Too cheap to tango?
Here's what baseball prospectus says about the Giants' 2008 draft. You need to be a member to see all of it. I hope this doesn't alert the fair-use police.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7823
A Giant Mess?
San Francisco's draft received nearly universal praise in June, but their top four picks remain unsigned, and there is little positive to report on where the negotiations are concerned. Catcher Buster Posey, the fifth overall pick and recent Golden Spikes award winner, has had few discussions with the Giants, and there's no reason to believe that he's backed off from pre-draft talk that had him looking for a big-league deal worth over $10 million. The problems don't end there. Supplemental first-round pick Conor Gillaspie slipped a bit in the draft when he told teams how much money he'd need, which one team categorized as "delusional." In addition, third-round pick Roger Kieschnick and fourth-rounder Brandon Crawford remain well apart from the team in negotiations.
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
0 recs |
46 comments
Comments
Come out of the blogosphere with your hands up!
Fred Lewis can stand under my umbrella.
by S.F. Giangst on Jul 20, 2008 7:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
not sure
what you mean by ‘too cheap to Tango’- at these prices we’re definately in a ballroom with a full orchestra and a Vienna Waltz. Pendantics aside, I share your concerns and pretty much voiced the same concerns to both Andy B and Chris H three weeks ago; both assured me that negotiations remain well in hand, but it is hard for me to not start feeling slightly anxious. For me the canary in a coal mine isn’t even the top 4, it was the creative picks like Jarvis and Perez, guys with no leverage but still unsigned. On the other hand, BP has a tendency to cry wolf and has even less access and insight into the Giants’ operations than even the blogosphere does. My gut feel at this juncture? Posey is sure to be signed, the Giants knew what they were getting into there and it’s more likely a timing issue- the team isn’t going to ink a deal this far over slot until the last minute. Kieshnick and Crawford will probably both return to school and try to improve thier positions. If the Giants offer them supp money they may have a harder choice. Gillespe is a bit more of a wild card. The boy has a very high opinion of himself and his rep is taking as a starting point where he ‘should have ’ been drafted rather than where he fell to- and they have a pretty grand idea of where he should hav been drafted. He could probably help himself a bit by going back to school, but really, by how much? The Giants certainly have put together a big enough pot of cash to sign them all, but what if Gillespie is demanding top 10 pick money- isn’t that a bit much for the second coming of Billy Mueller?
by ProspectHound of the Baskervilles on Jul 20, 2008 8:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Market
I believe the market for players is changing—or returning to where it once was.
Prior to free agency, a team had to build itself from the bottom up. The players it signed - or beginning in the 50’s, drafted - provided it both with a roster and with players to trade to fill holes.
With free agency came the ability to build a team through expensive free agent signings at the big league level. Even if a team couldn’t afford to spend the big, big bucks, it provided a chance to put a finishing touch or two on the roster to add depth.
Free agency became a two-edged sword though. The demise of the Giants began not with the trade of Joe Nathan, but a year earlier when they felt they couldn’t afford to re-sign Jeff Kent, Bill Mueller, Reggie Sanders and Kenny Lofton, and instead traded Russ Ortiz and Livan Hernandez on the cheap (in more ways than one) in order to provide signing money for Edgardo Alfonzo and Ray Durham.
In recent years teams have begun re-signing their top free agents, leading to an extreme sellers’ market there. No single player has taken advantage more than Barry Zito, and few teams have been taken advantage of more than the Giants.
Thus the emphasis has gone back to where it was in the beginning—signing and developing young prospects. The Giants seem to be doing a good job of capitalizing on this new trend, and their poor records in recent years have left them in good draft position to do so.
I suspect they will wind up signing at least three of their top four draft picks, although clearly the possibility of not being able to sign any of them still exists (assuming the Giants aren’t delaying a signing announcement). But the Giants’ signing situation is merely another example of how the dynamic of player acquisition is changing. Teams are beginning to go over “slot” (which seems to me to be collusionary in nature) more and more as they realize the best “free agents” are available in the draft and from foreign countries.
Beginning with their very first pick the Giants realized they were going to have to go WELL over slot to sign their pick. And winning the Silver Spikes Award last week likely didn’t hurt Buster Posey’s bargaining position. Nor did putting on a power surge in college’s post-season.
