Callis on recent draft bonuses

by Brett Perryman on Oct 13, 2008 10:17 PM CDT Comment 25 comments

Draft Expenditures By Club
Team	Signed	First	Supp.	2008 Total	2007 Total	Combined
Rays	28	1	0	$9,921,000	$8,023,000	$17,944,000
Royals	32	1	1	$11,148,000	$6,636,900	$17,784,900
Giants	31	1	1	$9,080,000	$7,424,500	$16,504,500
Red Sox	29	1	1	$10,515,000	$4,843,750	$15,358,750
Orioles	36	1	0	$6,916,500	$7,981,000	$14,897,500
Pirates	32	1	0	$9,780,500	$4,451,900	$14,232,400
Rangers	35	1	0	$7,388,300	$6,631,000	$14,019,300
Yankees*	34	1	1	$5,122,000	$8,035,500	$13,157,500
Brewers	36	1	2	$8,395,800	$4,254,700	$12,650,500
Nationals*	30	1	0	$4,761,500	$7,882,300	$12,643,800
Tigers	35	1	0	$3,742,000	$7,952,000	$11,694,000
Cubs	32	1	1	$5,545,000	$6,096,250	$11,641,250
Padres	37	1	2	$5,449,000	$5,897,500	$11,346,500
Phillies	36	1	1	$6,740,500	$4,215,000	$10,955,500
Blue Jays	35	1	0	$4,359,500	$6,584,000	$10,943,500
Athletics	27	1	0	$6,522,000	$4,159,400	$10,681,400
Indians	30	1	0	$6,984,500	$3,645,300	$10,629,800
Mets	42	2	1	$6,460,000	$3,821,300	$10,281,300
Cardinals	42	1	1	$5,542,000	$4,641,500	$10,183,500
Braves	23	0	1	$5,091,500	$4,858,250	$9,949,750
Reds	34	1	0	$4,801,000	$4,894,250	$9,695,250
Diamondbacks	29	1	1	$4,493,500	$5,110,000	$9,603,500
Twins	25	2	1	$7,330,498	$2,165,500	$9,495,998
Marlins	36	1	0	$5,377,000	$3,675,750	$9,052,750
Astros	32	1	1	$6,544,500	$1,584,000	$8,128,500
Dodgers	28	1	0	$4,442,500	$3,626,250	$8,068,750
Rockies	31	1	0	$4,157,000	$3,669,000	$7,826,000
White Sox	25	1	0	$4,663,500	$2,768,850	$7,432,350
Mariners*	36	1	0	$2,545,000	$4,542,300	$7,087,300
Angels	30	0	0	$2,728,500	$1,759,600	$4,488,100
Totals	968	30	16	$186,547,598	$151,830,550	$338,378,148

I added the combined column and re-sorted by that. These numbers are skewed, of course, by who has picked high and had extra picks, but they should be. And I guess it's also just nice to see that the Yankees and Red Sox aren't outspending everyone in the draft despite picking low and that the Mariners and Angels are dead last. Seattle will move up about five spots if they can still sign Fields. And of course it's good to see the Rangers near the top, even in 2008 when they just had a middle of the pack pick and no extras.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/ask-ba/2008/267034.html

2 recs | Comment 25 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It's nice

That the Red Sox and Yankees aren’t spending crazy amounts more here like they do on their major league payroll, but what happens when you include Latin America signings? Throwing money around there can have even more of an impact than in the draft.

by GhettoBear04 on Oct 13, 2008 11:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/prospects/international-affairs/2008/266917.html

Yankees had four of the top 20 international signing bonuses in 2008, but none higher than #9 (Gian Carlos Arias, $950,000).

The Red Sox had one (Oscar Perez, $712,500).

Baseball Time in Arlington

by Joey Matschulat on Oct 13, 2008 11:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

will you paste the top 20 from 08?

"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich

by knockoutking on Oct 14, 2008 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

They've outspent us for sure

It depends on what interval you look at as far as how much, though, I think. BA has listed 2008 numbers (though 2008 isn’t over). We actually outspent Boston this year, but NY more than doubled us.

Team Money
Reds $5,705,000
A’s $4,880,000
Padres $4,685,000
Yankees $4,250,000
Giants $2,750,000
Cardinals $2,685,000
Mariners $2,591,000
Braves $2,230,000
Indians $2,025,000
Rangers $1,625,000
Red Sox $1,382,500
Pirates $1,200,000
Astros $1,015,000
Tigers $783,000
Blue Jays $700,000
Rays $640,000
Mets $600,000
Rockies $580,000
Angels $440,000
Royals $410,000
Phillies $353,000
White Sox $300,000
Cubs $250,000
Diamondbacks $160,000
Brewers $0
Dodgers $0
Marlins $0
Nationals $0
Orioles $0
Twins $0

by Brett Perryman on Oct 13, 2008 11:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This number

may become more meaningful if MLB continues to try to get more control over the nefarious goings on after the scandal this year. Right now I’d say the amount spent is a little less important than the draft in a way, since the kids are so much younger and even harder to project. If MLB tries to get it more organized, though, there might be more systematic scouting, more competition, etc. for those prospects.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Oct 13, 2008 11:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

interesting

I know the Moneyball/Old School division is growing more and more grey, but I find it interesting that the A’s and Padres, two teams who historically draft college guys and look for OBP, are now investing more and more in the International market. Latin players are generally slower to adhere to plate discipline, from what I have seen, but on the flip side, as the Rangers have shown, if scouted shrewdly, an international signing class can represent a better bang for your buck than the draft, investment wise.

by clark on Oct 13, 2008 11:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the big thing for them...

is that they rarely have a chance to sign that super-prospect level player. The ones who are that good in the US don’t fall to them in the draft unless they are demanding more money than the A’s can afford. I’ve often wondered what would happen if the A’s had the No.1 or No. 2 pick, if they would spend the money that goes along with those positions.

