MLBTR Originals

By edcreech | June 22, 2014 at 7:36pm CDT

A look back at the original reporting and analysis found on MLBTR this past week:

Tim Dierkes revised MLBTR’s 2015 Free Agent Power Rankings and Hanley Ramirez has regained the top spot over Max Scherzer. There are also five new players in this month’s edition (Nelson Cruz, Victor Martinez, Mike Morse, Asdrubal Cabrera, and Russell Martin).
Charlie Wilmoth outlined several possible reforms to the Super Two designation (untethering free agency and arbitration eligibility from service time, allowing an arbitrator to determine a prospect’s MLB readiness, eliminating the Super Two and redistributing those salaries, and prorating first-year arbitration salaries), but opines a few cases every season like the Pirates’ Gregory Polanco do not justify sweeping changes to the existing system.
Jeff Todd examined the Jon Singleton extension and noted the ground-breaking contract should have relatively minimal impact on players who have the means and desire to bear the inherent risk of transitioning from top prospect to an established Major Leaguer.
Tim was the first to report the details of the 2015 vesting option for White Sox lefty reliever Scott Downs: 55 appearances and not ending the season on the disabled list.
Speaking of vesting options, Steve Adams is tracking the progress players with a 2015 vesting option are making toward exercising those options.
MLBTR was the first to learn right-hander Dustin Moseley, who has hasn’t pitched since 2012 because of a shoulder injury, will throw a full bullpen session for interested teams on Tuesday.
Zach Links revisited the notable transactions which have occurred on June 19th.
Steve hosted this week’s live chat.

Should The Super Two Designation Be Changed?

By charliewilmoth | June 21, 2014 at 4:51pm CDT

The Pirates’ decision to wait until June 10 to promote top outfield prospect Gregory Polanco set off a new round of debate, both in Pittsburgh and nationally, about the Super Two designation in particular and top prospect promotion timelines in general. The Pirates have said that their decision to wait to promote Polanco was due to developmental reasons, but whatever their motivations, the current system incentivizes waiting to promote top prospects even if they seem to be ready for the big leagues. That’s unfortunate, and MLB perhaps ought to consider reforming the Super Two designation. It’s probably impossible, however, to completely disincentivize manipulation of players’ promotion dates.

Overview

Teams must consider two thresholds when promoting a top prospect. A player is eligible for an extra arbitration season as a Super Two player if he has between 2.086 and three years of service time and he ranks in the top 22 percent in service time among players with between two and three years. The 22 percent clause means that the Super Two threshold is a moving target, but teams can usually feel safe about promoting a player in early to mid-June with the idea that he won’t be a Super Two player three offseasons later. A Super Two player can be eligible for arbitration four times rather than three, which means that a Super Two star player can make millions more in his arbitration seasons than a similar player who does not have that designation.

Teams must also consider a player’s free agency threshold. A player becomes eligible for free agency after six full years of service time, which means teams must consider a separate date in mid-April before which a player can become a free agent a year early.

We’ll leave aside, for now, the question of whether it’s wise for teams to delay promotion of top prospects in order to avoid Super Two status or free agency, and simply observe that the current system provides them at least some incentive to do so. The Pirates promoted Polanco on June 11, after months of criticism from analysts and fans who watched Polanco post great numbers at Triple-A while Jose Tabata and Travis Snider struggled in right field for the Pirates. (Josh Harrison handled the position for about a month before Polanco arrived and played much better.) Major League Baseball received some criticism, too, for creating the rules that made the Pirates’ decision rational (or arguably rational. Few commentators offered viable alternatives to the Super Two system, however, with Baseball Prospectus’ R.J. Anderson (subscription-only) being among the few to make a strong attempt.

If the Pirates held Polanco in the minors for two months longer than they would have without the Super Two system in place, that’s not nearly the tragedy many fans and commentators made it out to be. ESPN’s Dan Szymborski, the creator of the ZiPS projection system, tells MLBTR that based on information available in mid-April, promoting Polanco on June 10 rather than April 15 projected to cost the Pirates about one win. (And the Pirates might well have waited to promote Polanco even without the Super Two rule, given their longstanding record of allowing players time to develop in Triple-A before promoting them.) That’s unfortunate for the Pirates and their fans, but it’s hardly a travesty. A few cases like Polanco’s each year likely do not justify sweeping changes to the existing system.

Many large-scale rules involve thresholds that can be less than ideal on the micro level while producing good results on the macro level. For example, it isn’t ideal, or fair, for an irresponsible 16-year-old to be legally allowed to drive (if he or she can pass a driving test), while a responsible 15-year-old with excellent hand-eye coordination cannot. But the 15-year-old will soon be 16, and so that unfairness will soon be rectified. Meanwhile, the existence of a threshold that permits small-scale unfairness keeps the rules simple and helps prevent charges of arbitrariness.

Preventing teams from manipulating players’ service time is not a simple matter. As long as arbitration eligibility and/or free agency eligibility are tied to service time, and as long as teams control when their players’ service time clocks begin, teams will be able to use players’ promotion dates to manipulate their salaries and/or years of control.

So, for example, even if MLB were to eliminate the Super Two designation while maintaining current rules regarding free agency eligibility, teams could delay the promotion of top prospects who appeared to be ready in August or September and wait instead to promote them in mid-April. We would see fewer mid-June promotions for top prospects, but we would also see fewer mid-August promotions and more mid-April promotions, and the criticism of MLB’s rules would simply take place in August and September rather than April or May. If the goal is to prevent teams from delaying the promotion of top prospects who appear to be ready, simply changing the thresholds of arbitration or free agency eligibility will not work.

Untethering Free Agency, Arbitration Eligibility From Service Time

One solution to eliminate thresholds that can prevent teams from promoting players when they’re ready might be to untether free agency eligibility and arbitration eligibility from MLB service time. If a team were not worried about the number of years it could control a player, or about his salary during his arbitration seasons, it would be free to promote him whenever it deemed him ready.

This would, however, be a radical change with far-reaching consequences. With enormous payroll disparities between teams, MLB depends heavily on young players’ cost-controlled salaries to maintain competitive balance. Without cost control, it would be nearly impossible for smaller-payroll teams like the Athletics, Rays and Pirates to compete. The current rules regarding free agency and arbitration eligibility are the mechanism that allows player salaries to remain cost controlled. So if MLB and the players’ union were to agree to untether free agency and arbitration eligibility from service time, they would need some other mechanism to allow cost control.

One possibility would be to base free agency and arbitration eligibility not on service time, but on when a player was drafted or signed as an amateur, similar to the way Rule 5 Draft eligibility is determined. A player’s eligibility for the Rule 5 Draft in a given year depends upon his age on the June 5 before he signs and the number of Rule 5 Drafts that have passed since then. A similar system could be devised to determine free agency and arbitration eligibility. For example, a player under 19 by the June 5 before he signs might become eligible for arbitration after nine full years and eligible for free agency after 12 full years. A player who is at least 19 by the June 5 before he signs might become arbitration-eligible after eight full years and eligible for free agency after 11 years. (Players posted from Japan would continue to be exempt from these rules.) This system would enable the Pirates, for example, to promote Polanco whenever they deemed him ready, without concern for arbitration or free agency timelines.

Unfortunately, this rule would produce plenty of unintended consequences, and the cure would likely be worse than the disease. This system would be tremendously unfair to players who move quickly through the minors.