Teams do have a bit more leverage now in that if they are unable to sign a top draftee (first round and compensatory round?), they receive the same pick in the following year’s draft. But the signing deadline has also been moved up to about 70 days after the draft, about 45 of which are already gone. The pressure is slightly less on the Giants to sign Posey and Conor Gillaspie, even though those two players will likely turn out to be their two best and quickest opportunities to improve from this year’s draft.
Some already have the Giants’ not becoming truly competitive (in a reasonable World Series shot sort of way) until 2012, which is the fifth season counting the one that is now about three-fifths over. Signing neither Posey nor Gillaspie will clearly set that timing back a year, particularly since in catcher and third base, the two play among the weakest positions in the Giants’ minor league system.
Ten million dollards or so (I’m guessing “only” nine million will eventually get the job done.) seems like a lot to pay for an unproven player such as Posey. But quite frankly I would much rather guarantee him $10 million than guarantee $126 million to Barely Zito or even $60 million for “The Gamer,” Aaron Rowand.
The dynamic of talent acquisition is changing. With their already having paid bonuses of over $2 million or so for the first four times ever (Lincecum, Villalona, Bumgarner and Rodriguez), clearly the Giants have changed with the times.
When the Giants drafted Posey and to a lesser extent Gillaspie, they demonstrated they were going to big-money players in the draft, perhaps taking advantage of the money they HAVEN’T been able to spend on free agents in recent years.
Hopefully they will be willing to spend the $15 million or more it will take to wrap up their top four draft choices. With the possible exceptions of Pablo Sandoval and Manny Burriss, the Giants presenty are lacking top prospects at catcher, third base and shortstop, nor do they have a top power threat in the outfield.
If it takes $15 million or more to change those situations, that will actually be quite cheap compared to the $200 million plus they have spent the past two winters in order to solidify only center field with their signings of Zito, Rowand and Dave Roberts.
I liked the Rowand signing at the time, since at the very least it was far less expensive per season than signing either Andruw Jones or Torii Hunter. But how many of us DIDN’T realize the Roberts signing and particularly the Zito signing were likely doomed?
The Giants thought they could replace the RBI bat of Moises Alou with the weak-hitting Roberts? They thought it was wise to give the most money EVER to a pitcher who was obviously declining?
Let’s hope they have learned better ways to spend their money and that at least three of their top four draft choices will be in the fold within the allotted 26 days. The Giants are dumb, but they’re not stupid. Are they?
by sharksrog on Jul 20, 2008 9:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
How would you divvy up the $15M you have budgeted?
Hopefully they will be willing to spend the $15 million or more it will take to wrap up their top four draft choices.
by wilriv21 on Jul 20, 2008 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no idea
I have no idea how much the Giants have budgeted for the draft. But based on the top four players they drafted, it would seem to be a high number.
I’m thinking Posey at about $9-$10 million, maybe Gillaspie at about $2.5 (which would be half a million more than Tim Lincecum received) and the other two guys in the $1.0 to $1.5 million range.
I don’t know enough about them to know if they are worth the money, but I think Posey and Gillaspie would be.
When a team wastes nearly $150 million on Barry Zito and Dave Roberts in one winter, how much sense does it make to be penurious with regard to signing draftees? With regard to penurious, since it doesn’t make sense to be penny-wise and pound-foolish, should penurious actually be spelled with two “n’s?”
Just wondering. Or since a penny is sort of puny and teenie, should it be called a peenie?
Clearly I need a life. :) Then again, IS there life beyond baseball?
by sharksrog on Jul 20, 2008 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Catch-22 in all of this....
Is that the Top 4 players are going to get a good sum of money, but to round out the class there will have to be about a fourth-to-a-third of that paid to players taken in the later rounds who will demand huge contracts well above their slots to sign. Given the team’s position to pay players to build their farm system, i.e. Lincecum, Villalona and now Rodiguez, the front office is most likely going to pay the most money ever in a draft/international signing season.
So it’s not a question of the budget itself, but how bloated the budget will be in the end.
it's always noonan somewhere
by sectionop92 on Jul 20, 2008 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plenty of money
The Giants have plenty of money left over from their inability to sign quality free agents the past two winters. Teams are beginning to learn that the better investments can come from the draft than from today’s sellers’ market free agent crops.
