Even with the new signing system, this year's draft deadline had far less drama than previous years did. Nonetheless, the two biggest stories in the first round did end up lasting until that Friday, 5 p.m. Eastern deadline. Mark Appel, the eighth overall pick by the Pirates, did not sign. Lucas Giolito, the 16th overall pick by the Nationals, did. The general reaction seemed to come pretty quickly: the Nationals are geniuses and Appel is dumb. It's an easy narrative, but worth pointing out that in these scenarios the players are never called brilliant. Only teams are brilliant, and only players are dumb. But I digress. The point is that the Nationals might be geniuses, and Appel might have made a foolish decision, but you can't judge yet. Nobody can. So you shouldn't.
Make no mistake, the Giolito signing is potentially a steal, but that's the key word: potentially. In March, before he suffered what turned out to be a season-ending elbow injury, Giolito was the top talent in the draft. He was touching triple-digits with his fastball and throwing quality secondary pitches. He was in many ways like Dylan Bundy, only with a much more traditional power pitcher's frame. He could have been the first high school right-hander to ever go No. 1 overall, so if he gets back to that status as a player, it's highway robbery.
The assumption that he's just going to automatically make it all the way back there is where the mistake lies, though. He might, but it's not a sure thing. Because how quickly we've forgotten about Matt Purke. Just a little more than a year ago, Purke was the guy people thought could be the No. 1 pick in the draft. Then—as with Giolito—injury struck. In Purke's case it was a shoulder and not an elbow, and he rested and then tried to pitch through it, but his stuff was well below what was seen during his incredible 2010 campaign, when he went 17-0 as a freshman at TCU.
Purke's bonus demands remained high, dropping him to the third round, where the Nationals took him and signed him to a deal at the deadline with a total package worth more than $4 million. The reaction at the time was similar to the general consensus on Giolito: Mike Rizzo got his man. The Nationals just turned a third-round pick into a top-ten talent, and they're brilliant. So much of that is true. It was a good pick, and it was a good risk. It's the pretending that there's no risk, that Purke will just automatically return to form, where mistakes are made. Cut to the present and Purke is still dealing with arm problems, still showing sub-par (for him, certainly) stuff during the rare times he takes the mound, and he has a career that consists of just 15.1 innings nearly a year into his professional life. Still a genius move by the Nationals? Debatable.
And this isn't the first time. The year before Purke, we had Anthony Ranaudo. A potential No. 1 pick, an elbow injury, a drop to the supplemental first round, a $2.55 million bonus, and praises all over for finding such a great talent so low. Two years later, and he's thrown just 37.2 innings this year because of a groin injury and has a 6.69 ERA in nine starts at Double-A Portland. You see a pattern here?
That's not to say Giolito is doomed. One of the first gambits of this kind was a rousing success. Eight years ago, Maryland high school righty Nick Adenhart was the top high school player in his class before snapping his elbow ligament in a May start, requiring Tommy John surgery. The entire industry assumed he would attend North Carolina and work his way back to a team after three years, but the Angels took a flyer on him in the 14th round, and ultimately signed him to a bonus just north of $700,000. The ironic thing was that at the time, there was a lot of criticism of the selection, but he made a full recovery and turned into a bright young starting pitching prospect before being killed in a tragic auto accident at the age of 22.
Giolito could be the next Purke or Ranaudo, or he could turn into a Cy Young candidate. All possibilities are in play, which is why we can't judge the pick yet. Nobody can.
The same goes for Appel. The easy narrative is that he's a jerk and the Pirates offered him a ton of money and, by turning it down, he made a huge mistake and is a selfish, spoiled brat. Oh yeah, that Boras guy is a jerk too. Yet, none of those is true. This is like a no fault divorce, if anything.
The Pirates certainly did nothing wrong. They went into the draft with no idea that Appel would fall to them, and he was clearly the top talent when their pick became available. They offered every cent they could, around $3.8 million dollars, without sacrificing a pick, which was certainly a reasonable decision.
And while he's taking a lot of heat, Appel had every right to say no, as well as a legitimate reason to. He went into draft day expecting to be the top pick, or at least one of the top three, but instead, he landed with a team that had an assigned bonus pool with the pick that was more than 60% less than Houston's pool at No. 1. Based solely on slot assignments, he thought he was in line for somewhere between $6-$7 million, and the Pirates just couldn't meet the price.