For example, the Expos drafted Chad Cordero in 2003 with the idea that he could make it to the big leagues quickly. He did exactly that and was a successful closer for several years before succumbing to injury. Because he was eligible for arbitration after his third full season, he was able to make over $11MM in his career, a total that seems reasonable, given the quality of his pitching. Under a system that connected arbitration eligibility to signing date rather than service time, he likely would have made only about a third that much, since he would have been close to the MLB minimum for his entire career. Meanwhile, a player who struggled in the minors and arrived in the big leagues after many years in Triple-A might become arbitration eligible after just one or two years. Also, such a system would dramatically limit the long-term earning capabilities of top players like Mike Trout who reach the Majors at young ages.

Allowing Neutral Parties To Determine Readiness

Another possibility might be to maintain the basic outline of the current arbitration and free agency timelines but to allow arbitrators to determine when those timelines might begin. So, for example, an arbitrator might have ruled that Polanco was ready May 1, forcing the Pirates to begin his big-league service clock then even if they did not promote him. Clearly, though, this is perverse and heavy-handed, putting the determination of the player’s readiness in the hands of an outside party who would have had far less information about the player’s development than his team did. Such a system would surely also create even more complaints of unfairness than the current one.

The problem here, of course, is the existence of thresholds. When there are thresholds that determine how long a team controls a player and how much they’ll have to pay him, there will be incentives to manipulate those thresholds. One of those thresholds, the one that determines free agency eligibility, probably isn’t going anywhere, since it helps prevent star players from becoming free agents while seasons are in progress. (That is, there could be a system in which a player who is promoted for the first time in August also could become a free agent in August six years later. But that would be chaotic, and the current threshold of six-plus years before free agency eligibility helps prevent that.)

The free agency threshold is probably here to stay, and as long as there’s a threshold, there will be occasional cases like Polanco’s where teams delay promotions of top prospects even when they’re dominating at Triple-A. It’s unfair on the small scale, but reasonable on the larger scale, and that might be as much as MLB can do.

Eliminating The Super Two, Redistributing Super Two Salaries

There are, however, some more modest reforms that MLB might consider to change the Super Two threshold, leaving teams with only one threshold to consider, rather than two. One possibility might be to eliminate the Super Two completely, as Pirates president Frank Coonelly recently suggested in an interview with USA Today’s Bob Nightengale.

The players’ union would, of course, be reluctant to make such a change, given that the existence of Super Two status means more money for them. But MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes suggests that MLB could, instead, calculate the approximate percentage of overall player income Super Two status typically produces and redistribute it as a modest, across-the-board raise for players making the MLB minimum salary. (Dierkes points out, however, that it’s possible the union would still dislike the idea, given that Super Two arbitration salaries for players like David Price help set arbitration salaries for other players.)

Prorating First Year Arbitration Salaries

MLBTR’s Jeff Todd suggests making all players with between two and three years of service time Super Two players, but prorating their first year of arbitration salary based on their service time. So a player with two years and 50 days of service time would receive an arbitration-year salary prorated for those 50 days of MLB service (combined with an MLB minimum salary prorated for the rest of the year), whereas a player with two years and 100 days would receive an arbitration-year salary prorated for 100 days. Players with three or more years of service time would then go through arbitration as they do now.

Either of the last two proposals would effectively eliminate the Super Two threshold. The free agent threshold probably can’t be eliminated, and its existence should continue to provide teams with incentive to manipulate players’ service time. But at least there would only be one threshold, rather than two. Also, either proposal to change the Super Two would eliminate the uncertainty involved in Super Two status, given that there’s currently no way for teams interested in promoting a player to know where exactly the Super Two threshold will fall two and a half years later.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

Contextualizing The Jon Singleton Extension

By Jeff Todd | June 17, 2014 at 1:19am CDT

Eyebrows were raised recently when the Astros agreed to an extension with first base prospect Jon Singleton that was reported simultaneously with his first promotion to the big leagues. Extensions have broken new ground in different ways of late, and this deal represented a heretofore unseen foray into long-term guarantees for young players who are completely untested at the MLB level. Let’s take a look …

Framing the Contract

The deal pays Singleton $1.5MM for this season and $2MM annually from 2015 to 2018. It also includes three club option years over 2019-2021, progressing as follows: $2.5MM ($500K buyout), $5MM ($250K buyout), $13MM ($250K buyout). Singleton is assured of earning $10MM for the next five years, would earn up to $30.5MM in base salary if the options are exercised, and could max out the deal with an additional $5MM in incentives.

Since Singleton had zero days of MLB service at the point the contract was agreed upon and was highly unlikely to reach Super Two status, the standard means of describing the contract would be as follows: it pays him an above-minimum MLB salary for his partial first season, guarantees his three pre-arbitration and first arb-eligible campaign, and gives the club options over his final two years of arbitration and first year of free agent eligibility.

But the notion that the deal gives the Astros control over Singleton through to his first free agent year is heavily dependent on a key assumption — namely, that Singleton will stay in the big leagues over the life of the deal. In actuality, it is far from a certainty that Singleton’s play (and/or the team’s impossible-to-predict circumstances) will actually warrant his continued presence on the team’s active roster through to 2021.

Testing the Criticism

Of course, it remains obvious that Singleton has cut off a good chunk of the upside he might have realized through arbitration, and has potentially even delayed his entry to the free agent market by a season. That is the major complaint that has been logged against the deal. Defenders, meanwhile, have generally focused on Singleton’s off-field issues, noting that he may have had valid non-pecuniary motivations for signing.

It strikes me, however, that something basic is being overlooked here. Singleton — a $200K bonus signee out of high school — not only got his cash up front, but has completely avoided the downside scenario. And it is not as if the contract is completely without upside. At worst, Singleton is a bust who walks away with $10MM. At best, he is a top-rate big leaguer who earns over $35MM through his age-22 through age-29 seasons and hits the open market as an attractive commodity at the reasonably youthful age of 30. (That is, if he has not already agreed to a new extension in the meantime.)

Likewise, it has largely been overlooked that the contract is significantly front-loaded. Singleton will earn $7.5MM before reaching arbitration eligibility, which is much greater than he’d expect to bring in at the league minimum rate (this year, $500K). That certainly increases its value.

The real issue, I think, relates to that simple, timeless maxim of which Baseball Prospectus is fond of reminding us: prospects will break your heart. Singleton is every bit a prospect, as he entered the year facing questions about his maturity and ability to hit left-handed pitching. He rose to 27th on Baseball America’s top-100 list last year, only to slide to 82nd before this season. He is a first baseman who will need to hit — a lot — to keep his place in the big leagues.

His situation, in other words, is highly variable — perhaps more so than many have acknowledged. Some observers have touched on the implications of this fact. BP’s Zachary Levine tackled the Singleton extension from an economics perspective, applying marginal value concepts and game theory to the deal, explaining how Singleton’s individual value-maximization strategy may not have aligned with that of the collective (i.e., other union members). Likewise, looking at it from a labor perspective, the Economist recently noted that the Astros “acquired all of Mr. Singleton’s upside without taking on any of his downside risk.”

I am not sure I agree with the Economist’s notion that the team has not added downside; if anything, it has done just that, albeit at a manageable level ($10MM and a relatively firm commitment of a roster spot for some time.) To my thinking, the team agreed to take on some risk from Singleton in exchange for some of Singleton’s upside. He can still achieve significant earnings above his guarantee, and Houston could ultimately be enticed to pay more through the options than it would have through arbitration if Singleton has injury or performance questions but still carries enough promise that the team wishes to retain him.