If the Giants can build properly from within, they can actually compete without a high major league payroll, much as the A’s have.
by sharksrog on Jul 20, 2008 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with that, that this team is definitely investing a lot more money and effort into player development. I just think there is a give/take mentality to this franchise, that they’ll always look to add free agents as long as they can add a comparable draft pick in exchange for whomever they sign. This organization hasn’t yet shown it’ll take one foot out of the now to put it with the other foot it has in developing for the future. I doubt this ownership ever becomes the A’s west.
it's always noonan somewhere
by sectionop92 on Jul 20, 2008 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Small quibble
Sharksrog – I’m going to disagree that the Giants downfall started after the 02 season for the reason you stated. I think the post-02 season seriously exacerbated the Giants fall but for different reasons.
Although we didn’t resign Kent, Mueller, Sanders or Lofton it’s not like we didn’t spend money on free agents. I think most of the “fringe” were not terribly excited about the Durham and Alfonzo signings but I think the Giants truly believed they were trying to be competitive. In addition, Kent had worn out his welcome, Sanders and Lofton were spare parts (who weren’t signed by any other teams until spring training had already started) and Mueller had just recently come over in a trade and wasn’t even on the post season roster and was something of a redundancy with the signing of Alfonzo (big mistake).
The post-02 trades weren’t that bad. We sold high on Ortiz and picked up two young pieces including one highly though of prospect. I’ll take that kind of a trade and I would argue the trade was no worse than a push. Livan had also worn out his welcome and wasn’t terribly effective. I think we did just fine in picking up Brower (although I believe we also paid most of his salary that year).
The most glaring post-02 transaction was the signing of Tucker which ended up costing us a 1st round pick when if we would have waited a day we could have held the pick.
I surely hope the Giants are able to sign at least their top 3 picks. I could at least understand if Crawford decided to go back to school. He entered the season as a potential first round pick and seriously underperformed (although I hope we are able to get him signed).
by slcgiant on Jul 20, 2008 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quibble with the quibble? :)
I agree with you that it wasn’t because the Giants didn’t spend money on free agents after the 2002 season that they faltered. It was that they didn’t spend it on the right ones, including not re-signing four of their own free agents who have gone on to help the teams they did sign with.
In the case of Reggie Sanders, the Giants actually paid Reggie to go away when they declined his option and instead paid the buyout. All they had to do was look more carefully at Reggie’s career record to see that like players such as Robb Nen, he was one of those every-other-year players, and in Reggie’s case it was the odd-numbered years. The beauty of signing Reggie for two years was actually the SECOND year, and the Giants paid to get out of it.
I disagree that the Giants traded Russ Ortiz when his value was highest, although I can understand your point. Russ was great in 2003, then faded badly, in great part due to arm troubles. In the sense that it is better to trade a guy too early than too late, I will agree with you. But think if the Giants had been wise enough to extend Russ’s contract and then trade him when his trade value TRULY was highest, after the 2003 season.
As for Hernandez, you are correct that he had been disappointing as a Giant, in part due to high expectations. But for the next three seasons after being traded by the Giants Livan lived up to those expectations and was one of the top 10 starters in the league if not in the game. And the Giants didn’t even save money by trading him.
They paid all of Livan’s 2003 salary above the minimum in order to avoid having Livan’s 2004 option year kick in. A general manager with vision would have realized that if Livan didn’t pitch well in 2003, it would have been easy to limit his innings to avoid the option’s kicking in, if not outright trading him at the deadline when they might have been able to get more than just JIM BROWER for him. And if he did pitch well in 2003, they would have LOVED to pick up his option, if only to trade him for what would have turned out to be a bounty after he had a fabulous 2003 season.
Brandon Crawford apparently grew up a Giants fan. If he truly has confidence in himself, he should stretch the Giants out as far as he can by August 15th—and then sign with his favorite team and make himself such a good player that any money he leaves on the table now will pale in comparison with what he earns down the line.
by sharksrog on Jul 20, 2008 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I refuse to get anxious about any of this until somewhere around the 12th of August.
by KCE on Jul 20, 2008 5:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think its ridiculous that Posey could think he should get that much money. The highest bonus ever is only 7 million or so. He’s not even as good as Matt Wieters as a prospect.