Now he enters next year's draft as, once again, the top pitcher in the draft. If he gets drafted high, and gets that $6 million or more, is he still stupid? Is he still selfish? Yes, he delayed his professional career by a year, and yes there is some chance that delays his free agency down the road by a year, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. For the overwhelming majority of players drafted, their bonus check will be the largest pay day of their baseball careers, and Mark Appel has every right to try to maximize that value. It's a risk, as he could get hurt and/or not pitch well next year, but he's not stupid, and he's not selfish. If anything, he's the first player to pay the harshest price of a new draft system that doesn't allow every team to pay players what they are worth. You want to blame someone? It's not Appel, it's not the Pirates, and it's not Boras. It's the owners whose strange obsession with the draft has created a system that punishes players by protecting teams from themselves.
Appel might have made a mistake, and he might have done the right thing. And the same goes for the Nationals in terms of signing Giolito. You can't judge a draft after three years, and you certainly shouldn't do it three minutes after the signing deadline.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
Kevin - But I want to believe that Rizzo is brilliant. The story for my Nats has to be all destiny for greatness. Still, I do get the point, given that Anthony Rendon has been a first-year bust, just like Purke. It makes sense to take chances, but I am still waiting for Jack McGeary.
I am just grateful that the draft isn't the biggest story of baseball in DC anymore.
+1/2St.
The same economic/draft rule forces that dropped him this year will be there next year. That is, assuming he stays healthy.
Overall, a lot of downside for a very modest upside.
Yep. This draft salary cap is a joke.
Desiring changes in the draft was not a new phenomenon with this CBA. MLBPA previously rejected those changes. This new system would not be in place without the players consent and approval (and perhaps desire).
Think of it as bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
If a team assesses that the two subsequent drafts are significantly weaker than the current one (like 2011 was in relation to 2012 and reportedly 2013). A team could then draft four to six of the best available guys in the first six rounds, do what it takes to sign them and then sit out the first round of the next two drafts.
Would a team rather get the best guys now and get them in the system to develop in a less competitive market (assuming no one else is trying the same thing) rather than get one really good guy each of the next three years?
Regarding Giolito, even a Top 10 pick with a healthy injury history can go down in flames from injury or ineffectiveness. Look at the Royals pitching prospects. It's hard to argue that they should've taken someone different. They've just been unlucky. That's why it makes sense to roll as many dice as possible in the hopes that one of the people you took a chance on works out.
A team like the Yankees, OTOH, who would be forfeiting two picks near the end of the first round had Appel fallen to them, would likely have been more amenable to giving up the picks.
In short, Boras is trying to get his guys to fall to teams who would not forfeit high picks, and Appel was the sacrificial lamb this year to get the message across.
So let's say its next year with a stronger draft class and a team like the Yankees takes a high school rookie phenom like a Bryce Harper type. If he signs, the Yankees just got premium talent with a low pick. If he doesn't sign, the Yankees have a "extra pick" with which they can try the same gamble the next year.
Does anything really prevent the Yankees and other "winning" teams from just taking high school seniors every round with their late picks and accumulating a bunch of extra picks because of it?
Boras isn't trying to do anything for "his guys" other than get them what they ask for. Boras works for Appel, not the other way around. It boggles my mind the way people characterize Boras as some sort of nefarious cult leader who brainwashes people into following his agenda.
I think you are both ignoring the dynamics of a not-yet professional signing with Boras. Someone who has been with Boras for a while (like Weaver) who makes a decision, after an established relationship exists, that he wants to settle for less than open market value....well of course the agent is going to oblige. However, it is eminently reasonable for Boras to tell a brand new client that his approach is X and that if the player wants Boras to represent him, then player has to be willing to live with Y. If said new client is uncomfortable with this, it is perfectly reasonable for Boras to tell him that then he can (and should) find other representation.
The established, elite professional services firms do this all the time; that is, they pick their clients. Once an existing client has a change in approach or philosophy, any reasonable lawyer/consultant/banker or agent will adapt to his client. But the dynamic is decidedly different at the outset, which is why comparing the Appel situation to Weaver is, in my view, inappropriate.
(In fact, I'd be surprised if a conversation along these lines did not take place.)
Does this make Scott Boras evil? Does this mean he brainwashed Appel into not signing? No and no. In fact, I would contend that Boras was well within his rights to do that, and that there is nothing at all untoward about this. Moreover, this would make it very clear that Appel knew exactly what he was getting into when he signed up with Boras.
However, I agree with the majority sentiment which seems to be that, in a vacuum, Appel likely made a mistake which cost himself millions down the road. From Boras's perspective, though, he was likely very upfront from the get go, and if Appel is uncomfortable with Boras's approach to new clients, he should not have retained him.