But that still leaves unanswered whether, based on the reasonably possible outcomes that a player in Singleton’s situation might look forward to, the deal represents a fair exchange of risk and upside. To help answer this, I think it worthwhile to look at some actual, real-world scenarios that have played out in the recent past.Read more

Recent Contractual History of Top-100 Corner Infield Prospects

SB Nation’s Grant Brisbee recently looked at first-base prospects in the context of Singleton’s deal, but he was considering whether the players ultimately proved worth receiving a Singleton-type contract. I think it also useful to consider things from the player’s perspective, looking at actual, bottom-line earnings outcomes. Using the actual results for similarly-situated players as a guide, how does Singleton’s deal look by comparison?

Singleton is not a unique bird. By my count, between 2004 and 2009, the Baseball America top-100 prospect list featured no fewer than 58 players who were listed as corner infielders or ultimately ended up at first as big leaguers. I used those date cutoffs to keep salaries relatively recent and to avoid players who have yet to advance far enough for comparison; I included corner infielders to increase the sample because prospect positions are often ephemeral and many players move across the diamond. (Though I use numbers, I do not intend mathematical precision, nor do I think it would be terribly useful in this pursuit.)

To start, 44 of those players have advanced far enough in their careers that it is reasonable to assess whether or not they’d have been better served by accepting a Singleton-esque extension (not that they likely had the chance). By my count, 21 were pure busts — due to some combination of performance issues, injury, and/or lack of opportunity — who never sniffed arbitration, if they made it to the big leagues at all. In other words, roughly half of the players from this sample were essentially zeroed out in terms of earnings.

Brad Nelson, Jason Stokes, Andy Marte, Dallas McPherson, Brian Dopirak, Eric Duncan, Michael Aubrey, Josh Fields, Joel Guzman, Matt Moses, Justin Huber, Bill Rowell, Brandon Wood, Chris Marrero, Angel Villalona, Lars Anderson, Josh Vitters, Beau Mills, Matt LaPorta, Mat Gamel, Brett Wallace

Next, we can look at the six players who did reach arbitration, but were ultimately non-tendered or otherwise disposed of before reaching free agency. I think it is fair to say that at least the last four — and perhaps the first two as well — would have been better served by going the route of Singleton.

Edwin Encarnacion: $7.6MM through two arb years; non-tendered and signed one-year, $2.5MM free agent contract with $3.5MM club option (ultimately exercised)
Casey Kotchman: $7.85MM through three arb years (incl. Super Two); elected free agency after outright and signed MiLB deal, then signed one-year, $3MM deal
Ian Stewart: $4.52MM through two arb years; non-tendered and signed one-year, $2MM free agent contract, then signed MiLB deal; entered age-29 season with 4.088 years of service
Daric Barton: $3.45MM through three arb years; outrighted multiple times; entered age-28 season with 4.030 years of service
Steve Pearce: $1.55MM through two arb years; outrighted multiple times; entered age-31 season with 4.116 years of service
Blake DeWitt: $1.1MM through one year; out of league at age 28

Of course, some players were able to go through arbitration and reach free agency while earning significant amounts of money. Even in these cases, however, it is not always clear that the player would not have been better off with a pre-MLB extension. While some of their ultimate earnings top Singleton’s $10MM guarantee, he could easily out-earn most of the below-listed players if he performs to or above their level, even accounting for salary inflation. (Salary information through player’s first free agent-eligible year.)

Prince Fielder: $33.5MM total arb earnings, then signed nine-figure free agent contract
Chase Headley: $24.9MM total arb earnings; expected to sign multi-year free agent contract
Adam LaRoche: $15.25MM total arb earnings, then signed one-year, $6MM free agent deal with mutual option (ultimately declined)
James Loney: $14.35MM total arb earnings, then signed one-year, $2MM free agent deal
Kendrys Morales: $12.2MM total arb earnings, then signed one-year, ~$7.4MM free agent deal (declined $14.1MM qualifying offer)
Conor Jackson: $9.35MM total arb earnings, then signed MiLB deal

Then there are the extension cases, eight of which came for players who had reached or were nearing arbitration eligibility. Most of these, naturally, turned out to be better for the player than a Singleton scenario — owing to the fact that these players were almost all outstanding major leaguers who warranted huge commitments.

Justin Morneau, David Wright, Ryan Howard, Ryan Zimmerman, Joey Votto, and Freddie Freeman all agreed to extensions that best Singleton’s potential earnings in guaranteed money
Alex Gordon: $2.55MM through two years of arbitration, then signed four-year, $37.5MM extension with $12.5MM player option
Mark Teahen: $5.91MM through two years of arbitration, then signed three-year, $14MM extension

Finally, there were three pre-arb extensions. These, of course, are susceptible of more direct comparison to Singleton’s contract.

Adrian Gonzalez: signed four-year, $9.5MM extension with one club option ($5.5MM) after .862 OPS season; 1.108 years of service at time of signing
Evan Longoria: signed six-year, $17.5MM extension with three club options ($30MM total) after entering year as #2 overall prospect; .006 years of service at time of signing
Ryan Braun: signed eight-year, $45MM extension after 1.004 OPS season; .129 years of service at time of signing

Lessons From Recent Top Prospects

All three of the just-mentioned early extension recipients had significantly more bargaining power than did Singleton: Gonzalez and Braun already had full seasons of big league success under their respective belts (outright excellence, in the case of the latter), while Longoria was considered a truly elite talent and owned a much higher floor as a strong defensive third baseman. The dollar amounts obviously need to be inflated somewhat to compare with Singleton’s contract, though his deal was more front-loaded than those earlier extensions. On the whole, they do not seem out of line with what the young Astro received, given his less-impressive resume and non-existent MLB experience.

Consider: Gonzalez got very little upside in his deal despite already having significant service time under his belt, though he did not sacrifice any seasons of potential free agent eligibility. Longoria clearly got a bigger guarantee and higher earning ceiling, but he was a much surer thing and gave up an extra season of free agency. True, Braun got more money, all of it guaranteed, though he also sacrificed an additional year of control (remember, he signed one season into his career). But, then, he had also already led the league in slugging and hit 34 bombs as a rookie. Ultimately, of course, all three landed nine-figure extensions after providing their worth on the field.

As MLBTR’s Steve Adams has noted (Twitter links), Singleton can still line himself up for a second extension if he performs to expectations — after potentially tripling his guarantee through the club options. And if he doesn’t, like the 21 players listed above who never made it, then at least he will have much more to show for his decades of hard work and development than they did.

In the aggregate, the examples given above show precisely why the deal makes much more sense for Singleton than it’s been given credit for. To my eyes, around 30 of the 44 players listed above would have been better off with a deal of the sort that Singleton reached. For many of those — namely, certain of the 21 busts — the deal might have made the difference in getting a real shot at the big leagues, to say nothing of earning the kind of money that they never saw at all (except, at least, for those who signed for big amateur bonuses).

Indeed, a handful of the remainder probably would have ended up approximately neutral, even after establishing themselves as regular big leaguers (this includes Gonzalez and Longoria along with guys like LaRoche, Loney, and Morales, each of whom signed short-term deals in their first seasons of free agent eligibility). Even some of those who landed significant extensions (e.g. Zimmerman, Gordon) had to give up additional free agent years to get a guarantee exceeding what Singleton can earn. And those players all took on immense performance and injury risk for several seasons before they got their first multi-million-dollar contracts.

Recent Top Prospects Still in Process

As mentioned above, there were 58 top-100 Baseball America prospects who were listed at the corner infield or ultimately ended up at first base between 2004-2009. Only 44 of those are covered above. What of the remaining 14?