Its also ridiculous that Gillaspie thinks he’s a top 15 pick or something. You would think these guys would WANT to fucking play baseball. If you were confident in yourself and your abilities wouldn’t you want to get in the minors as fast as possible so you could make the REAL money by playing in the Majors? Or that you’d actually just want to play for the love of the game. I’m all for getting what you can while you can, but some of these demands are just terribly misguided and unrealistic. Makes you wonder who the hell is advising these kids.
by Hobbes2d on Jul 20, 2008 6:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
put ‘em back in the hopper for 2009 and make them produce another season and lose their leverage in the draft
by wilriv21 on Jul 20, 2008 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's get some perspective here
Let’s put some perspective on all this. In basketball, the top picks get millions and millions. In football the top picks get millions and millions. Why shouldn’t players get more as high draft picks in baseball?
One reason of course is that the development period in baseball is usually much longer than in basketball and football. Yet many baseball players are now college draftees, while basketball players used to be drafted out of high school on many occasions and are still drafted high and in high numbers after their freshman season.
Let me ask, is Buster Posey at $10 million and six or seven seasons of major league control after whatever period it takes him to develop a better risk than Barry Zito at $126 million? Than Dave Roberts at $18 million?
Teams are finally starting to get the picture that slot isn’t only marginally collusive, it may not even be good business if it prevents a team from signing a truly good prospect.
Incidentally, last summer Rick Porcello signed for $8 million even though he was only the 27th player drafted (due to signing concerns). All Rick did was go to the Tigers’ major league camp this spring with no previous college or professional experience and at the age of 19 post a sub-2.00 ERA in training camp. While there are some concerns about his future dominance, Rick threw a five-inning no-hitter last night in High A ball and is undefeated since June 1st.
I place Rick right up there with the Giants’ Madison Bumgarner and Tim Alderson to be the first high school player drafted in 2007 to make the majors. Any of the three could make it as early as next season, and it is likely at least a couple of the trio will make it in 2010.
Meanwhile Wieters is considered by many to be the best position prospect in the majors. Do you think his team regrets the $6 or $7 million they spent to sign him?
Just think if Porcello had slipped just two more picks. After already drafting Mad Bum and Timmy Two, do you think the Giants would have had the guts and money to draft and sign Porcello, as well. If they had done so, their rotation would likely be set for the next decade with that trio in addition to Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain and Jonathan Sanchez to choose from.
You ask if the players want to play baseball. Of COURSE they do. Don’t you think that in a profession where you can lose your livelihood in a split second they should use their leverage to guarantee as much wealth as is feasible?
As to who is advising these players, my guess is that it is people with a far better grasp of the situation than you appear to have.
Not meaning to put you down, but when you mistakenly put others down, don’t you think you should be taken to task?
by sharksrog on Jul 20, 2008 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you'll permit...
an ad extremis argument, isn’t the draft itself at odds with the get-all-you-can philosophy?
Wouldn’t it be more fair for any player not under contract to sign wherever he wishes for whatever amount he can get?
Fred Lewis can stand under my umbrella.
by S.F. Giangst on Jul 21, 2008 2:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Historic Bonus Amounts
Justin Upton – #1 2005: $6.1M
Matt Wieters – #5 2007: $6M
David Price – #1 2007: $5.6M
Is Buster Posey worth twice as much as any of these players? Hell no.
Not only do I feel we shouldn’t pony up ridiculous amounts of money to players who not only haven’t played in the pros, but I would hate the reputation and precedent it would set, suggesting that future draftees (and possibly non-American free agents) can bullshit their way into ridiculous bonuses.
If he is actually sticking to this amount of money, let him take his chances of repeating his performance in college. I’ll take two Top 6 picks in next year’s draft rather than frickin’ double the largest draft bonus record for a guy who couldn’t even be a Top 3 overall pick.
SFDugout.com is BACK! See the Top 50 Giants Prospects!
by BruteSentiment on Jul 20, 2008 7:17 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Porcello got 7.3 million. I believe Beckett got 6 or 7 million as well.
by Hobbes2d on Jul 20, 2008 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those aren't bonuses...
