With the regular season now complete, we now know the order for the first round of the 2018 amateur draft. As always, the draft order is determined by the reverse order of the standings. When two or more teams share the same record, the team that had the lesser record in the 2016 season gets the higher pick in the 2018 draft.
This is why the Tigers will pick first overall in June, even though Detroit and San Francisco both finished with identical 64-98 records — the Tigers were 86-75 to the Giants’ 87-75 in 2016. This will be the second time in franchise history that Detroit has held the 1-1 selection. Back in 1997, Detroit took hard-throwing right-hander Matt Anderson first overall, a pick that ultimately proved to be a bust as Anderson struggled with injuries and control problems.
Here is the full draft order for all 30 teams…
1. Tigers (64-98)
2. Giants (64-98)
3. Phillies (66-96)
4. White Sox (67-95)
5. Reds (68-94)
6. Mets (70-92)
7. Padres (71-91)
8. Braves (72-90)
9. Athletics (75-87)
10. Pirates (75-87)
11. Orioles (75-87)
12. Blue Jays (76-86)
13. Marlins (77-85)
14. Mariners (78-84)
15. Rangers (78-84)
16. Rays (80-82)
17. Angels (80-82)
18. Royals (80-82)
19. Cardinals (83-79)
20. Twins (85-77)
21. Brewers (86-76)
22. Rockies (87-75)
23. Yankees (91-71)
24. Cubs (92-70)
25. Diamondbacks (93-69)
26. Red Sox (93-69)
27. Nationals (97-65)
28. Astros (101-61)
29. Indians (102-60)
30. Dodgers (104-58)
In past years, teams that signed a qualifying offer-rejecting free agent would have to give up their first-round pick as compensation. Under the new collective bargaining agreement, however, first rounders are now automatically protected. The highest draft pick that a team could have to surrender in order to sign a QO free agent would be its second-highest selection (so either a first-round sandwich pick given as compensation for losing a QO free agent, or an actual second-rounder).
The full draft order won’t be known under all of the qualifying offer free agents have been signed. The 16 teams who qualify for revenue-sharing can obtain a compensatory draft pick after the first round if any of their free agents rejects the QO and then signs elsewhere for $50MM or more in guaranteed money. The Royals look like the most notable team to watch in this regard, with as many as three compensation picks potentially headed their way — Eric Hosmer, Lorenzo Cain and Mike Moustakas are all lined up to receive (and reject) qualifying offers and then get lucrative contracts on the open market.
This is huge for tigers rebuild. They can’t blow this pick.
Don’t worry, even if they don’t blow the pick they will trade that person away for the next Doyle Alexander!
Ouch
Smoltz was not a 1-1 pick, nor are the Tigers in a position to trade for a pennant race upgrade. If you have to go back that far to find your reference, I guess they haven’t been doing too badly.
Burn.
You mean the Doyle Alexander that did EXACTLY what the Tigers needed him to do? He won a lot of games and helped them win the division title in 1987. Even if they had kept John Smoltz, they would have still been the worst team in the league during the 90s. Take John Smoltz off the Braves and he is not a first ballot HOFer, he is Kevin Brown.
WIll this be the year the Phillies finally don’t miss on a top 10 pick? They’re like 1-for-3 with Haseley tbd
Moniack — bad start
Randolph — not good
Nola — solid
Haisley — so so
Moniak was holding his own until around the All Star Break, I think he’ll have a better showing this year.
Randolph looks like a bust but there’s some breakout potential given his second half numbers and a move to reading.
Mets had a shot at the 3rd overall pick going into the last week but then won 4 of their last 6. They can’t even lose the right way.
The Mets would have lost all of those 6 games to pick 3rd overall. You basically could have said that about any team-If they lost a few more games at the end, they would have drafted a couple of spots higher.
Oh, you mean MLB players don’t go out and lose games on purpose? Shocker.
Pablo didn’t get the memo, he secured the first round pick for the tigers with a walk off home today, it was fun to watch if unfortunate for the Giants
Is there a consensus #1 prospect in this draft anyway? Doesn’t really look like it to me.
Doesn’t matter. The Giants have nothing to lose and everything to gain by getting their top choice and the larger cash pool
lol at the Brewers. The Twins get to pick before them AND made the playoffs.
Poor Padres fans, the team can’t even tank a season for the DP very well.
I was hoping the royals would have had a higher draft pick than 18
David Glass sticking the syringe into the necks of every Royals fan and removing every last drop of blood.