While it is too early to assess with finality how these players fared as against a Singleton scenario — that is precisely why they were not included above — we can try to handicap things somewhat. Of course, the impossibility of predicting these things is demonstrated by the fact that many of the once-promising players listed above ultimately flamed out.

Several players appear to be on a trajectory such that they probably would not take a Singleton deal retroactively — though most still have a fair way to go: Chris Davis ($13.65MM; two arbitration years), Pedro Alvarez ($4.25MM; one year), Eric Hosmer ($3.6MM; one year; Super Two), and Brett Lawrie (yet to qualify for arb; 24 years old)
Others are too close to call: Justin Smoak ($2.64MM; one year); Matt Dominguez (yet to qualify for arb; 24 years old; reportedly declined five-year, $14.5MM extension offer)
Still others seem situated such that, if they could, they might well take such a deal with the benefit of hindsight: Kyle Blanks ($1.59MM through two years of arbitration); Logan Morrison ($1.75MM; one year), Chris Parmelee (yet to qualify for arb; 26 years old), Mike Moustakas (yet to qualify for arb; 25 years old), Yonder Alonso (yet to qualify for arb; 27 years old), Jesus Montero (yet to qualify for arb; 24 years old)

The point here is that these results largely mirror those discussed already. There are two other players from the group of 58 that I have yet to discuss, and I think they provide an interesting additional outcome cluster that must also be considered:

Todd Frazier: first made BA top 100 in age-23 season; yet to qualify for arb at 28 years old; 2.071 years of service entering 2014
Chris Carter: first made BA top 100 in age-22 season; yet to qualify for arb at 27 years old; 1.159 years of service entering 2014

Frazier and Carter are both likely to qualify for arbitration for the first time next season, the latter by way of Super Two. We don’t yet know what they will earn, but we do know that the earliest they can reach sufficient service time for free agency would be in advance of their age-32 seasons.

It is important to understand this other type of downside scenario. Frazier, in particular, has been an above-average MLB performer ever since he came up for good in his age-26 season, and could well have done so earlier had he been put on a more aggressive promotion timetable rather than waiting for the end of Scott Rolen’s career. While it surely would have been difficult for the Astros to withstand pressure to treat Singleton in a similar manner, it is conceivable that Singleton could have been held up at Triple-A. It is a counter-factual scenario now, but Houston was rumored to be in the market for a first baseman over the winter (Jose Abreu and Loney were both mentioned) and could conceivably have added another younger player by trade this year.

As things stand for Singleton, the fact that the team is now committed likely means that he will have every chance to stick on the big league roster. That not only means that he should have the opportunity to maximize the achievable value in his deal, but also that he will be more likely to accrue sufficient service time to reach the open market when he is first eligible. And that, in turn, would increase his leverage for a second extension, maximize his future open-market value, and reduce his risk going forward.

Market Effects

In the final analysis, the notion that Singleton agreed to a “team-friendly” deal, or simply sold out in a situation of poor leverage, seems driven (as Levine suggests) by concern that deals of this nature prevent top-level salary growth. But the strategies pursued by Singleton and the Astros are not binding on other actors any more than were those of Gonzalez and the Padres or Longoria and the Rays.

It is worth emphasizing, too, that there are other recent developments that set down new guideposts for the overall player market. Freeman signed a massive deal with the Braves that seemed to portend enhanced leverage for established, high-end, early-career extension candidates. Miguel Cabrera inked a record-setting later-career extension with the Tigers two years in advance of free agency. And Fielder earned gobs of money through arbitration before inking a $214MM deal with Detroit, showing that the classic model of player wealth accumulation still holds force.

If anything, perhaps, the Singleton extension really marks the latest instance of a general trend away from formulaic contractual models. His deal opens new doors, especially, for players who did not have the opportunity to capture downside protection at their point of entry into the professional ranks, at which time they immediately become subject to the limitations of the reserve clause (as expressed in the collectively bargained Basic Agreement). There are potentially other, yet more creative options as well, such as private insurance (assuming it could be had by a prospect at a reasonable rate) or even public investment. But all players and teams will not pursue such a path; indeed, several of Singleton’s teammates (and others) have declined the opportunity, while some (if not most) clubs will remain largely uninterested in making such early commitments.

History teaches us that, even at his relatively exalted place in the eyes of the game as a top-100 prospect, Singleton was not assured of cashing in on his talent until he decided to forego the chance of becoming the next Fielder. That he chose to do so should have relatively minimal impact on those other players who have the means and desire to bear the inherent risk of transitioning from top prospect to established major league player.

MLBTR Originals

By edcreech | June 15, 2014 at 6:10pm CDT

A look back at the original reporting and analysis found on MLBTR the last seven days:

Steve Adams, in the latest Free Agent Stock Watch, is bullish about the prospects of Adam LaRoche envisioning a two-year deal worth $10MM+ annually for the Nationals first baseman.
Zach Links was the first to report Jason Kubel cleared waivers and will refuse his outright assignment by Twins, which will likely result in his release.
Steve hosted the MLBTR live chat this week.
Zach gathered the best the baseball corner of the web had to offer in Baseball Blogs Weigh In.

Free Agent Stock Watch: Adam LaRoche

By Steve Adams | June 10, 2014 at 9:34am CDT

Consistency hasn’t exactly been Adam LaRoche’s calling card over the past several years, but he’s timing one of his better seasons well, as he faces the strong likelihood of hitting the open market this offseason. LaRoche’s two-year deal with the Nationals contains a $15MM mutual option ($2MM buyout), but teams and players almost never agree to exercise both ends of a mutual option.

Typically, if a team exercises their half of the option, it’s because the player has had a strong season, leading the player to reject in search of more money on the open market. If the player exercises his half, it’s typically due to injury or poor performance, causing the team to reject. In LaRoche’s case, team dynamics come into play as well; Washington likely needs to open up first base for Ryan Zimmerman, whose persistent shoulder problems no longer allow him to handle third base.

As such, LaRoche seems likely to hit the open market, and he’s quietly on pace to do so as one of the most productive bats on the upcoming class. LaRoche is hitting .306/.417/.513 with eight homers, nine doubles and a 33-to-31 K/BB ratio in 192 plate appearances this season. Both his 16.1 percent walk rate and 17.2 percent strikeout rate are career-bests. He did miss 15 games with a quad injury earlier this year, though for now that looks to be behind him.

Ultimate Zone Rating has dinged him for his defense thus far, but Defensive Runs Saved feels that he’s on his way to his fifth straight season of plus defensive value. LaRoche has long had some problems with left-handed pitching, but he’s holding his own to this point with a .381 OBP against southpaws, and platoon problems certainly don’t bar some players from being paid.

LaRoche is set to turn 35 in November, but if he maintains the pace he’s currently on, it’s not hard to envision him landing another two-year deal, perhaps with some type of vesting option. His main competition will be Michael Morse, but aside from that, he’ll be competing against Corey Hart and Michael Cuddyer — both of whom have had significant injuries in 2014 already (and Cuddyer is a year older).

Billy Butler, too, could hit the open market if his option is declined by the Royals, but he’s in the midst of a poor season and likely couldn’t top LaRoche based on performance. Given the dearth of left-handed pop on next year’s free agent market — Kendrys Morales and Victor Martinez are the top alternatives, but both are more designated hitters than first basemen — LaRoche is in a good position despite his age.

It seems likely that his performance will be worthy of receiving a qualifying offer — believed to be in the $15MM range next offseason — but the need to open first for Zimmerman likely will prevent the Nats from extending one. LaRoche could look at a qualifying offer as merely receiving a $2MM raise for next season (he’d pocket the $2MM buyout of his option and still earn $15MM or so), which makes it a risk that Washington seems unlikely to take.