...those are both major league contracts, which are a big difference in terms of payouts and how they are dealt with.
SFDugout.com is BACK! See the Top 50 Giants Prospects!
by BruteSentiment on Jul 20, 2008 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what is the big difference between bonuses and major league contracts? Control time?
Castillo hits doubles.
by kennv on Jul 21, 2008 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would think so
Aside from the payouts as Brute mentioned, I would think being signed to a major league contract would benefit a player in that if things didn’t go as well as expected, he would have to be exposed to the Rule 5 draft three years earlier than if his team could wait three years before placing him on the major league roster, causing him to have to use up an option each year he was sent back to the minors.
by sharksrog on Jul 22, 2008 12:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t forget, though, that you can get a lot of guaranteed money through MLB contracts. I’m pretty sure Mark Teixeira got around $10 million that way, and Wieters about $7 million.
But your point still stands. If Wieters was worth $7 million altogether, it’s hard to argue that Posey is worth many millions more than that.
by Dan from NM on Jul 20, 2008 7:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Different year
This is a different year. Matt Weiters got $7 million the year after Tim Lincecum got $2.025 million. Should we have been arguing that as quickly as Tim got to the big leagues, it was hard to argue that Weiters was worth more than $2.025 million?
by sharksrog on Jul 22, 2008 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come on, Brute
Are any of the trio you mentioned worth three times as much as Tim Lincecum? Probably not, but that is what the market would bear at the time.
I think the Giants can sign Buster for $9 or $10 million, maybe “just” $8 million. Unless you immediately chastised the Giants for signing Barry Zito, you have little leg to stand on here. And even if you did - as I and others did at the time - do you deny that Buster at say $10 million providing salary control for six or six-plus season is a better risk than signing Barry for a dozen times that much?
Why are you criticizing a situation you don’t seem to understand? I’m guessing you didn’t major in economics or labor law. I didn’t either, by the way, but I think my understanding of them goes far beyond yours.
As for having the option of taking two likely top six picks in next year’s draft if the Giants don’t sign Posey, that wouldn’t be the end of the world. Like you, I would play that card if things got out of hand. But I think you should get off the cases of the players and agents who are trying to leverage as much salary out of a player’s talents as they can.
My guess is that if you were in their shoes, you would do pretty much the same thing. I suppose we’d all love to THINK we would play for the love of the game regardless of how much money we might forfeit by doing so, but I doubt that many of us truly would. And I certainly wouldn’t be blaming you for doing so.
by sharksrog on Jul 21, 2008 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow...
Did you really just turn into a snob? I never thought you were that condescending before, but that had to be the most ridiculously high handed yet pointless post I’ve ever seen not coming out of those I have promised not to poke at.
For the record: YES, I blasted the Zito contract, both the possibility of it before, and the signing of it after. So get off your high damned horse.
The point is, I’m not in their shoes. The shoes I’m in is the guy who pays way too damned much for season tickets. And frankly, I don’t see why I should want the team that is spending the money I pay should increase their budget ridiculously so and sign people for TWICE what the market is CURRENTLY BEARING for players just to justify their greed, for an absolutely non-guaranteed product.
Seriously, is your argument really “Well, don’t you want to get rich? Why you hatin’ playa? I know more about dis shit ‘dan you!” Is that the highest amount of logic you can put into this?
Well, call me the playa hater. I wholy believe that a player needs to earn their big-ass contracts by actually playing well in the majors. Frankly, inflation in any sector that is 500% over a couple of decades is BAD. It leads to rising costs throughout any sector, and that results in me, the paying fan, paying $30 or more for a bleacher seat when, 10 years ago, I could get them for $10 at a moment’s notice…and the prices aren’t going to come down.
Pay them this much now, and what will their free agency contracts cost? You think they won’t demand raises from ridiculously low contracts? That will just make Barry Zito’s contract something that will be surpassed in quantity and foolishness much quicker.
SFDugout.com is BACK! See the Top 50 Giants Prospects!
by BruteSentiment on Jul 21, 2008 1:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Economics
Economics tell us prices are determined by what the market will bear, not the cost of the product.