I don’t quite get how the 113-loss 2003 Tigers didn’t get the first overall pick over the 98-loss Padres. I wonder if they still would have picked Verlander anyway over… Matt Bush
119-loss tigers that is.
Under the old rules, the No 1 overall pick alternated between the NL and the AL It was the NLs turn to draft first.
Part of the reason the Padres took Bush #1 overall was because he was a local kid.. He had great numbers but I believe other teams would have passed on taking him #1.. Just my 2 cents..
Local kid and cheap ownership wouldn’t take Weaver or Drew (the two guys Padres scouts liked best) because they didn’t want to negotiate with Scott Boras. IIRC Bush was considered a late first-round talent.
I don’t get why MLB doesn’t allow for trading draft picks. Doing so would would make the trade deadline, hot stove season, and draft more exciting. The Mets and the Giants for example, both underachieved this season. Trading down, for to get players that can contribute in 2018 could have big effect on next season. Conversely, the Astros or Dodgers could really like a top player, then could offer an nice package to get that top pick from the Tigers, which could speed up their rebuild.
Why trade picks when you can trade prospects?
Because then a team would be able to do both. I gave two examples on why this could be exciting and beneficial.
Because there is no salary cap teams like mine would take advantage and offer to take on bad deals to get extra 1st round picks. It would be a mess. Doesn’t work in a no cap leauge
If the tigers wanted to trade Cabrera for the first pick, so what. That would put the dodgers over the threshold and that would mean Cabrera cost $60 mil per year. If a team is dumb enough to do that, then that’s the free market.
Could a team do a deal with another team to say pick on their behalf. So let’s say a team has the number one pick. Could they say to another team “who do you want?” Pick them and then trade them to that team for an agreed player or cash?
I would think this probably wouldn’t be allowed right?
IIRC teams can’t trade a signed draft pick for something like, 6 months.. .Teams could agree as you suggest, but a lot can change in 6 months.
Yeah, personally I would like to see no trade for any draft picks or comp monies, the dodgers as you mentioned have already been trading for what they can, buying comp picks the last few years
Because 50% of major leaguers are drafted in the first 10 rounds, so one GM on the hotseat could absolutely crush your organization’s future with just a few bad trades over a 12 month period in a veiled attempt to save his job.
Draft picks are too valuable and allowing their trade would reveal to the players – who are really stupid – how much they have screwed themselves with each CBA they have signed onto since Marvin Miller died.
Easily answered. Either the MLBPA doesn’t want it (Possible, but unlikely.), the owners don’t want it (23 of 30 are needed for that sort of change.), or both.
It is also that mlb itself doesn’t want it because it hurts parity since teams can trade cash for draft picks
Two remarkable things stand out when looking at the overall records in 2017. Three teams won more than 100 games while 18 of the 30 MLB clubs had losing records.
The first fact of 3-100 game winners in the same season occurred for just the sixth time in the history of the game according to MLB.com (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/256794126/astros-third-team-to-win-100-games-in-2017/). I would call this occurrence semi-historic since 5 of those times have come since MLB has adopted a 162 game schedule and after multiple expansions since the early 1960’s. Prior to those events the game featured a 154 game regular season and 16 teams. Currently there are 30 clubs in MLB.
What might be more historic this season is the fact that only 12 of the 30 MLB teams had winning records. That is a 40% ratio with 18 or 60% of the clubs having losing records. With 10 teams now qualifying for the postseason, only two teams with above .500 records were left out, the Brewers and Cardinals. I wonder how often 60% of MLB teams wound up posting a losing record in any particular season regardless of the era? The answer just might be more historic than the occurrence of 3 teams winning 100 or more games.
I noticed that also. All you had to do to make the playoff in the AL this year was play .500. Hopefully, this won’t be the trend.
If teams think a 60-102 record helps “their situation” more than a 74-88 record, it probably will.
The downside of rebuilding.
There are always the same number of wins in a baseball season (2,430, barring games being cancelled). Unless the bad teams are all equally bad, there should still emerge some teams who end up surprisingly good on the record-sheet.
This is more like the parity of the NBA or NFL, though, whose drafts work significantly differently.
There were 10 losing teams out of 16 in 1954
You can thank the Cubs and Astros success to doing a “rebuild” why this trend will probably be happening more and more.
Really wish Sandoval hadn’t hit that walk off today.
Stupid Sandoval. If this either 1. Puts him in contention for a roster spot next year (doesn’t deserve) or 2. Makes our draft much worse, then I’m going to be really really mad.