The knocks on LaRoche are well-known; his career OPS versus lefties is 114 points lower than his mark against right-handed pitching, age isn’t on his side and he hasn’t turned in a consecutive pair of well above-average offensive seasons since 2009-10 (122 OPS+ each year). Some teams likely will have the perception that a two-year deal will pay him for one strong season and one so-so campaign, and I’d imagine a number of clubs will be more interested on a one-year deal.

Nonetheless, LaRoche and agent Mike Milchin of Relativity Baseball appear to be in solid position as they look to lock down what could be the last significant contract of a solid offensive career. Morales recently received the pro-rated version of a $12MM salary after sitting out the first two months of the season, and Justin Morneau received a two-year, $12.5MM deal coming off a vastly inferior season to the one LaRoche is putting together.

Even if LaRoche simply finishes the season by hitting at his career pace — .266/.340/.475 — he’d finish with one of the best OPS+ marks of his career. In that instance, a two-year deal worth $10MM+ annually seems very attainable. The fact that he is facing very limited competition both at his position (first base) and in terms of his best skill (left-handed power) only strengthens LaRoche’s free agent outlook.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

MLBTR Originals

By edcreech | June 8, 2014 at 8:20pm CDT

A look back at the original reporting and analysis found on MLBTR this past week:

There were five installments of MLBTR’s Draft Prospect Q&A series in the days leading up to the 2014 draft: Nick Gordon (by Zach Links) selected by the Twins in the first round and fifth overall (1-5), Aaron Nola (by Zach) chosen by the Phillies 1-7, Michael Chavis (by Zach) drafted by the Red Sox 1-23, Braxton Davidson (by Steve Adams) tabbed by the Braves 1-32, and Jacob Gatewood (by Steve) picked by the Brewers in the Competitive Balance Round A and 41st overall.
Agent David Sloane of Taurus Sports told MLBTR left-hander Justus Sheffield, drafted by the Indians with the 31st-overall pick, agreed to terms at $1.6MM plus the value of a scholarship to Vanderbilt (approximately $250K).
A baseball source told MLBTR there is no truth to a report the Cubs were asking for a competitive balance draft choice to be included in any trade for Jeff Samardzija.
Zach was the first to report right-hander Luis Ayala agreed to a minor league contract with the Blue Jays and the deal does not include an opt-out.
Charlie Wilmoth asked MBTR readers to rank last offseason’s best short-term free agent signings (defined as a player who agreed to an one-year contract or a minor-league deal and has produced more than 1 fWAR at the time of the poll). Nearly 68% of you rated the Orioles signing of Nelson Cruz as number one.
Steve hosted the weekly live chat and also anchored the MLBTR draft chat.
Zach put together the best of the baseball blogosphere in Baseball Blogs Weigh In.

Draft Prospect Q&A: Braxton Davidson

By Steve Adams | June 5, 2014 at 9:30am CDT

MLBTR is re-launching its Draft Prospect Q&A series this season in order to give our readers a look at some of the top names on the board in this year’s draft. MLBTR will be chatting with some of the draft’s most well-regarded prospects over the next couple of weeks as they prepare for the 2014 draft on June 5-7.

In a draft that’s light on impact college bats, many clubs will be looking toward the high school ranks in search of adding some thump to their lineup down the road, and first baseman/outfielder Braxton Davidson of T.C. Roberson High School in Asheville, N.C., figures to be one of the top prep bats off the board in the 2014 draft.

The 6’3″, 215-pound Davidson boasts a strong left-handed swing and the ability to drive the ball to all fields, per scouting reports. Both Baseball America and MLB.com rank him 36th among draft prospects, while ESPN’s Keith Law is even more bullish, pegging him as the No. 16 prospect in the 2014 draft class.

Davidson’s pop drew quite a bit of attention at last June’s Tournament of the Stars, as noted by both BA and MLB.com in their scouting reports. He set a tournament record with three homers in four games, including one that traveled an estimated 500 feet. BA notes that improvements in his hit tool this season may have that tool ahead of his power in game action, and Law notes that he has “no wasted motion” in his swing when he’s at his best.

Davidson was kind enough to take some time out of a very busy schedule for a phone interview with me and discuss improvements to his game over the past year, his defensive preferences and his close relationship with a current big leaguer…

Steve Adams: I want to start by asking if you can describe your overall game for me in your own words.

Braxton Davidson: Yeah, my overall game, I feel like I’m an advanced hitter. People say I’m a power hitter, but I believe I’m more of a hitter with power than a power hitter that can’t hit. I can spray the ball all over the field. If I get my pitch, I can turn on it, hit it in the gaps for a home run or a double. I just really focus on spraying the ball and trying to make plays out in the field that help my team win whether at first or in the outfield.

SA: Is there a Major League player or multiple players that you’ve tried to model your game after as you’ve grown up watching the game?

BD: Yeah, my favorite player of all time that I saw growing up is Barry Bonds. Guy was just a freak athlete, could steal bases, could hit bombs, could throw it from the outfield. He was a playmaker. He was one of my favorites. Now, in today’s game, I watch a lot of Joey Votto, Justin Morneau, Joe Mauer, Carlos Gonzalez from the Rockies. Just a bunch of left-handed hitters — Robinson Cano will spread the ball over the field, hit with power. They’re just playmakers.

SA: What areas of your game do you feel like you’ve improved the most over the course of your senior season?

BD: Being consistent. Last year, my junior season, I struck out 25 times, I believe. My senior season I struck out only 10. So being more consistent at the plate. I lost a lot of weight — I was 230 pounds coming off the summer circuit, and I hit it hard in the weight room and got myself in shape so I could play the outfield. I really worked hard at being a better all-around player.

SA: What aspect of your skill-set do you feel is the most beneficial to helping your team win a game?

BD: My leadership. Just being positive. Trying to make plays to help the team win by getting on base, or moving the runner over — just doing your situationals right. You know, that’s what really helps teams win and win championships, and that’s what we all want is championships. That’s really what I focus on: doing the right thing on the field and doing whatever the situation calls for.

SA: Talking about leadership, do you consider yourself more of a “lead by example” and “lead on the field” type, or are you more of a vocal leader that will step up and be outspoken?

BD: I might be a lead by example. I believe in karma, and I feel like if I try to vocalize my opinion to teammates it might come back and bite me. I don’t really say much on the field. I just let my play do all the talking, and it’s been successful and I’m going to keep doing what I’m doing.

SA: You were talking about your improved contact rate before. Did you make any conscious changes to your approach this year, or do you think that’s just more experience coming through and getting better with more reps at the plate?

BD: This whole offseason, I worked on seeing the ball, hitting the ball and not worrying about pitches. A pitcher can have three or four pitches, and if you think about all four of those pitches at one time, you’re going to get kind of messed up at the plate. So I just really tried to focus on seeing the ball, hitting the ball, and really focusing on counts. Like in advantage counts, 0-2, he’s probably going to try to waste a pitch. Just be careful in advantage counts, try to get back into the count, get a fastball and don’t miss it. That’s really my approach at the plate, and this season and offseason, it’s what I worked on.

SA: Has hitting the ball to all fields always come naturally to you, or is that something you’ve developed more later in your career?

BD: It’s kind of developed a little bit recently, just because once I committed to North Carolina, my dad was like, ’You’ve got to work on spreading the ball all over the field so you can get more recognition from professional scouts.’ That’s just something that we’ve worked hard on for the past two or three years, just being able to hit to the other side of the field and hitting with some authority, not just little dinkers. Driving it to the gaps, hit bombs, you know. That’s what we really worked on the past couple years, maintaining on keeping your front shoulder on it and just hitting it up the middle and to the other side of the field.