If you are going to argue that players are overpaid (and one could argue either side of that argument), it is the players being drafted who are less overpaid than the veterans. After six full years of major league experience players can market their services to any team they choose. Have you ever noticed how much MORE players who are free agents or about to become free agents get on average than players without such leverage?
The players being drafted have very little leverage. Unlike you and I, if they choose to pursue their chosen profession, they aren’t free to do so in the location of their choice. Unlike you and I, they are unable to accept the best offer they can get from a free market.
I’m not saying we should feel sorry for baseball players (although I do feel sorry for the ones who aren’t drafted high and play in the minors for peanuts). What I’m saying is that what drives up salaries isn’t big bonuses to draftees.
It is the greed of the owners. No player has ever been paid more than an owner agreed to pay him. The owners have the leverage. Where ELSE is a player going to play major league ball? Japan?
The owners have a monopoly of sorts, and they’re just too dumb to take advantage of it. The one time they attempted to do so, they colluded—and wound up losing many millions of dollars in court.
No one put a gun to the Giants’ head to offer Barry Zito $126 million. They decided to do so themselves. (And by the way, congratulations on being among the minority of Giants fans as far as I can tell in that you were against the Zito signing right away.)
But if you’re going to blame someone for the high price of your tickets (which are actually on the inexpensive side compared to the other majors sports, although clearly there are many more games one has to buy if he buys season tickets), blame the owners.
For one thing, they or their employees are the ones who set the ticket prices. For another, if it is high salaries which drive high ticket prices (which most don’t believe to be the case), it is the owners who of their own free volition pay those salaries.
If you were a player, would you play for less than you could earn? Have you voluntarily taken a pay cut recently from your present job?
If you were an owner, wouldn’t you be at the major league meetings saying that while we can’t agree to unilaterally limit salaries, wouldn’t it be good business sense to better match player salaries with the revenue they generate?
It is the greed of the owners (causing their willingness to keep bidding up salaries among themselves) that has driven salaries to where Alex Rodriguez makes more than a hundred times more than Willie Mays ever did, to where Justin Speier makes more in a single season than his dad made in his entire career. The system actually works AGAINST high salaries, since players can be under contract for as much as a dozen year before being able to sell his services to the highest bidder.
The player’s job is to play as well as he can so he can both help his team and make top salary in return. The agent’s primary job is to get as much money for his player as he can. The job of the person who runs most companies is to make an ethical and safe profit. I would say in the case of “overpaid” players, the players and agents are doing their jobs better than those who sign the checks.
By the way, in response to your last paragraph, the primary reason you are paying $30 or more for a bleacher seat when you could get them for a third of that cost a decade ago is that there is far more desire for the product (Giants baseball games) than there was ten years ago—not because the players are making more.
And just as the owners have the final say in how much they pay a player, we fans have the final say in how much we are willing to pay for tickets. If we stopped buying them, they would become cheaper.
Notice how the Giants are discounting a lot of tickets this year with promotions such as taking a dollar per strikeout off the ticket price? Do you think that is in any way a response to the declining demand for the product? Or do you think it is because the players are making less money?
What? They aren’t? :)
by sharksrog on Jul 22, 2008 12:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why in the world would you pay Gerald Posey that amount? The market does not dictate this. Offer him $3-5M – a very fair number – and if accepts then he is a Giant. If he does not accept then he is a senior and must produce another great season and then might have much less leverage to negotiate. Meanwhile the Giants get two picks in the 2009 draft somewhere between 6 – 9. Not too bad.
by wilriv21 on Jul 21, 2008 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I agree with you that the Giants have more leverage than Buster Posey. Buster might be able to make more next year, but he also will likely become eligible for free agency a year later, which would likely cost him a lot more—particularly when combined with the likely loss of one year off his career.
And as you mention, Buster might have a bad season next year, not allowing him to get the amount he wishes, even a year later. Worst case, he could become seriously injured and see his career flushed down the toilet.