Short of a stand out like Harper, the difference between a 1 and 2 is negligible. Posey was taken 5th, Bumgarner 10th, and the O’s picking 3rd after Harper went 1st, picked Macahado. Plenty of busts went #1 as well..
Actually, the combined WAR of the last 30 #1 overall picks is much greater than that of the last 30 #2 overall picks. And there is also a pretty big dropoff from #2 to #3. And even if the draft were a complete crapshoot the team that picks first would still be at an advantage by virtue of having a bigger cash pool with which to sign their draftees.
A: Yes, but that WAR is primarily delivered via a fewer number of players. If you look at the number of players drafted first with a WAR average of 2.0/season or higher, and the number drafted second, the 2nd pick is actually more frequently where good players are found.
Also, the cash difference is nowhere near as big as it used to be.
Wait. So you are saying that the 2nd pick is better than the 1st pick based on some arbitrary WAR threshold? The absolute DELUSION hahaha!
And as for the cash difference, it doesn’t matter how much bigger it is. It’s still bigger. That easily helps a team more than a few meaningless wins.
I mean, you can never find good players outside of #1.
Buster Posey totally wasn’t taken as the fifth pick….
^ Doesn’t realize that picking first in 2008 wouldn’t have barred the Giants from taking Posey
Of course they could have taken him #1.
Point is, they got him at #5. Meaning good players exist beyond the #1 pick. I’d rather the Giants win games than lose for the sake of a spot higher in the draft.
Why? Extra wins in a losing season don’t help a team at all. Higher draft picks do.
Unless someone can prove that winning more games this year somehow will cause a team to win more games in the future, higher draft picks will remain more important than extra wins in a lost season.
Totally agree!
I mean, I cant even tell you how many times I have been at the stadium in Seattle and heard this conversation going on in the stands
Fan #1 – “man, really wish our team could have drafted a guy like Strasburg, we need him so bad”
Fan #2 – “dude, come on! Don’t you remember how totally sweat it was to sweep the A’s to end the 2008 season? So worth missing out on drafting Stephen”
Fan #1 – “not sure if I do remember that series, I was kind of young. But you’re right., that does sound pretty cool. And I bet we probably got someone just as good with the number 2 slot, right?”
Fan #2 – “those 3 wins were so worth it”
I saw a post that someone on Mccoveychronicles shared from NBC talking about how Yuniesky Betancourt cost the Mariners Strasburg by going ham in that last series against the A’s after sucking for all of the season before the A’s series. Implying that Sandoval’s walk-off homer might end up being just like that. Obviously there is no consensus top talent in the 2018 draft YET, but we’ll just see what happens.
Didn’t know that about Yuni. M’s fans must despise the guy, lol.
But do remember the pitiful, 100+ loss Mariners all of a sudden inexplicably winning like 4 of 5 to end the year while the Nats tanked the last 10 or so in spectacular fashion to sneak in and grab the coveted pick. A horrific Seattle team literally threw away an ace just to win an extra game or two almost no one remembers today (well, other than what they meant to the teams future), while the Nats seemingly did everything they could to grab the desirable spot.
And yeah, who knows how this years situation will play out. But to gain merely one silly win by a horrendous team, the risk is pretty big. I wouldn’t be happy about it, that’s for sure
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point. But I think when you’re talking about drafting talent they take the best player. Not the best player in a position they might need in the future. The theory is that you could always trade that player for what you need later.
Intentionally losing for the sake of a draft pick is stealing, in my opinion.
You have thousands of fans who have likely made their first ever, and perhaps only ever trip to AT&T Park. They spent good money to be there, and the team losing intentionally spoils the atmosphere and steals money from the wallets of fans hoping to see a win.
I get the arguments in favor of losing for the sake of the higher draft pick. But teams that do that should be responsible to give back the money for fans who had tickets. They deserve to see the best a team can give any night.
Lol. No one said the team was going to win just because you paid for your ticket. Don’t like it? Don’t go. There is no place in baseball for stupid moral victories.
Harper and Strasburg were on every team’s radar long before the draft order was established. No one of that caliber is going to suddenly emerge between now and the draft, especially with kids not playing much baseball between now and then. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or even a far lower pick may be the one that brings in a Mike Trout Giancarlo Stanton, or Manny Machado like player. None of them went either 1 or 2,
Obviously you didn’t see my earlier comment.
“Unless someone can prove that winning more games this year somehow will cause a team to win more games in the future, higher draft picks will remain more important than extra wins in a lost season.”
So tell us, how do a few extra wins in a season where they aren’t contending help a team in any way, shape or form?