I think we have our answer. If they A’s truly believe in a player, they are (now) willing to open the purse strings a little bit. But they won’t get into a bidding war with the Yanks or Tigers over them…

by GhettoBear04 on Oct 13, 2008 11:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

With the number 1 or 2 pick

You pretty much have to go with the best player available since that player is so far ahead of the rest of the class.

Also an interesting thought on the LA signings by these teams. I guess they figure they can get better bargains in LA.

By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw

by Gdawg on Oct 14, 2008 8:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like

watching the Angels at the bottom of the draft, signing bonuses, and international signing bonuses.

Those A’s on the other hand…

by macromorgan on Oct 14, 2008 9:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

and you can really see the results of this for the Angels. Giving away your first rounder most years and not bringing in way over slot types like Adenhart, O’Sullivan and Walden or elite Latin prospects has taken its toll on their system already. Take a look at the slope of their system’s ranking according to BA and how it has coincided with their consistent success at the major league level:

2001: 25
2002: 17
2003: 5
2004: 3
2005: 1
2006: 3
2007: 4
2008: 10

My guess is that it will slip further into mediocracy this spring, maybe quite a bit, as they promoted the last of their golden age prospects, Wood, Rodriguez, Arredondo, saw some disappointing seasons from their best prospects, like Adenhart and Conger, and really didn’t see many big steps forward (Walden and Reckling are about it, and I wouldn’t say that either was just a revelation). Couple that with the lack of an influx, and things definitely seem to be trending down at the moment. I would definitely guess they’re lower half at least, maybe lower third.

by Brett Perryman on Oct 14, 2008 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not quite.

The Angels have decisions to make on Teixiera and Rodriguez, and have options on Guerrero, Anderson and Lackey.

After what happened in the ALDS, I certainly don’t think all five of these guys will come back next year…

The ones they do let go should net them some high picks next June… am I right?

by oc on Oct 14, 2008 7:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well sure

But what would the Angels have without Teixeira, Rodriguez, Guerrero and Lackey? And if they don’t pick up the option on Anderson, I kind of doubt that they offer him arb. My guess is that they keep three of those other four guys, maintain a status quo on their big roster for the most part, and pick up a first or a second and a supplemental pick.

Besides all of that, you’re talking about draft picks made in June of 2009. What the heck does that have to do with where they rank this spring?

by Brett Perryman on Oct 14, 2008 8:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What the heck does that have to do with where they rank this spring?

What the hell does Callis’ rankings have to do with anything?… That we spend on the draft? That our future is brighter than the Angels?

The Angels are still the team to beat in this division, and they probably will be for the next two to three years.

Depending on what decisions Reagins makes, two to three years is plenty of time to restock a farm system… It could very well start next June.

by oc on Oct 14, 2008 8:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

First of all, you questioned my point, not the initial post. My point was that the Angels would not be ranked very highly this spring and that they don’t have much talent in their system, not that they were doomed as a franchise.

As far as the initial post, yes, it was to relay what people have spent on the draft, and I think I was pretty up front with my conclusions. That your contention was off point isn’t something that I know how to address.

by Brett Perryman on Oct 14, 2008 8:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My contention is off-point?...

The purpose of this sub-thread was to illustrate how the Angels farm system will fall further into “mediocracy” this spring… and you’re right, they will.

But, even if the Angels had the shittiest farm system in baseball, because of the volume of quality players that might be on their way out, they are in good position to sign a high pick, or two, or three next year… if they choose to… thus putting some much-needed depth in their farm while maintaining a competetive ballclub at the big-league level.

What the heck does that have to do with where they rank this spring?

This is what I don’t get…

If these rankings are skewed (and the Pirates are the best case I can come up with)… what do these rankings matter?

It’s no real surprise why the Angels haven’t spent on the draft. It’s no real surprise why the Rangers have.

by oc on Oct 14, 2008 10:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that you think

that I was trying to make a much more profound point than I was. The point of posting this was more that I found several things a little interesting about the chart that Callis compiled. Adam moved it over the main page, presumably because of the Rangers tie in. As I said, the goal wasn’t to draw any conclusions about the future of the division. If it were, I would have had a much more encompassing fact base.

by Brett Perryman on Oct 14, 2008 10:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Check.

by oc on Oct 14, 2008 10:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hate the 2010 AL West. Its going to be ugly.

by oc on Oct 14, 2008 11:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is no way on earth...

…they don’t pick up the options on Lackey and Guerrero.

Teixeira and K-Rod will net them picks, if they don’t re-sign them.

by Adam J. Morris on Oct 14, 2008 8:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Even if they don't pick up the options

They wouldn’t get picks if they leave. You have to offer arbitration to get picks right?

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Oct 14, 2008 8:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In theory they could

but it’s a non-issue. They’re not dumping Lackey and Guerrero.

by Brett Perryman on Oct 14, 2008 8:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lackey is cheap.

His 2009 option is $9 million. Foregone conclusion his option is picked up.

My Music Blog

by FuturePants on Oct 15, 2008 9:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Garland too, no?

If I were them I’d ditch Tex, Garland and K-Rod, collect the picks and move on.

Wouldn’t be surprised to see them bite on one of the undervalued 1b/dh bats out there this winter like a Giambi or Abreu on the FA market or maybe Thome or someone like that in trade.

The 40 Trumps All!!!

by thedirkatron on Oct 14, 2008 9:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Anderson

They’ve already said they will decline the option on Garret Anderson and pick up Guerrero and Lackey. The odds of Teixeira and Rodriguez coming back are below 50%.

Player Profiles - Texas Rangers Analyst

by Andy Seiler on Oct 15, 2008 7:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs