Built With First-Round Draft Picks

You do know that Carlos Quentin, Gavin Floyd,John Danks,Matt Thornton,Paul Konerko, Ken Griffey JR where all 1st round picks. I'm sure those guys only helped the Sox win 10 games.

This is kind of misleading for the Mets. Sure they did trade first rounder Phil Humber for Santana, but he was a throw-in in that trade. The Mets really traded Gomez, Guerra, and Mulvey for Santana.

You can make the same argument about misleading results for the Red Sox... Lester and Pedroia weren't first round picks, but they were the first Red Sox picks.

"Every team has the same amount of chances to get these good players you're talk about."

This is not completely true do to money restrains and agent issues. The twins passed on Prior b/c they couldnt afford him. Sure, they got Mauer...but thats a different post. My point being is that many small market teams pass on better talent due to the massive signing bonus that big market teams can afford. Not every team can afford a Boris client. The Rays are a small market team but had more opportunites/ chance at drafting those players while the larger market teams take chances on the players that other teams passed on due to character/money issues.

My point being is:
Big market teams use their picks to trade for expensive players.

Small market teams depend on developing those draft picks to contribute and minimize the payroll. More chances you have to draft a better player...the better.

"No, I don't agree that the Rays owe a lot of their success to being bad for so long."

Tim, I am a Jays fan and believe me we hear all the time "if the Rays can do it, why can't we?" While it is a fallacy that the Rays success is due primarily to the draft, I disagree with your opinion that their long run of poor baseball is not directly related to their current winning and the fact that they look like they should be a quality team for many years.

You give 6 player acquisition examples (Navaro, Pena, Kazmir, Shields, Crawford and Wheeler) that you say have nothing to do with the fact that they were a poor team for so long. Shields and Crawford were draft picks so I don't take issue with that (though it should be noted that Crawford was a high 2nd round pick, which is almost a 1st round supplemental pick). However, Kazmir, Wheeler and Navaro were all acquired via trades which is COMPLETELY related to the fact that the Rays are always selling. That is obviously a function of running a poor team, not a good one. Edwin Jackson was also acquired via trade/ selling.

Wheeler (which was really due to Ty Wiggington) and Pena are also a function of being a bad team with little position talent on the 25 man roster. Pena gets a roster spot on the 2007 Rays because they had so many positions up for grabs, due to the fact that they were such a bad team. I'm sorry, but I give the Rays zero credit for acquiring Pena, though they did give him a contract extension and for this they deserve some credit.

Wiggington also received a roster spot as a function of the Rays' thin roster. Wiggington and Pena are both former prospects who got a chance in Tampa because Tampa's roster was always in flux. Could teams such as the LA Angels have taken fliers on these players? Of course not, because the Angels are a good organization and, therefore, have few roster spots for guys who appear to be busts. By the same token, Dan Uggla isn't on the 2006 Marlins as a rule 5 draft pick if it were not for the fact that the Marlins only had Willis/Cabrera as proven major leaguers on their team.

Why not take a look at how much of the Rays is actually due to their drafting beyond their high first round draft picks? I see Sonnanstine, Shields and Hammel (none of which were drafted in the top 9 rounds, which is a little bit luck related as well, much like the Jays' Jesse Litsch). Gomes and Riggans have also received a few AB's. If anything, it can be argued that the Rays have drafted extremely poorly until recently.

High draft picks also affect the organizational philosophy of drafting and has allowed the Rays to take more high ceiling players and this is another reason why their farm system is well-stocked. Also, when is the last time a first place team has had a player the quality of David Price come in as a September callup only a year after being drafted? The Rays are not much better than the Blue Jays right now (the run differential will show this); however, the reason their future looks so bright has a lot to do with the fact that the Rays have played poorly for so long and also are not in a situation where they have to field a competitive team (exactly like the Florida Marlins).

One final note: As much as I think the Rays have run a horrible organization for a decade, Andrew Friedman has done a solid job. I do give the Rays some credit, but a lot of their success relates to their long run of losing.

Tim, when you mention the Rays deserve credit for their rebuild and the Orioles finally making the decision to tear it down, you're admitting that losing is what these teams need to do to acquire their talent. If you disagree with my logic, please explain yours.

As for the Zambrano/Kazmir thing and all of the other talent acquired via selling, we're only focussing on the selling trades that have resulted in ML players; the Rays have also made lots of selling trades that have not resulted in ML talent. The point is that when you make enough of these trades, you'd expect some ML talent.

If the Rays have acquired more talent than, for example, the Pirates, it is either because they are better at it (which they are and deserve some credit for) or do it more often, which I am fairly certain of. Also, your line about other teams having players like V Zambrano to trade...the reason that prospects such as Kazmir often find their ways to teams like the Rays/Marlins is because they are always selling which is a function of losing. The Twins, for example, have run a much better organization than the Rays, but they have less young talent because they dont get top 5 picks and don't sell because they are always competitive.

Trades such as the Garza/Young trade obviously deserve credit, as do any other minor trades that result in ML players, such as the acquisition of JP Howell. The Howell/Gathright acquisition was a real baseball trade, not selling.

As for the Pena thing, I do not know what you are trying to argue. The fact that Pena finally did something in Tbay as opposed to DET/BOS/NYY etc has nothing to do with Tbay making an astute move. Pena was almost cut from the Rays; the fact that he had an MVP-caliber year to get a contract extension has nothing to do with organziational aptitude. If you feel differently, please explain.

The main point about Pena/Wig/Uggla is that these teams did not have a lot of position player talent, and that is one reason that they got roster spots. Why do you think Pena ended up with the Rays? It's because it was his best/only chance at a roster spot. Even if the Red Sox/Yanks offer Pena a chance, there isn't as much room on their roster (or any other competitive roster) as there is on the Rays/Marlins etc.

As for the Jays going for a full rebuild, this would also require a long run of losing to acquire the necessary young talent to have a long run; nowhere in your comment are you showing that the Rays could have had this type of team without a long run of losing.

Finally, if the Jays sucked for 10 years, their fanbase would get restless because there is a fanbase in Toronto. It is way different to run a team that does not have to win as opposed to running a team that has to be competitive. And, again, Friedman has done a solid job, but he could not do that if he took over the Jays in 2005, for example, and was expected to remain competitive because there is a fanbase that needs to be appeased. What the Marlins/Rays do deserves some credit, obviously, but to say it is the same thing as the Twins have done, for example, is ludicrous.

Basically, someone would have to show me all of the actual baseball acquisitions that the Rays have made without selling/high picks and plain luck (Pena/Hinske).. Guys like Iwamura/ Howell/Floyd deserve credit, as do the handful of non top-5 picks on the roster. A lot of the roster, though, is a function of losing and not having to be competitive for 10 years (and not just top 5 picks).

I recently wrote a post about the Rays over on my site, it covers a similar issue. baseballoutlook.blogspot.com

you guys should go check it out!

Tim, I strongly disagree with this study. The Rays are where they are because they were terrible for so long, and to prove it, redo the WARP study considering only top 10 picks.

Every team has the right to a 1st round pick, but not every team will have the opportunity to pick in the top 10 as many times as the Rays have.

Superstars like David Wright and Chase Utley, which I'm sure had a huge impact on the WARP totals of the Mets and Phillies were a result of good drafting, as mid-late 1st rounders.

Even the trades you mentioned are very biased. The Rays major trade to acquire Garza revolved primarily around Young and Garza.

Yet, deals made for Sabbathia and Santana were huge packages put together with multiple prospects going the other way for a single player, especially in the case of Humber who as mentioned above, was just a throw-in.

The Rays owe most of their success to their continued opportunities in the draft's top 10, and a retake of the study with that critera will prove it.

Josh, why should Rays fans buy that argument? It is less a pride issue than it is about the truthfulness of your claim.

As unbiasedhomer points out, having high draft picks and/or losing for so long hasn't exactly been a winning formula for other teams.

I'm sorry, but I have to have a little bit of a smile when the Mets are first in something that is Farm System related ;)

I’m confused about your methodology, especially w/r/t to the White Sox. You include Gio Gonzalez but only for Nick Swisher. He was originally traded to the Phillies for Jim Thome, and then later re-acquired. Even if you don’t want to double-count, Thome should still be included since the Sox traded another first rounder, Aaron Rowand, with Gio. And I think it would make more sense to use a first rounder once and only for their initial trade. If you’re going to count any first rounder traded, no matter how/when acquired, why isn’t the Jon Garland for Orlando Cabrera trade included, as well?

"So I could argue that the Yankees often have access to more top 10 talent than any team."

Sure you could, if you don't mind a straw man argument in defense of your position.

There is talent in the international pool, but there is undoubtedly more talent in the first year player draft, and even more talent in the top 10 picks.

I doubt anyone is saying drafting high is the sole reason for the Rays' success, but it's undoubtedly played a role.

Remind me again why the worst teams are awarded with better draft position? To improve their club, to give them a shot at competition. It doesn't always work out, but when you shove #1 draft picks down a teams throat, you'd like to think eventually something would work out, and it finally has.

Wasn't Joe Borchard a first round draft pick? He was traded for Thornton. What round was Mike Cameron picked since he was traded for Konerko? Was Brandon McCarthy a first round pick or later?

Yeah, this is extremely misleading for the Red Sox. Look at their draftees that weren't first rounders:

Jon Lester
Kevin Youkilis
Dustin Pedroia
Jed Lowrie

Plus, wasn't Hanley Ramirez a first round pick? Shouldn't Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell be on there? And, yes, Craig Hansen was a first rounder in 2005.

I looked it up. Hanley Ramirez was yet another international free agent.

But what about Justin Masterson? Jonathan Papelbon? More non-first round picks.

What about also including first round picks of other teams that were acquired?

What I mean is you can build a good young team without 1st round picks if you know what you are doing.