This is, of course, different than an existing client of many years telling Scott to do something else (e.g. reach a deal at below-market rates) because of other considerations.
My own view is that short of a catastrophic shoulder injury, he'll get a very good offer next year as well - Giolito got almost $3million and has a fair chance of needing Tommy John over the next few years. Purke ended up with a very good deal, even with shoulder concerns (I know this was under the old system, but it still shows that someone will take a risk on upside), and there's a fair chance that Appel will go in the top 2-3 picks next year. I think people are significantly over-estimating the risks involved in Appel turning down the offer.
But why would you even draft a kid with the 73rd overall pick, if you weren't even interested in offering slot?
Baseball America had Stankowicz as a third or fourth rounder, so they reached, but why would you even take the guy there?
Kudos to the Nats, btw.
+1/2St.
And I agree that Appel stands a good chance of playing better next season and securing a higher slot. It's a totally reasonable response to the situation. He is/will be a Stanford grad you know.
It's certainly on him to be as good, or preferably (from his perspective) to be even better, but don't assume that a team that passed on him once will be sure to do so again.
Millionaire and the chance to live off of 400K a year while never roughing the original $4M. Yes, Appel is not selfish bc he's listening to his agent, but I will fully say he is being guided buy $ rather than love for his passion. You do not turn down $4M in this era where players are replaced so fast just to make a possible 50% more.
I see that this comment got a lot of positive feedback, but as someone whom is a Christian it is offensive (regardless if it was in jest or not).
I have no idea if you're being sarcastic or not, but I don't want to bombard this forum with Christian doctrine.
You can find your answer in the first 4 books of the New Testament in any Christian Bible.
I had read the first 4 books of the New Testament and a good portion of the old.
That's why I was a bit surprised you were offended when David acknowledged the power of praying to our Lord and Savior to inform our decisions and that other people were giving him a +1, affirming that presence in our lives and the ability to reach out in prayer to get guidance.
So I asked an honest question in deference to your sensibilities about what is an appropriate way to acknowledge Jesus's role in a person's career decisions at a baseball comment thread.
If I was being sarcastic, I would have said something like "I understand Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball"... or admit to "ROTFLing" from dwinning and Ryan's comments. But I didn't do that, did I?
Yet, I digress.
Perhaps the offense is just due to a difference in denomination. For example, a Catholic baseball player does not technically pray to Jesus directly but would have to use a priest as an intermediary whereas a Baptist baseball player might have to get their head dunked into water first. Though, I'll also admit that nowhere in the Bible or the CBA does it indicate if the priest/pastor/reverend has to be a sports agent or vice versa in terms of who talks to who and who dunks who.
In any event, people who believe in Jesus speak to and about Jesus in different ways. To borrow from "The Name of the Rose", some think laughter is a sin because it means some don't take God seriously. Others think of laughter as a celebration of life and creation. Some pray in church on bended knee with a rosary in hand and others pray for a fastball down the middle.
Though we've both read the same book, you and I seem to interpret it differently, so I was honestly asking what you thought was appropriate, just so I didn't offend you. I asked the question because you seemed unsettled enough about the comment to "knowingly" declare that another person's relationship with Jesus is incorrect. Unfortunately, Jesus didn't give me the power to read minds (or hit curveballs) so unless you educate me and others on what you personally prefer, then please don't be offended if we unknowingly step on your proverbial toes.
P.S. That last sentence was a little sarcastic, intended to be a little bit funny to diffuse the situation, and trying to send the message that just because my answer and your answer is in the first four books of the New Testament doesn't mean that our answers (or David, if he considers himself a Christian) agree.
Let me start off by saying that all of what you will see below is based on the following: if one prays to Jesus and you believe in the Gospel this means you are Christian regardless of denomination.
The reason I found the original comment offensive is this.
First of all, we have no idea what Appel prayed or even if he prayed to Jesus (we don't even know if he believes in Jesus coming down to earth and fulfilling the Gospel). We don't know what religion he is or how strongly he holds to his faith. So to just insert Jesus (like DJ did in his comment) is to use Jesus' name as some catch all used for any person's prayers. DJ could have inserted Jesus in his comment because when DJ prays, he prays to Jesus (which is a good thing), but that doesn't mean Appel believes in Jesus.
Secondly, regardless if one asks Jesus for help with life's decisions or not. Jesus does not make those decisions for anyone. It is that individual's person decision every time.