Picking 3rd in 2006 didn’t hurt the Rays with the Longoria pick.Winning fewer games and getting better picks didn’t help the Royals and Rox when they took Luke Hochevar and Greg Reynolds. Winning more games than 6 other teams didn’t hurt the Dodgers that same year when they took Kershaw with the 7th pick. You’re treating the ranked picks as absolutes. They aren;t. This isn’t the NFL or NBA, where teams are drafting more of a finished product.
” didn’t help the Royals and Rox when they took Luke Hochevar and Greg Reynolds. ”
Stupid is as stupid does.
Only Forest thinks it’s a “crap shoot”.
So tell us. What was stopping the Royals from drafting Kershaw at #1 that year? And what was stopping the Rockies from drafting Evan Longoria at #2?
The answer: nothing. The players don’t have a set order they have to be picked in. They could have taken Kershaw but just didn’t. Just because the Royals and Rockies didn’t use their picks well doesn’t mean the Rays and Dodgers were somehow better off drafting 3rd and 6th.
The facts indicate that over the last 30 years, the #1 overall pick averages the most WAR, followed by #2 and so on. The curve slopes downward. Even if the advantage is marginal it’s still an advantage and easily worth more than a few meaningless wins.
None of them are going to play much baseball between now and then?
You realize there will be an entire high school season and college regular season before the draft? Literally the entire draft will be determined by them.
“There is no place in baseball for stupid moral victories.”
I guess this is easier for a Padres fan to write than other teams, as you’re accustomed to getting those higher picks.
In all seriousness, please. Tell me with honestly that if you shelled out $200+ on tickets, concessions, and parking that if you found out the team intentionally lost that you wouldn’t be irate?
Teams have an obligation to the fans to try and win. End of story.
And seriously, what was Sandoval supposed to do? Not make contact with the ball?
Funny how people are outraged by players who “cheat” by using PEDs to try and win, but totally encourage players to cheat by tanking it just to get a better draft pick.
Here’s another example of the ridiculousness of all this:
Let’s say your favorite restaurant has a chance at getting a billionaire’s investment. But the investor says, “you’re a great restaurant. I’m just not sure what I’d do to help. There’s not much for me to fix.”
Would you be okay if for, say, three months, they served you horrible food, treated you with terrible customer service, and was all-around a bad experience?
This is no different than teams who lose intentionally. Yes, there may be benefits to it. But you have paying fans who expected to get the best they can get. Giving anything short of that is theft.
No. I’d just be happy to be at the game
Yes, that is EXACTLY what he was supposed to do.
In order for your analogy to work the Padres would have to actually be a good team. They’re not. There’s little incentive for good teams to tank because one win could be the difference between making the playoffs and not making it or it could affect their home field advantage. That is worth more than drafting a spot or two higher, but for the Padres, an extra win or two doesn’t do anything.
You’d be happy to shell out $200+ for a game they lose?
Either you’re displaying a serious facade or you’d be in the minority. I’d venture out of 30,000, over 28,000 want to see a win when they buy tickets.
Heck, I was just talking to a Royals fan who was mad they lost yesterday. The game meant nothing in the long run, but it meant something to fans. That’s ALL that matters. The average fans don’t care about the difference between the #1 and #2 draft pick.
Tickets don’t cost $200 bucko! And I’d prefer to see a win when I show up to the stadium but ultimately I’m just happy to be there.
It’s only the casual fan that cares about a few extra wins in a lost season. Those of us who actually understand how things work are okay with losing those games if it’s for the greater good.
I swear, there is nothing worse than a casual fan thinking they know baseball.
My dad and I went to one game in KC. Between parking, tickets, and concessions, we spent $200+ between the two of us.
And you’re right, it is the casual fan who cares. It’s also the casual fan that predominantly buys tickets, and merchandise, and concessions, and pays to park in team-owned lots. The Fangraphs stat-heads are in the extreme minority in any ballpark in America.
I completely understand the greater good. As in my restaurant analogy, there can be benefits to being terrible. But at what risk? Trust me, very, very few of the folks sitting at AT&T Park yesterday cared that they get the 2nd pick because Sandoval hit a walk off home run.
Losing intentionally is unethical and should be considered theft. To give a lesser quality experience to paying customers for some long-term gains would be something we’d frown upon in any industry in the world. It should be considered cheating.
I can get to and from a game and get in the stadium for less than $40 if I want to. Concessions are a luxury.
