A grand total of five teams spent more than 10% of their total payroll (information from here) on the draft (information found here). Now, I won’t argue that teams need to spend 10% of their player budget on the draft, but for the price of one over-priced reliever that no one needs but everyone signs, each team could take some more risks on guys who slip down due to bonus demands, sign them, and still have money left to make a significant splash in Latin America (which I’ve left out but will address in a future post). It makes no sense to spend so much money on a reliever (or any other free-agent teams throw money at—Jeff Francoeur, Melky Cabrera, etc.) who won’t even account for one win of production and not spend 20% of that on a draft prospect that could bring much more. I’ll admit the Yankees are awfully low on this list partially due to their ginormous payroll, but I’d also argue they don’t leverage the draft nearly enough. If they can afford to overpay for certain free-agents, why not throw a few million at guys like Austin Wilson?
College or High School?
We’ve moved on to the “best available player” argument. Honestly, no team’s draft board will look like another team’s, and they all have different opinions of certain players. That’s fine, but the questions is how you want your team to look at players. One of the more common debates in that discussion is to go college-heavy or high school-heavy. In favor of college players, they are better-trained, have played against better competition, and can be pushed through the system faster. In favor of high school players, they are younger, have more room for growth and projection, and have not been potentially abused by their college coaches (see most college pitchers). All in all, I would favor high school players. I’m a slight control freak, and I don’t like college coaches messing with my labor force, abusing them, and teaching them bad habits. I want the player as soon as possible. However, I would never simply skip a college player. Especially in the first 4-5 rounds, I’ll take the college player if he’s the clear best guy left because there’s something to be said for polish, experience, and quality of competition. Though after those rounds, I probably wouldn’t touch a college guy unless there were extreme circumstances because, if a guy has lasted that long out of college, he’s probably not that good. For rounds 4-5, I wouldn’t try to favor one over the other, but after that, it would probably be all high schoolers (it’s important to note that there will be drafts in which you don’t stick to your “plan”. For example, I like high school players, but there may be a draft in which I take 4 college players to begin the draft. That’s okay. You have to be flexible, and there will be years in which it doesn’t make sense to stick to that. Just always stick to the “best available player” ideology first)
Pitcher or Position Player?
Another big question, do you take the pitcher, knowing there’s a good chance he’ll get hurt, or take the position player, knowing that pitching is pricey? I would favor pitching. Pitching is not only pricy, but they get hurt a lot. My theory is to grab a lot of pitching, and after all the attrition (both injury-related and just from being a prospect), I’ll still have enough pitching to keep costs low. If pitching is inherently risky, I don’t want to invest a lot in free-agents who are also likely to get hurt—$15 million a year is a lot more than $2-3 million on a great prospect. However, I wouldn’t completely ignore position players. You just can’t. If a position player is highest on my board, I’ll take him, especially early, but if it’s close, I’m going with the pitcher. Late in the draft, I’d probably go pitching-heavy as well—grab anyone who can throw 95+ and stick ‘em in the ‘pen. I might also keep my park in mind as well. If I have a big ballpark, it’ll help any pitcher, and I might be more inclined to go after big hitters, though not much more.
Pitcher: Stuff or Command?
Once you’ve settled on pitchers, do you want a lot of hard throwers, knowing their more likely to miss bats, or do you want guys who have good command, knowing they might be more likely to make the majors? When considering this, I would keep my ballpark in mind. If I have a big ballpark and a good defense, I might be more inclined to take command/control guys who keep guys off-balance, knowing that my ballpark and defense can make their stuff play up (essentially the Twins’ strategy), but if I’m in a small ballpark and/or have a bad defense, I might go for strikeout guys to keep the ball in the park and avoid my defense. In a neutral park? I’ll always go stuff and hope repetition will improve their command. I figure that’s more likely to improve than a guy’s radar reading.
Position Player: Offense or Defense?
Once you’ve settled on position players, do you want to take guys who can hit but are not the best defenders or really good defenders that may not hit enough? Because I don’t think pitching, hitting, and defense all account for 33.333% of the game, I would imagine hitting is more valuable than defense, though defense remains important. If the guy can’t play defense at all, I probably wouldn’t touch him, but if he’s likely to be -5 runs with the glove but awesome with the stick, I’ll favor the stick. I may never have the best fielding team, but I’m willing to gamble that my team would hit enough for it not to matter much.
Right or Left-Handed?
Regardless of whether you want a hitter or pitcher, this is another big question, but I’m not sure it should be. For hitters, I imagine it’s probably better to be a left-handed hitter because of the amount of right-handed pitching, and it doesn’t hurt that your batter’s box is closer to first. For pitchers though, I’m not really sure. It might be better to be right-handed because of the amount of right-handed hitters, but people like to have lefties. And the one thing I really don’t get is that lefties are held to different standards. Why is “plus velocity” higher for righties than lefties? I realize that there are fewer lefties, and therefore, the chances of finding a lefty who throws 93-94 is less than finding a righty. But why does that matter? Does it appear different to the hitter? Does a 93 mph fastball appear faster from a lefty? Or do we just want lefties because all baseball players have less experience hitting against them? Add in the fact that you don’t know who attrition will take, and it seems pointless to gamble on what hand they are. I don’t know that I would even consider this when it comes to prospects, though it may come into play more when considering major-league acquisitions.
Upside or Polish?
A saying goes, “You win with stars,” and I agree. I prefer the guys with big tools, understanding that they might be riskier, for the small chance that they’ll become superstars. Having mid-rotation guys or decent regulars is nice, but prospects have a hard enough time of making it to the majors that they don’t need a lower ceiling to fall from. Give me the guy with huge potential, let me have him after high school, and let’s see if my player development people and coaches can’t get something out of him. That being said, taking a guy or two with some polish might help balance out the draft a little.
———————————————————————————————-
Honestly, this is how I think teams misuse free-agency. Teams think they are supposed to find their cornerstones there. No! Your superstars should come from the draft. Sure, a CC Sabathia comes along every now and then, but he’s a rarity and no one knows how that contract will ultimately worked out, though it’s been excellent so far. Spend a little extra money (like $4-5 million) on getting good prospects, don’t spend $4-5 million on the aging guy, and have a lot of inside information on whether or not to keep the superstar you’ve developed. Free-agency’s purpose (should be, though it’s not the intended goal) is to plug holes where your farm system has failed to develop a decent option. It’s not a panacea. It’s a dirty band-aid on a deep wound—use it only when there is no other option and get rid of it at the earliest opportunity. And yes, this goes for the Yankees, though the degree to which they need to adhere to this philosophy is different. Yes, they can afford to take risks in free-agency, and they prefer the certainty of established players. But there’s no reason not to throw your economic weight around in an area in which you could gain more of an economic and talent advantage.
Anyway, I’m sure you have some thoughts on how you would run the draft. You can either talk from your perspective or from the Yankees’ perspective, bu let’s hear it.
