imo because if he hasnt showed it by now than he wont. College is equivalent to A+ ball I think. If a 21 or 22 year old was struggling in A ball would you expect him to turn into a star? No. Now a college guy with skill is still very useful. Not everyone has 30 HR power, or a 95MPH fastball. Some players (Andy Sonnanstine) barely hit 90, but have amazing pitching intelligence. They, imo, are more likely to succeed than the tools guys.

1. Spend two or three years drafting high schoolers and teenage international prospects
2. Spend the next three years focusing on college guys
3. Debut the 1980 Edmonton Oilers

the player with the highest ceiling available