BP Comment Quick Links
| Home | Unfiltered | Articles | Newsletter | Statistics | Fantasy | Events | Radio | Glossary | Search |
![]() |
|
|
|
February 23, 2009 Prospectus TodayFirst-Round Picks!
In the discussion of Type-A free agents this winter, the term "first-round pick" is used about as often as "the" or "of." The perceived relative values of major league talent and first-round draft picks have been moving in opposite directions for a long time, and it appears that this winter, the two have crossed. Teams are less willing than ever to sign players and sacrifice that selection in the upcoming draft, and they're becoming more aware of how important good young baseball players who can be paid well below market value are to a baseball team. We hear about the importance of these picks during the season as well, when teams are often faced with the decision of whether to trade an impending free agent, or keep him for a run at the postseason. The latter choice is often labeled as coming with "two first-round picks," short hand for compensation for a Type A free agent. In actuality, a Type-A free agent returns the signing team's first-round pick if and only if that team was one of the 15 best in baseball the previous season. In other cases, the team losing the free agent gets the signing team's second-round pick. This is designed to allow lesser teams to sign free agents without giving up such a high selection, one that would be a near-total disincentive to the signing of Type-A free agents. As Rany Jazayerli's work has shown, the value of draft picks drops off linearly throughout the first round, so our shorthand of "two first-round picks," with its image of Evan Longoria or David Price sauntering to the compensated team, has always been in error. The correct compensation description for a Type A is "two picks in the first two rounds of the draft, one in the compensation round, and the other usually in the last half of the first round or first half of the second round." Not so sexy. The use of the term "first-round pick" to refer to compensation picks has always puzzled me as well, given that the list of those start at 31 (later now that teams get picks for not signing their previous year's draftees) and can run for nearly an entire round in itself, as it did in 2006. In 2009, there are 13 supplemental picks, with seven remaining free agents who would generate one if signed by a new team. There's no way that a pick in the forties should be deemed a "first-round pick," and if you care to use the term, you have to qualify it. Let's see how this works in action. The Dodgers got four good years from Derek Lowe, and when they couldn't reach agreement on a contract for his services for 2009 and beyond, their fans no doubt consoled themselves with the idea that they would get "two first-round picks" when he left. In actuality, though, the Dodgers received the 36th and 53rd picks in the upcoming draft—neither in the first round—because Lowe signed with the Braves, whose poor 2008 season left them with the seventh overall selection, a pick that cannot be forfeited. Throw in some compensation picks for failing to sign 2008 first-rounders and teams who had worse records than the Dodgers, and the compensation for Lowe is not nearly that impressive. Consider the plight of the Brewers, who saw CC Sabathia, their mid-season trade acquisition, signed by the Yankees... but because the Yankees signed Mark Teixeira as well, the Brewers will get just the 38th and 70th picks in the draft. Those numbers could go lower if Juan Cruz, Manny Ramirez, and Orlando Cabrera sign, creating even more compensation picks. The Blue Jays were the big losers of the winter; in addition to watching their second starter, A.J. Burnett, opt out of his contract and go to a division rival, they got just the 37th and 101st picks in the upcoming draft—their compensation reduced to a supplemental pick and a third-rounder because of the Yankees' shopping spree.
|
The Dodgers just sacrificed the 17th pick in the draft for Orlando Hudson, coming off a dislocated wrist.
That seems like a pretty steep price to me, let alone the $3.4M he gets just for signing on the dotted line plus another $4,6M in incentives.
The incentives, by the way, can only be based on quantity of plate appearances or games, and not quality. They could end up paying $8M for a guy that is in the decline stage of his career defensively and may have greatly reduced offensive numbers.
About a quarter of the time, the 17th pick becomes a good major leaguer...but about half the time, they aren't going to have an impact on the league. With the Dodgers picking, that 17th pick is probably as likely to be a high school pitcher as not, so you've got to figure the odds are even longer on the pick being worth anything.
While this is true, this only works in a few scenarios (the Dodgers meet these):
1. The team is already a contending team and the added player gives them a better chance at either playoffs or a championship. This trumps rules 2 & 3 as long as the assessment of the team as a contender is correct.
2. You don't do this year after year with the resulting effect that you never get any first round talent into your farm system.
3. You don't get multiples of these players in a single year and sacrifice your first 2-3 rounds of picks.