As I mentioned in my previous post to Brute, no player will be paid more than an owner agrees to pay him. With the new rule that a team doesn’t completely lose its high pick if it is unable to come to terms with a player but merely has the pick deferred a year, the leverage has shifted back to the team. To me that can be more effective than “slot” money, which would seem to be collusive in nature.
by sharksrog on Jul 22, 2008 12:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would you really take two Top 6 picks next year?
To me that’s a little flippant because such a decision would raise some very serious and difficult questions: 1) if you can’t/won’t afford the going rate for 1 Top 6 pick this year, why do you think you’ll be able to/willing to sign two of them for the going rate next year? Or do you believe that Top 5 bonus requests are likely to go down significantly next year (and if so why since that’s significantly contraindicated by recent and past history). 2) If you’re Brian Sabean and you’re transitioning in a new boss next year, do you really want to add “fumbled away the organization’s highest draft position over a decade” to a resume that is already looking to include “engineered the franchise’s worst 4 year stretch ever?”
Yes, these are somewhat ridiculous, and from a certain perspective obscene numbers, and yes they should certainly engage in tough negotiations since Posey’s bargaining position will take a major hit if he doesn’t sign. But in the end this is a guy the front office believes has the potential to be an impact player, and I don’t see how they can afford to lose say 9 years of his professional career over not much more money than they’re now paying Ray Durham to be a Brewer or Steve Kline to be a minor leaguer.
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.
by Roger on Jul 21, 2008 7:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oops sorry, mean “enginneered the franchise’s worst 4 year stretch in over a century.”
And while I’m at it, to expand on the first point, if they were to go into next year’s draft with two top 6 picks (having been burned obviously this year to get them to that point) does the frost office then face the position of having to draft two signability picks for fear of being caught in a budget vise and getting neither of their two top of the draft board talents into the organization if they don’t consider costs issues in making their picks? I would say having two picks that high is a bit of a mixed blessing and is not necessarily something to be wished for if you can avoid it.
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.
by Roger on Jul 21, 2008 7:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll just put it this way:
Considering that in this year’s draft, similarly talented players are going for less than half the supposed $12M that Posey is asking for, then YES.
Then we could get TWO Top 5 quality draft picks for the same price as Posey’s one.
Is that an odd way to look for value, two for the price of one?
It’s not that the Giants are being cheap, It’s again that POSEY IS ASKING FOR A DRAFT BONUS OF TWICE THE LARGEST ONES IN HISTORY. He’s not twice as good as those players, so I don’t see why he should get it.
SFDugout.com is BACK! See the Top 50 Giants Prospects!
by BruteSentiment on Jul 21, 2008 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But you’re basing that comment entirely on Kyle Skipworth’s signing? Only two of the top 10 have signed yet and Tim Beckham went for $6.15 milion. None of the other big bats from the collegiate ranks have signed yet so there’s no way of saying what that market is. I’d guess that Posey, Alonso, Beckham and Smoak are all waiting to see what Alvarez’ contract is too see what the bar for their class is. If he gets the $9mil he’s looking for, that will obviously raise the contract demands of the others behind him. Meanwhile, from the bottom of the class #30 just signed for 3.3 mil which will certainly exert some upward pressure on the contract demands of the top of the draft.
Meanwhile, god only knows how much more contracts across the sport will continue to go up before next year’s draft. You’re assuming that they can get two top 6 picks signed for $10 million next year and I’m saying you can’t make that assumption. It’s just not possible in current economic environment of the sport . And given the lost year in talent intake for the system an uncontrollable gamble like that really isn’t worth it to my mind.
And being twice as good as whoever else really has little to do with the matter (though when it comes to that, Posey’s agents could certainly point to the $2.55 million the Giants just spent on a 16 year old and say that Buster has a very good chance of being 4x as good as him).
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.
by Roger on Jul 21, 2008 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
MLB explicitly asked the teams to draft based on talent and not signability and to aid the teams with unsigned picks in the first three rounds will get a compensation pick the following year. If the Alvarez’s, Posey’s, Beckham’s, Alonso’s and Smoak’s do not sign then the 2009 draft appears a lot deeper. And these players will then be seniors with less leverage.
by wilriv21 on Jul 21, 2008 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They will have less leverage—but so will we. If you can’t sign your pick one year, you get a compensation pick in the next draft. But if you can’t sign that compensation pick, you get nothing. So you can’t play hardball in negotiations.
by Evan on Jul 21, 2008 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True and you cannot draft the same player without his consent etc. At least you have two bites at the apple to sign someone rather than only one.
by wilriv21 on Jul 21, 2008 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But
But with two picks, you CAN make sure you draft a very signable player with the compensation pick, while taking the bigger risk with the normal high draft choice, which can be replenished in 2010 if the player isn’t signed in 2009.
by sharksrog on Jul 22, 2008 12:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alright:
Total: $8.45M…two players, each considered by various sources better than Posey on talent, for about 70% the price.
