Comments on: Draft Pool Spending: Where The Cardinals Stand

By: Robert Heyer

Robert Heyer — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:05:53 +0000

Kurt is a Junior and is a 3 time All-Pac 12 & 3 time All-American. Led the nation in strikeouts, innings pitched and wins…….He has proven himself consistently and took his team to the CWS. Why you would pay H.S. kids millions is beyond me…..
Yes, I am Kurt’s Dad and I am the one that talked him into going to College instead of taking 400k out of H.S. Just doesn’t seem right?

By: Hugecardsfan

Hugecardsfan — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 21:03:53 +0000

Because it doesn’t make sense based on our peripheral knowledge, there is likely more to it than meets our eyes. Being able to squeeze a senior down simply because he is a senior begs the question whether that’s a reasonable ploy.

Is saving $350K the only criteria from which a signing should be judged? Did the $175K they locked in (when they did) serve the purpose the Cards wanted. Given Williams unlikely signing, I suspect it did.

Entirely too much angst has been wasted on the Cards decision to get the deal done quickly rather than squeeze a little bit more money from a first round draft choice. Perhaps getting the deal done quickly took precedence. I don’t hear a single complaint from the FO…just the fans and scouts. Much ado about nothing IMO.

By: apack

apack — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:53:12 +0000

Yes, essentially the draft order does not tell you how teams valued the players — instead, the bonus money paid reflects the value. There is one caveat to this, which is that MLB’s draft slotting rules means that teams had to make each of their picks, so then in many cases they took players with pre-negotiated underslot bonuses earlier in order to free up funds to pay overslot bonuses later. This raised the value of college kids who lacked leverage and thus would take smaller bonuses. Since teams had to take some of these types of players to make their bonus pool work, it became more valuable to take the better college seniors earlier in the draft. The trick was to take enough underslot players to free up money to make some high-upside plays while still making sure that the high-school kids they wanted will still be available with lower picks.

I think the Cards did a good job of this. They went for Kelly early and made sure they had money to sign him, then gambled on Williams and Foody at a point in the draft where they wouldn’t be hurt if either guy failed to sign. I agree that Ramsey looks like an overpay though. It made sense to get the best senior at that point, but they should have been able to sign him for less.

Also, here’s a reordered view of the top of the Card’s draft based on signing bonus compared with MLB’s recommended draft slot:

1a Wacha
1b/1c Ramsey and Kelly
1d Piscotty
2a Bean
2b Wisdom
3a Cooney
3b Foody

That’s a pretty good mixture of floor and upside.

By: bc

bc — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:34:29 +0000

I don’t think it’s that surprising. I think it’s clear that Cards drafted Ramsey at 23 and paid him like the 23rd pick because they thought his talent justified him being drafted there. The supposed stratgey of drafting Ramsey to save money to sign other overslot picks was only people’s speculation to explain Ramsey being “overdrafted” in their opinion. It’s obvious now that that was never the Cards strategy with respect to Ramsey.

By: Armitage_Card

Armitage_Card — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:20:31 +0000

Jim…I agree with your point that none of know how good he will be. None of us are scouts. He could end up becoming an awesome player. In fact, I hope he does. Most of us are not disagreeing with you about that.

My arguement is that the Cardinals seem to have ignored basic market economics. They bought high on something that they didn’t have to buy high on. College seniors have less leverage than HS’ers. That is just a fact. They have less options and less leverage. They command lower bonuses. The Cardinals paid a higher % to slot value than Houston did for the first overall pick. They paid higher % to slot than some teams did for draft-eligible sophmores. It doesn’t make sense.

By: Armitage_Card

Armitage_Card — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:15:05 +0000

He didn’t think it was that surprising they were so close to slot. That surprises me.

By: Jim1956

Jim1956 — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:22:23 +0000

Let me be the first to go on record and say that I dispute that Ramsey is an “overpay”. First, none of us have any idea what kind of player Ramsey will turn out to be. This includes Keith Law. If you doubt that, go back and look at Law’s list of top 100 players before the draft four or five or six years ago. Look at his success rate and you will see SEVERAL misses. I’m not criticising his picks…..just saying what is true. This is a very, very humbling business for scouts and touts.
So I prefer to trust the judgement of a professional scouting department of the St. Louis Cardinals over guys like Keith Law. Most of these guys had Ramsey ranked somewhere between 30-55 in their top 100 picks. BBA had him ranked #51. MLB.com had him#40 I think. So I ask you…..is it really such a stretch to believe that maybe the Cards extensive paid professional scouts might just have an edge over these guys?
And maybe the future will prove the Cards wrong. But if I was going to start a team tomorrow….I would, without a doubt, take the judgement of an organization of paid professional scouts over Keith Law or BBA.
With that information and the fact that they signed him under slot…..I dispute the overpay label.

By: wileyvet

wileyvet — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 05:09:59 +0000

That’s basically it in a nutshell KC and that’s why this whole new draft system is asinine to the core.

By: Shi

Shi — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:23:00 +0000

i agree. it must be as you described in the second scenario. at least that’s the only thing that really makes sense to me. still holding out hope for scenario number one, though.

By: Tbird

Tbird — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 03:18:42 +0000

I don’t think anyone disputes that Ramsey was an overpay. No doubt Keith Law would hate the pick regardless, because he is all upside on prospects.