SA: You’ve played the outfield and first base. Are you equally comfortable at each of those positions?

BD: Yes. The past two years I’ve played a lot of outfield for my travel team and school ball. I played first base growing up from little league until now. I feel like first base comes naturally, but outfield is fun. It’s kind of new. I’ve still got a lot learn, but I feel I’m pretty good for the amount of time I’ve been playing that. So yeah, they’re about equally the same.

SA: Do you see yourself playing one or the other long-term, or are you open to either one?

BD: Either one. If I end up not playing the outfield, I’ll be perfectly fine at first. If I don’t play first, I’ll be happy playing in the outfield. I feel like if I play in the big leagues for a long time, like Albert Pujols — 10-plus years — I will eventually move to first base because I won’t be able to move as well as I did when I was younger, of course. If a team wants to put me — wherever they want to put me, I’m going to play. As long as I’m in the lineup hitting, that’s fine with me.

SA: I did see a scouting report that said you’ve been clocked in the 90s off the mound before. Did you ever give any serious thought to pitching, or have you always had the mindset that you’re a hitter and you want to be out there every day?

BD: Yeah, my mindset is that I want to play every day. I really didn’t start throwing hard until my junior year. Growing up, I didn’t throw much. I kind of rested my arm … I never really thought of myself as a pitcher, I thought of myself as a thrower. I just throw the ball hard. I didn’t ever work on it, I just threw it.

SA: I know you’ve had a lot of pretty high draft picks come out of your school — Cameron Maybin in the first round in 2005 and Chris Narveson went in the second round in 2000. Can you talk a little bit about the program you came from and how it prepared you for professional baseball?

BD: Yeah. The program at T.C. Roberson is one of the best the state, if not the best in the state, and one of the best in the country, just for the tradition that we have. Our coach, Eric Filipek, puts together a really, really tough schedule just so that we’ll be ready for anything that comes our way. We don’t play cupcakes. That doesn’t help you become a better player. I feel like the tougher the competition, the more you’re going to step up your game. By the foundation that Cam, and Chris Narveson, Darren Holmes and Justin Jackson and all these guys have set, has made T.C. Roberson one of the best baseball programs around. Everybody wants to beat us, I feel like, and we want to beat everybody else so the best of the best come and play us, which steps up our competition level.

SA: Have you ever had a chance to talk with Maybin or Narveson or any of those guys that have come out of your high school about their journey from being drafted to making the Major Leagues?

BD: Yeah, I talk to Cam a lot. He’s kind of like an older brother to me. His dad and my dad are good friends. They’ve known each other for awhile. I grew up watching Cam play in high school, and he’s a great dude. He said once you get into pro ball, it’s a grind. You’re playing every day. You’ve got people that want to to take your spot. … He just gives me advice like, ’Keep working hard,’ and ’Never lose hope of your dreams.’ My dream is to play in the big leagues. Cam’s just a great guy. He’ll do anything in the world for anybody. I was talking to him earlier today, actually, and he just wanted to make sure how the process was going. He keeps in touch with me, and I really appreciate that, him being like an older brother and keeping me in check.

SA: Last question I’m going to ask is if you’ve figured where you’re going to be and who you’re going to be with on Draft Day.

BD: Yeah we — my family and I — we’re going to invite a bunch of friends and family over to this little steakhouse at home. Good food, bunch of TVs there. We’re going to set up, bring a lot of people and just have a good time watching the draft. Stuff like this only happens once or twice — once if you go out of high school, twice if you go to college. I’m just excited and blessed to be in the situation I am today.

Photo courtesy of Kathryn Sizemore/Golden Fleece Media.

Draft Prospect Q&A: Aaron Nola

By Zachary Links | June 4, 2014 at 11:19pm CDT

This season, LSU powered their way to the Regional Final round of the NCAA Tournament thanks in large part to the pitching performances of ace Aaron Nola. While the Tigers were eliminated on Monday night by Houston, the 6’2″, 195 pound right-hander is on the verge of realizing his lifelong dream in Thursday night’s draft. Nola has probably been baseball’s most dominant pitcher over the last two seasons and appears to be a lock for the top ten.

With a laser-guided 95 mph fastball, a plus curveball, and an ever-improving changeup, Nola pitched to a 1.57 ERA with 8.71 K/9 and 1.29 BB/9 in his sophomore season. For an encore, he followed that up with a 1.47 ERA, an even stronger 10.37 K/9, and a still stingy 2.09 BB/9 in 2014. In short, Nola has been absolutely stellar over the last two years for the Tigers and is viewed as one of the most surefire talents in this year’s class.

It’s safe to say that Nola is more familiar with the draft process than 99% of prospects out there. The righty was picked by the Blue Jays in 2011 and watched his brother Austin, a talented shortstop, get drafted twice before signing with the Marlins, who selected him in the fifth round of the 2012 draft. Reportedly being advised by Joe Longo of Paragon Sports, Nola is ranked No. 6 by MLB.com, No. 7 by Baseball America, and No. 10 by ESPN.com’s Keith Law. On Tuesday, Nola took time out of his busy schedule to talk with MLBTradeRumors about his impressive body of work and what he’ll bring to the table at the major league level:
Read more

Zach Links: You powered your team to a big win on Saturday despite some bad breaks in the second inning and getting in a bases loaded jam with the score tied 1-1. We’ve seen that from you at other points this season, where you might encounter some brief trouble but you always find a way out. How do manage to stay zeroed in when things get dicey?

Aaron Nola: For me, it’s all about slowing things down. When guys get on base, I put the game in front of me, slow everything down, focus a little more, and try not to let the game get out of control.

ZL: Even though LSU’s season ended on Monday night, how much did it mean to you to go out with a deep postseason run?

AN: We’ve been playing our best baseball these past couple of weeks and that’s the time we needed to get hot. We were good and everything was going our way but we were ahead in the third game [of the Regionals], we slipped, and Houston capitalized on it. It’s unfortunate that we couldn’t have gone even further.

ZL: With so much talk surrounding you on an individual level, how have you managed to tune out all of the talk about your own individual performance and draft stock and focus on winning?

AN: Talking to my brother [Austin] about going into the draft and handling the draft helped a lot. He went through all of that when he was in college and he gave me some input and some advice on how to handle it. He basically told me not to worry about this stuff, that the draft is going to take care of itself. I’m going to be happy wherever I go. All season long I was playing for my team and trying to help them go as far as possible.

When Austin was going through the draft process, each time, he handled it really well. We were in the Super Regional in 2012 and we were all at practice when he got the call that he was drafted. We were all so excited for him, but his focus was still on helping the team win.

ZL: Did you ever feel extra pressure on the mound knowing that scouts were in attendance?

AN: No, I mean, I didn’t see any of them in the stands really. I saw a couple of them but usually we’re playing in a place with a lot of fans. I’m pretty good about concentrating on getting guys out and not looking up in the stands. I always played my game and I didn’t try to light up the radar gun to impress people like a lot of guys do.

ZL: What do you attribute your low walk rate to?

AN: I’ve always been accurate since we all know the strike zone gets smaller and smaller. Our coach stresses that we throw the ball in the zone, go after the hitters, and don’t pitch passively. That’s what we do and we don’t walk too many guys. We stay in the strike zone and pitch aggressively.

ZL: Have you always had exceptional command or has that come along in the last few years?