A person on earth that is Christian should be aiming to make the decision that will best glorify Jesus' name during his or her walk in life. When Jesus created Mark Appel in his mother's womb he gave Mark the athleticism and intelligence to have a chance to make this decision some day. At the time of the decision to go back to school or sign with the Pirates it was Mark's decision alone. If Mark was unclear what to do, the only thing prayer might have done was to fill Mark's head with words/experiences he had in the past that would help guide him.
Whether or not Appel finishes Stanford or signs a contract w/ the Pirates doesn't matter to Jesus. Jesus is concerned about Appel's heart. Did Mark make this decision based on finances/earthly possessions or based on doing what would best grow his faith and glorify Jesus? For example, if Mark becomes a professional athlete is he going to use that forum to let others know about Jesus (like a Tim Tebow) or is he going to use his fame and fortune for sinful purposes?
To say that because one prays to Jesus about a concern, and to simply state "then it was Jesus' decision" is wrong. This misrepresents the way how praying and having a relationship with Jesus work (according to the Bible). Many humans ask Jesus for something in their prayers. This does not mean that Jesus will give it to them. Jesus does not answer to us. We answer to Him.
Because this is a baseball forum I will not be commenting on this topic in this thread any longer. If my answer does not suffice to any of you, I can be found on twitter via the same username.
"
To say he’s never looked back would be insufficient in describing the impact the decision to attend Stanford has had on Appel’s life in terms of his development as a both a ballplayer and a young man eager to contribute to society. And the decision also reaffirmed his strong religious faith.
“The people that I’ve met here and the relationships that I’ve made have really been great for me as a person,†Appel said over the telephone on Tuesday (Feb. 7) shortly before he was to take part in a bullpen session with his Stanford Cardinal baseball teammates.
“I’ve been meeting with a spiritual mentor and my relationship with Christ has grown so much more,†he said. “I can definitely attribute all the success I’ve been having here at Stanford and in my life to my relationship with Christ.
“All the great things that I’ve experienced I’m so grateful for, and I know that if I didn’t have Christ I wouldn’t be where I’m at right now.â€
"
http://www.perfectgame.org/articles/View.aspx?article=6553
My second reason still applies.
As far as the second reason goes, I read "Jesus's decision" as "Jesus's guidance" and nothing more. I doubt Appel thinks Jesus forced him into a decision and I'd also like to think Appel won't blame Jesus if he blows out his arm in the next year. Still, whether it's a burning bush or a warm fuzzy feeling to do one thing instead of another, I'll think optimistically that Appel was sincere and his heart was telling him to return to school. Even his terse press release after the Pirates selected him suggested that his heart or soul or what not wasn't into being drafted.
I hope Mr. Appel does well in the coming year, but I'd say the odds favor that he will regret turning down $3.8M (or potentially $6.0M) this year.
Sure we'd have all likely gone with the bird in the hand and $3.8M, but that's a personal, subjective risk appetite question. If anything, his choice implies a lower risk appetite over the long term: he has more confidence in his ability to pitch well for six more months than in his ability to reach free agency as a star in 2020-ish. That seems pretty rational to me.
He'll be proven right or wrong in hindsight and will live with the choice forever. But there's no objective evidence to say his decision was poor in the time he made it.
I think about it this way. How many ways are there for him to do better than $3.8 mm under this same draft system next year? Very, very few - basically he has to maintain or improve last year's performance while avoiding injury and hoping the surrounding draft class doesn't push him down the board. Although that may be the "base case," the risk is almost entirely to the downside, as there are myriad ways for him to earn a smaller payday.
Put it this way: this is very likely to cost Appel, yet there is long term benefit to Boras if he's able to successfully communicate that the Appels-of-the-future will need to fall to teams that pick low enough in the draft to make giving up two picks worthwhile.
It seems much more likely that Appel has made a decision based on a variety of factors - that he feels he can get more next year (and the downside is probably significantly over-emphasised as can be seen from cases like Giolito and Purke), and potentially some non-monetary factors - maybe he doesn't want to pitch for the Pirates, maybe he wants to complete his degree with his friends and classmates, maybe he wants to play more college ball.
I can't understand the logic that says a maximum of $3.2M (probably closer to $2.2M given this years top bonuses) is worth the risk of whatever can occur over the next 10 months.
So let's be completely fair, Appel not signing is less about the dollars and more about the chip on his shoulder that grew when he wasn't taken #1 overall.
Granted, this is much easier said than done and I have zero talent so this wasn't even an issue for me, but it seems like if I was confident enough to go back to school to move up a couple of picks, instead I'd apply that confidence to getting to free agency a year earlier (maybe) and thus earning more with my next contract.