Trying to appeal to the casual fan does not result in making smart baseball decisions. You restaurant analogy suggested being terrible when you were already good. The Padres are not already good. They were stuck in the middle for over a decade. They tried to force their way to the top by gutting the farm two years ago. It didn’t work.
Were you saying the same thing about losing on purpose when the Cubs and Astros were doing it? If not then you are a hypocrite. I don’t even know if I would characterize what the Padres are doing as “intentionally trying to lose.” It’s more “Extreme prioritizing of potential long term gains over wins now.”
There’s a big difference between rebuilding and intentionally throwing games, and you know it. The Cubs were vocal about their rebuild and fans still bought tickets.
This is all that matters:
The casual fan provides the opportunity for the owners to operate their business. You might not care about concessions and might be as cheap as humanly possible, but the family who visits a ballpark on vacation, spends good money on seats and food, they care. And if teams intentionally lose, they steal the money (whether it’s $40 or $4,000) from their customers. They aren’t giving you the product you paid to see: an honest, well-played baseball game. Anyone who thinks this isn’t stealing is a schmuck. Plain and simple.
Intentionally throwing baseball games is one of the worst things a team can do. And the moment we assign some sort of nobility to it, we open the door to a world where anything goes.
It’s cheating. It’s stealing. And it’s massively unethical. We don’t support it in any other industry, and we shouldn’t tolerate it in baseball.
Yes and the Padres are just as vocal about their rebuild. Cubs and Astros fans in the early 2010s also paid to see an honest, well-played baseball game and didn’t get the product they paid to see. How is what the Padres are doing any different from what the Cubs and Astros were doing 5 years ago?
Just for my understanding, can you point me to what I said that makes this seem like I’m calling out the Padres for any of this? The only thing I can find is where I jovially pointed out how funny it is that a Padres fan says there’s no such thing as moral victories.
None of this has been about the Padres.
And as for the point at hand, the difference is this: the fans knew in advance what was going to happen.
One more example. If you go to Six Flags, and their best five rides are broke down for the day, wouldn’t you want them to let you know before buying tickets? If they let you know, or even offer you a discount, then you can’t call them dishonest and they haven’t stolen from you.
If they don’t make any mention of it, and they charge you full price, you’d be irate. You paid full price to get a less than full experience and they wouldn’t inform you prior.
If the Giants would have told Sandoval to not hit a walk-off home run last night, it would have been unethical. Plain and simple.
There is no difference. Padres fans (those who pay attention at least) know the team isn’t going to be good until 2020, best case scenario.
And since I understand what’s going on, the only time I care if we win is if I’m physically at the game or we are playing a team I want to see lose (Rockies, Cubs, Dodgers). Regular season record is only a means of determining who makes the playoffs and who plays who in the playoffs.
“Just because the Royals and Rockies didn’t use their picks well doesn’t mean the Rays and Dodgers were somehow better off…”
Strawman. I never said that the Rays and Dodgers were better off. Don’t be stupid. Obviously no one one knows for sure who is going to develop and who isn’t. It’s about unknown quantities. Your argument is based on hindsight.
No, my argument is based on the fact that statistically, the average WAR of a #1 overall pick is greater than that of a #2 overall pick which is greater than that of a #3 overall pick and so on.
And please, the anti-high-draft-pick crowd are all about strawmanning. Like, they hoot and holler about how the #1 overall pick isn’t guaranteed to be a Hall of Famer or even an All Star. No one said it was, but it is statistically more likely than any other pick.
And you still fail to address the issue that the #1 overall pick comes with the bigger slot value. THAT, it is impossible to argue does not put the team with the highest pick at a distinct advantage.
Lol after all that hoopla about the Padres tanking last Spring, they manage to have a better record than 6 (that’s 21%) of the other teams in MLB. And 3 of those 6 teams were supposed to be good this year. I expect to see just as much outrage over the Tigers trading away their best players and going 6-24 over the last month to get that #1 overall pick.
Fulmer’s injury didn’t help.
Are you happy? The Braves once again get to draft after the Padres. I hope those one or two meaningless wins were worth it 🙂
Once again you show how little you understand about baseball.. You advocate for intentional tanking so teams can possibly move up a spot or two in the draft order. You seem to think the MLB draft is similar to the NBA or NFL where there are consensus choices for the first few picks. Choose any expert on the MLB draft and I bet their choices for the first 5 picks will be different than any other expert. I bet you the Padres will receive more actual MLB contributions from all of the money they spent on international talent last year than they will receive from all of the high draft picks they will/have received from the current rebuild.