AN: Since I’ve been pitching I’ve had pretty good command but it has gotten better over the years. Part of that comes from working with [LSU pitching coach Alan Dunn] who taught me a lot about the game and what you need to do. Back in my freshman year, I threw too many strikes and my sophomore year I learned how to get the ball where it had to be. This year it was kind of the same thing.

ZL: The Twins drafted your old rotation mate, Ryan Eades, in the second round last year, and they’ve been heavily connected to you heading into the draft. What would it be mean to pitch with him again?

AN: That would mean everything. I’m blessed to be drafted anywhere but I would be excited to go there and to play with Ryan, that would be awesome. I pitched with him for a bit at LSU and I’ve known him for three or four years and he’s a great kid. He’s going move up in that organization and he’s just a positive guy to be around.

ZL: You’ve said that you’ll be happy wherever you land, but without naming teams, are there clubs in the top ten that stand out to you above others?

AN: No, like I said, wherever I go, I’m going to be thankful that that team drafted me and we don’t know anything about the draft really where you’re going to go. Whoever gets picked before me, they deserve it, they’re obviously great players and they’ll do great for their organization. Wherever I get picked, I’m going to enjoy myself and do my best for my team.

ZL: Your 2-seam fastball and curveball get a ton of attention but you also boast a strong changeup. When did you first start to really get that pitch down?

AN: I had my changeup my freshman year a little bit at the beginning, but it kind of died off, honestly. Last year I was more of fastball/curveball guy and I worked on my changeup a lot in the fall this year. For me, it was more about throwing it a lot and getting a better feel for it. I think it has improved quite a bit over the last few years.

ZL: Some scouting reports have expressed concern about your 3/4 arm slot. Is that warranted at all?

AN: I don’t think it is. I’ve been throwing with this arm slot my whole life and I’ve never used a different style. It’s been that way my whole life and I’m comfortable doing what I’m doing. I haven’t had any serious arm problems at any point and hope that I never will.

ZL: Do you feel like you have a better handle on pitch sequencing than your average college pitcher?

AN: Our pitching coach calls all our pitches but he teaches us why we throw certain pitches in certain counts and also encourages us to go with what we feel instinctively. I feel like I can call my own game because of all of the things that he’s taught me.

ZL: Did you give real thought to going pro when the Blue Jays drafted you in the 22nd round of the 2011 draft?

AN: I think I would have had to go pretty high, but after seeing Austin turn down offers twice to make a career at LSU, that’s what I wanted to do. I also wasn’t ready to make that next step from high school to pro ball and Austin has zero regrets about going to college. So, I’m glad I made the decision to go to LSU. I feel like I’ve become a better person and a better player. I’m stronger, both physically and mentally.

ZL: You turn 21 [today] – first of all, Happy Birthday – will being a top draft pick on Thursday be the best birthday present you’ve ever gotten or is there a moonwalk birthday party from ten years ago that tops that?

AN: [laughs] This will be a pretty good birthday present for me, to be honest with you, this is a pretty big one. My life changes on Thursday and for me and my family this is a big moment for us, this is special. This is definitely going to rank as one of the best birthdays ever.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

Draft Prospect Q&A: Jacob Gatewood

By Steve Adams | June 4, 2014 at 9:49am CDT

There are few prospects with more power potential in the 2014 draft than California prep shortstop Jacob Gatewood. The Clovis High School product turned heads last summer when he won the All-Star Game Junior Home Run Derby at Citi Field, and for good measure, he turned around and won the Under Armour All-American Game’s Home Run Derby at Wrigley Field as well a few months later.

A shortstop by trade, Gatewood stands at 6’5″ and weighs in at 180 pounds, so it’s reasonable to think that more power might be in the offing as he fills out. ESPN’s Keith Law, who ranks Gatewood as the draft’s No. 15 prospect, agrees with that line of thinking, as he gave Gatewood a 55 for his current power (on the 20-80 scouting scale) and graded his future power potential at 65. MLB.com’s Jonathan Mayo and Jim Callis, who ranked Gatewood 22nd overall, graded his power at 65. Baseball America ranked him 21st overall and said his raw power is “at least 70-grade.”

There have been some concerns about Gatewood’s hit tool, but he’s quelled some of that concern by “quieting a hand hitch and and [making] mechanical adjustments” this spring, according to BA. Gatewood took some time last week to talk with MLBTradeRumors about his future at shortstop, last season’s Home Run Derby triumphs and the advice he received from some of the game’s top players at last year’s All-Star festivities.

Steve Adams: Describe your overall game and day-to-day approach to me.

Jacob Gatewood: I always try to play the game as hard as I can, no matter what — if I’m tired or whatever the circumstances are that day, I try to play as hard as I can and most importantly win the game that we’re playing.

SA: Is there a particular Major League player that you’ve modeled your game after that you watched growing up?

JG: Definitely Troy Tulowitzki. Me and him are both tall shortstops and we both hit with power. I’ve always modeled my game after him.

SA: What areas of your game do you feel you’ve improved the most over the course of your senior season in high school?

JG: I think I definitely worked on becoming more of a complete hitter. I know there was a lot of questions about my hitting after the summer, but I feel like I answered a lot of those. That was probably my biggest thing. I also worked a lot on my defense as well at shortstop.

SA: Do you see yourself as a shortstop in the long-term?

JG: Yes, I do. I’ve grown up playing shortstop and I’m confident in my ability to stay there. But if the team that drafts me feels like it’s best for their club for me to move to third base or wherever, I’m going to do that and I’m going to give it my all.

SA: Last year you drew some national attention by winning the Junior Home Run Derby at Citi Field and then the home run derby in the Under Armour All America Game. Can you talk a little bit about that experience and what it was like for you?

JG: I mean, to this day, it still feels like a dream. From being around all the best players in the game and having them tell me how nervous they were for me, to 50,000 people screaming your name — it can’t get too much better than that. Like I said, it still gives me the chills just thinking about it.

[Laughing] Hopefully I can get back to one pretty soon! That’d be pretty cool. But yeah, it was definitely one of the best experiences of my life and something that I’ll never forget.

SA: In the video footage from that day, you can see a lot of guys — Mike Trout, Torii Hunter — a lot of big name players reacting to your home runs. Did you get a chance to talk to any of those guys while you were out there?

JG: Yeah, actually I talked to a lot of them, and they were messing around with me a little bit — well, Big Papi was messing around with me a lot. But just to be around those guys — you think about it and you think they’re robots or something seeing them on TV all the time, but to actually be up close to them and for them to be genuinely happy for me — that part was definitely cool. They gave me all kinds of pointers that I’ll definitely never forget.

SA: What’s the best piece of advice that you received out there?

JG: Defintely Torii Hunter told me — he kind of pointed to the stands and he told me, ’All that’s cool and stuff,’ but then he pointed back to the field and said, ’You see those white lines right there? Everything between those is what you need to work on, what you need to take care of. Make sure you get your work done on the field and play as hard as you can.’

SA: You’re used to being the best player on a team or one of the best players on a team. A certain amount of leadership comes along with that. Do you consider yourself to be a vocal leader or are you more of a “lead by example” and let your play do the talking type of guy?

JG: You know, I think I’m a mixture of both. If I need to say something, I’ll definitely say it, but I try to lead by example as well. I’m lucky to be on a team that has a couple of seniors be there since we were all sophomores. They’ve helped a lot, but I like to try to do a mixture of both.

SA: You’re a central California guy. You didn’t really have any shortage of options for teams to cheer for when you were growing up. Was there one that you followed more closely than the others?