The overriding inaccurate assumptions going on here it seems:
A. Price = Value. Sometimes, maybe often, but definitely not always.
B. There Aren’t Other Options Out There. There are, if you’re gutsy enough.
SFDugout.com is BACK! See the Top 50 Giants Prospects!
by BruteSentiment on Jul 21, 2008 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would have been happy to draft Skipworth this year
or Hosmer, or a few other guys. But they didn’t. They chose Posey knowing perfectly well what his negotiating position was. They chose him over Skipworth. He’s their guy. They take a serious hit if they don’t sign him.
Finally, Kyle Skipworth and Tim Beckham AREN’T options for next year’s draft. Making the assumption that you will be able to sign two top 6 players next year for 8.45 mil is a gamble. I don’t see how you can deny that. You don’t know what players will be Top 6 talents next year or what their demands will be. Assuming that you can sign top Top 6 players next year is an iffy assumption.
I don’t know that I’ve ever equated price with value so I’m not sure what that comment refers to. Price is equated with price and nothing else. That said, it’s always worth remembering what you’re paying for and in the case of a high draft choice it’s essentially for about 5 or 6 virtually free years of service.
Secondly, once the pick is made, options become very limited. Sign the guy or take a serious organizational hit are the only two options. Next year doesn’t ever make up for the lost year of talent (and currently we’re talking about the entire top of a draft class). Houston hasn’t come close to making up for their one year draft “embargo” and that was year’s ago now. That act really created a chain reaction that has led them to being far and away the worst minor league system. The Giants need to concentrate on this year. A lost draft class would be another disaster in a series of disasters that have transitioned the org from gold standard to laughing stock.
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.
by Roger on Jul 23, 2008 6:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not worried
The Giants will sign all the draft picks they have to sign, I’m not the least bit worried about that. They have to have Posey and Gillaspie, because as Rog pointed out, they play perhaps the weakest positions in the organization, and they are also near major league ready. The others they will sign when their demands become reasonable. And if someone like Crawford or Kieschnick wants first round money in the spots they were picked in, the Giants just have to play hardball. Nothing else would make sense. Everybody has complained in recent years because the Giants sometimes chose signability over talent. Now that the Giants had a draft where they simply cared about getting the best possible player without regards to what dollars they were asking, everybody is complaining again because it’s taking so long to sign these guys. What did you expect??
Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment
by rxmeister on Jul 21, 2008 7:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What did you expect??
complaining
you can't block the Bocock
by oldjacket on Jul 21, 2008 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brute and others have changed my mind
I must say that Brute and others have changed my mind here. If I truly believed that Buster was special enough that he would CLEARLY be worth more than the same draft pick next year, I would lean his direction. If not, I would take advantage of having less to lose than he and hold much more firm.
By the way, sorry for being so hard on you, Brute. But I do want to take the time to thank you, wilriv21 and others for helping me better understand the true dynamics of this situation. I knew the rule change that allowed a team not to have to forfeit its high draft pick if it were unable to sign the player gave it more leverage, but it wasn’t until you guys really got me pointed in the right direction that I realized just how MUCH that advantage could mean.
Darn! For a while there I was as stupid as the owners! :)
by sharksrog on Jul 22, 2008 12:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When August 14th rolls around then I will panic.
Posey deserves the money and we need him. Gillispie, maybe pass on him and put his money to good use and make sure we sign Posey. The other two… what is a couple million these days? Give them what they want and send them to San Jose. I think Posey could be in SF by late 2010.
"It hurts sooooooo... good!"
by Baybear on Jul 21, 2008 10:12 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 

