You ask RunDMC if he is happy because the Braves will once again choose after the Padres.. I will ask you, do you think RunDMC prefers to have Kevin Maitan or would he prefer they had the #1 pick in 2016 Mickey Moniak?
Son, I’ve forgotten more about baseball than you will ever know.
I never said the MLB draft was like the NBA or NFL draft. It doesn’t have to be. A few extra wins don’t help a team at all if they don’t make the playoffs. But having higher priority in the draft and a bigger bonus pool DOES help them. We will see who does and doesn’t contribute to the Padres but it would behoove them (or any rebuilding team) to add as much talent as possible in every way possible.
Maitan wasn’t taken in the 2016 draft. He was an international signee. So your last question makes no sense.
All the best.
Mediocrity is the life as an Angels fan
You got Jordan Adell.
If I were picking for the Phillies that wouldn’t have happened.
It’s only a “crap shoot” if you’re incompetent.
Sorry, but it is a crap shoot. If it wasn’t every team wouldn’t have made a bad pick here and there, but they have. It’s a crap shoot because teams are trying to project what some kid is going to develop into in anywhere from 2 to 5-6 years. Until teams can see into the future with 100% clarity it will continue to be a crap shoot.
The facts don’t lie and the facts say that the last 30 #1 overall picks have more combined WAR than any other pick by a large margin. And #2 is in second place, once again by a large margin. Each pick is more likely to succeed than the one below it, but the dropoff from one pick to the next gets smaller the lower you go. There are outliers, sure, but the curve is clearly downward sloping.
You’re still going to have years like 2008 when Tim Beckham, and Pedro Alvarez,went 1 and 2, Hosmer was a good pick at #3, but then you have Brian Matusz at 4 before Buster Posey at 5. Then 2007 where David Price goes #1, but then the next 8 teams pass on Bumgarner. The only players of note in those 8 picks were Mostakas and Wieters. There were 64 picks in the 2007 1st round and almost all are misses, the only exceptions being Heyward, Todd Frazier, Rick Porcello, and Josh Donaldson.
It might all balance out to give the dropoff in WAR with each pick you cite, but over 50 total misses in the 2007 1st round tells me it’s still a crap shoot.
“every team wouldn’t have made a bad pick here and there”
If “here and there” were the equivalent of a crap shoot then playing craps would be a safe way to make money.
“It might all balance out to give the dropoff in WAR with each pick ”
But you’re not easily persuaded by evidence.
Sure, there are guys here and there who had better careers than guys taken before them, but over the course of many many years, the higher the pick, the better the player, on average.
And even if it were a complete crapshoot where the #1 pick was as likely to succeed as the #22 pick, the #1 pick would still be more valuable because of the bigger bonus pool.
It isn’t a crapshoot. If it were a crapshoot, a hockey enforcer that had never played baseball before would end up as the best player in the draft on occasion.
It’s an inexact science, like weather forecasting.
A scout can discern talent. However, he can’t tell which player is going to wrck his knee chasing down a fly ball in Burlington Iowa in two years. He can’t tell which guy won’t be able to master hitting a MLB-calibre slider, following an inner-half 96 to back him off the plate.
If the league average is hitting 34 percent on a specific draft pick, beating the draft is hitting 52 percent on that pick.
Misses will happen. Limiting said misses helps develop a team.
“If “here and there” were the equivalent of a crap shoot then playing craps would be a safe way to make money.”
Semantics. Okay. Every team makes bad picks on a regular basis. Happy?
Amazing display of tanking by the Tigers for 6 straight weeks culminating in Romine’s #NineForRomine (which they won a “must lose” game… perhaps the extra motivation backfired and caused them to win), and finally Kinsler managing game 162, while Ausmus just sat there.
Not sure if there will be any investigating… but what the Tigers did was “thinly veiled” losing on purpose.
Will the Tigers sign a lesser player to save money for future rounds, where they can overpay?
The bonus pool money is just as important as the pick itself. If they can overpay a 2nd or 3rd rounder, they might be able to sign a player that would have gone to college.
They may want to leverage that that some top prospect would be willing to take less money to be the #1 overall pick… just for the prestige.
Never understood that strategy. I’ve always thought you should just take the best player available.
You have to look at the draft as a whole. If the best player available is only marginally better than the next best who will sign for less you end up having a better draft overall. I think there are certain years where it makes way more sense than others
If the difference is marginal then sure. But when you see a guy go 20 picks above where he was expected to go because he’ll sign on the cheap my thought process as a fan of that team would be “This better freaking work.”