JG: Yeah. Definitely the Dodgers. I’ve been a Dodgers fan since I was little. My dad (1982 Dodgers first-round pick Henry Gatewood) helped me out a little bit with that since he played for them, but I followed the Dodgers for awhile.

SA: Have you had a chance to follow the career of Ryan Cook at all? He came out of your high school in Clovis as well.

JG: Yeah, actually when I first transferred, they heard I was committed to USC and they talked about Ryan Cook. I had no clue he was from Clovis, so when he was doing his thing up there, it was pretty cool to watch him play. He’d come back in the offseason and play catch right on our field, so it was really cool having a big leaguer out there.

Other entries in this year’s series include prep shortstops Michael Chavis and Nick Gordon, Louisville closer Nick Burdi and University of San Francisco center fielder Bradley Zimmer.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

Draft Prospect Q&A: Michael Chavis

By Zachary Links | June 3, 2014 at 11:54am CDT

Scouts see Georgia high school prospect Michael Chavis as someone who can do it all thanks to his well-rounded skill set as well as his versatility. Chavis spent most of his career at Sprayberry High School at the shortstop position but he also boasts arm strength that can allow him to play anywhere in the infield. He’s got the speed to play second base or stick at shortstop, and while he has a bit of experience behind the plate and in the outfield, most say his big league future is at third base. The Clemson commit is ranked No. 21 by MLB.com, No. 26 by Baseball America, and No. 27 by ESPN.com’s Keith Law.

The first-round prospect left high school on a high note, slashing .557/.580/.663 with 13 homers in his senior season. At the plate, Chavis flashed his plus bat speed as well as his plus raw power, which helped him to win the Perfect Game Home Run Derby over other notable prospects such as Alex Jackson, Braxton Davidson, and Michael Gettys.

The charismatic and confident young man spoke with MLBTradeRumors recently about what position he wants to ultimately play, the prospect of going to Clemson, and more:

Zach Links: Scouting reports seem to have you pegged as a third baseman at the Major League level, but you have the ability to play multiple positions. Do you have a preference on where you play?

MC: A lot of people ask me that and they ask if I’d be more comfortable at third base or at second base. Right now, I’d be more comfortable at third base just because I’ve played there, but down the road I think I’d be just as comfortable at second base once I get more reps in. I definitely have the speed to play second base.

ZL: What do you expect the transition of moving over to second base to be like?

MC: The only adjustment is that at second base, you have more time. You have to play the ball differently, knowing different things, the angles on the throws…the only difficult part would be learning how to turn the double play from the other side of the bag, with the footwork and your body going the opposite way.

ZL: Could you see yourself playing outfield or catcher?

MC: People have talked to me about that and I’ve done some scouting drills where they had me make throw downs. I think I could make that transition, just because I think I have the catcher’s mentality; I have a bulldog heart. I’d rather not become a catcher but if it comes down to “Hey, Mike, you can either play catcher or get out of baseball,” I think I’ll go out to be a catcher.

ZL: You’ve had a couple of notable big leaguers come out of your high school in Marlon Byrd and Kris Benson. Have you ever had a chance to meet them and get advice from them?

MC: Kris Benson came back to high school in my freshman year and he talked to me teammates and everything but I haven’t talked to him since….As for Marlon Byrd, he follows me on Twitter, if that counts.

ZL: If you got to talk to them, what would you ask them?

MC: I’d be curious to talk to Kris about his college experience because he went to Clemson as well and that’s where I’m committed. So I’d be curious to hear about what he has to say about the Clemson experience compared to MLB life. Byrd went to Georgia Tech so I’d like to ask both of them if they felt like that experience benefited them or if they wish they went straight into the draft [out of high school].

ZL: You’re widely projected as a first round pick. Is there any chance that you change course and go to Clemson?

MC: If everything doesn’t work out as I hope it does, then yes.

ZL: If you go pro and skip college, is there any part of you that worries about missing out on things, whether its the baseball experience or just being a college kid?

MC: Obviously, college life compared to the life of a professional baseball player will be different. In college baseball you have a bunch of fans and everyone knows you, but once you hit the lower parts of minor leagues, it’s going to be four fans in the stands at every game. That’s a big difference.

As for the college life, I’m not a big partier or anything like that, so if I did go to Clemson the main reason would be to play baseball. I honestly don’t think I’d miss out on too much when it comes to that.

ZL: What will you major in if you go to Clemson?

MC: Sports broadcasting. That’s something I’d like to get into when my playing career is through.

ZL: What role do you envision yourself in? Play-by-play? Color analyst? Studio anchor?

MC: I haven’t really thought that out in detail, but I know that I love talking about baseball and I want to stay around the game even after I’m done playing, so I figured it’d be good for me.

ZL: What does your daily baseball consumption look like?

MC: I watch MLB Network just about 24/7. It’s on the TV whether its me watching or my dad and it’s all that’s ever on. My mom gets tired of watching so much baseball and sometimes she goes into her room by herself to go watch something else.

ZL: Do you have set goals in mind for the first few years of your career? Do you want to reach Triple-A by a certain point or the majors by a certain point, or do you not think about timetables?

MC: As for right now, obviously it’s kind of early to talk about that because I’m not even a professional baseball player yet and, ideally, I’d like to get into the organization and get acclimated to everything there. I’d say in three years I’d like to be in the majors though.

ZL: Has your swing changed at all in recent years?

MC: It has changed, but not a lot. We made minor tweaks, but they made a big difference this year. One of my problems this summer is that when I would come into contact I’d rise up with my front leg and we changed that by activating my back leg and using my lower half a lot more.

ZL: Ever catch yourself Googling your own name to see what’s being written about you?

MC: I do every now and then but I tried to avoid that, especially during the season, because I didn’t want to get caught up in the hype and start pressing things.

ZL: Every scouting report I’ve seen has noted how well-rounded you are. In your estimation, what’s the one characteristic you possess that stands out above the others?

MC: I think it would be either how hard I play or how much I truly love being out there.

ZL: Some of the draft sites out there like to bestow major league comparisons on prospects. Who would you say your game is styled after?

MC: I haven’t exactly styled my game after anybody…For a second base comparison I was thinking Dan Uggla when he was on the Marlins. Third base, I think of myself as a David Wright. He’s not a big guy but he can hit for power.

ZL: You’ll be one of just seven players in attendance at the draft. Are you excited about that?

MC: Oh I was thrilled to get that invite. I was actually in class when I found out and the person from MLB called me to let me know that I was invited. I didn’t have the number saved and, I don’t know why, but I just knew it was MLB calling to invite me. I walked out of the classroom to take the call and when I walked back in I was so excited. I just sat in the back of the classroom with a big smile on my face.

ZL: Was your teacher mad at you for taking a call during class?

MC: No, she understood. She was really cool.

ZL: If you weren’t going to be there for it live, what would draft night look like for you? Just the immediate family or a big party for everyone?

MC: We would probably just have the same people that are going to go up with me for draft night and afterwards we’d have a bigger party with everyone.

ZL: Will you be giving Commissioner Selig a handshake or a hug?

MC: I don’t know, it might be an in the moment thing. He might get both.

ZL: Do you have your suit picked out?

MC: No, I don’t, but I decided that I’m going to try to wear a bowtie.

Other entries in this year’s series include prep shortstop Nick Gordon, University of San Francisco center fielder Bradley Zimmer and Louisville right-hander Nick Burdi.

« Previous Page

Load More Posts

Show all

Headlines

MLBTR Originals

Navigation

MLBTR INFO

Connect