Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Sunday, January 09, 2005 |
If You Have To Ask...
Rich has fastened onto this quote by Eddie Bane in the Great Debate hosted recently by Baseball America:
I’m in the middle of a negotiation right now (with Jered Weaver) where a guy wants to compare our first-round pick’s stats to Mark Prior’s. And to me, there’s no correlation whatsoever.Rich calls this comment a game of "three-card monte on the public", because "Bane knows the stats are incredibly similar", going on to ask the question
The whole thing is really quite silly when you think about the fact that Jered’s brother Jeff is scheduled to earn $9.25 million in 2005. I know Jeff is a more proven pitcher at the big-league level, but who would you rather have for about the same amount of money — Jered Weaver for the next five years or Jeff Weaver for one year?You can't predict the future, but it's a lot easier to do if the player in question has actual major-league experience! Jered Weaver has none. This is a hand-wave trying to distract us from this crucial point. If neither of them are effective, what difference does it make?
Another point in Jered’s favor is the fact that Prior’s contract has proven to be a bargain for the Cubs. I could understand the reluctance on the part of the Angels to give their first-round pick Prior-type money if the former Trojan was a bust in the majors, but he obviously hasn’t been. If anything, the Cubs ace should be making more money.No two players are exactly alike. First round draft picks fail, too. It happens all the time. This is why Prior wasn't making $120M/5 years when he signed with the Cubs.
Now I’m not suggesting that Weaver is going to be as good as or better than Prior.Then why keep bringing up his stats, which clearly point in that direction? I mean, it certainly sounds like a comparison to me.
Nobody knows that at this point. However, based on his college and Team USA records, I think he has earned the right to a Prior-like contract.I don't think he has, if only based on the scouting-and-tools guys from places like Baseball America who claim he's an inferior copy. John Manuel in particular says
1) His fastball is his only plus pitch according to most scouts. 2) His delivery creates deception but also precludes, in many scouts' minds, the development of an above-average breaking ball, especially precluding tilt (i.e., his breaking ball is a one-plane pitch, not two). 3) His bonus demands seem excessive. He's performed like Mark Prior, but his stuff should not command a Prior-like $10.5 million MLB contract in the mind of most clubs.So that's it? Are the numbers enough? Or are we supposed to ignore the problems Weaver could have developing quality breaking pitches, and the fact that he's never faced a single batter professionally? This is a bad idea, a tour through the bad old days when teams signed players to major league contracts straight out of high school. I like Weaver, but not at that price and not at those terms.
Comments:
I think this really demonstrates the problems with signing players out of the draft, period. Was Mark Prior worth $10 million over 5 years straight out of college...in hindsight, certainly. Is any player worth that before they have major league experience? Not really. MLB needs to change its draft rules to slot contracts into draft positions or have a maximum that teams can use to sign draft picks (like the NBA or the NFL). The fact that Weaver was passed over as the number 1 pick solely because of signability issues is ridiculous. And for that matter, if you don't sign with a team that drafts you, you should not be allowed to re-enter the draft or sign for another team.
"if you don't sign with a team that drafts you, you should not be allowed to re-enter the draft or sign for another team."
And then what? Join the army? Take up carpentry?
And then what? Join the army? Take up carpentry?
$5M signing bonus, no guaranteed contract. But for that to happen, there would have to be some changes in the draft that probably won't happen. IMO, either the Angels "respect" Weaver -- in Boras's stunted vocabulary -- or back in the draft he goes. I won't cry too much either way.
Joe, if you aren't willing to play by the rules of MLB (which in this case would be that the worst team of the previous year gets a chance at the best player coming into the league...I also think that all foreigners should have to enter the draft like the NBA), then you shouldn't be allowed to play in the league. You can go to an independent league or play in another country or get a real job or whatever...but not wanting to play for a team or wanting more money than some teams can afford should be grounds to not be allowed into the league.
Alchemist! You, of all people--well, other than Richard C.--should be in favor of a free market and know the theory of supply-and-demand! If your first job offer out of college was a low-ball offer, don't you have the right to pass on it and wait for a better deal/situation? There's a reason why they are called 'draft rights'.
Oh, I am totally in favor of the free market...but I am also in favor of allowing an institution to set its own rules if it will improve itself. One of the common themes in the major sports leagues is to give even the crappy teams some hope and a chance to win in future years. This is done by allowing them to draft first (among other things). If a team can't afford a player because he is too expensive to sign, that's one thing...but if the player wants to make a mockery of the draft by basically telling the team that is going to pick him he doesn't want to play for them (because the franchise sucks or doesn't have enough money)...well, that's just ridiculous. The free market here would be for him to play in another league (and even for a competing, similar level to MLB, league form).
I think the Weaver situation is closer to the "If a team can't afford a player because he is too expensive to sign, that's one thing" scenerio than the "if the player wants to make a mockery of the draft by basically telling the team that is going to pick him he doesn't want to play for them (because the franchise sucks or doesn't have enough money)" scenerio.
The Angels (and the rest of the league) knew exactly how much Weaver was going to cost them going into the draft. It's not as if he was expected to sign for $1M and then got greedy or didn't like the situation. It's neither. He already had a stated price and he's not trying to get out of the Angels' draft rights. Anaheim might be the best place for him to play (local, good team, great pitching coach, need a #4 right away, etc) so obviously he's not playing hardball because of who drafted him. He's simply not willing to sign for the value he believes he is worth.
The Angels (and the rest of the league) knew exactly how much Weaver was going to cost them going into the draft. It's not as if he was expected to sign for $1M and then got greedy or didn't like the situation. It's neither. He already had a stated price and he's not trying to get out of the Angels' draft rights. Anaheim might be the best place for him to play (local, good team, great pitching coach, need a #4 right away, etc) so obviously he's not playing hardball because of who drafted him. He's simply not willing to sign for the value he believes he is worth.
I don't agree...that comment was referring to free agents (already established players that every team has a theoretically equal shot at getteing, and ultimately the player gets to choose what team to play for). The draft is supposed to be a place where the teams choose who play for them. By pricing himself out of many teams' ranges, Weaver has essentially told several teams that he is not willing to play for them. I never said that he changed his asking price after he was drafted, but he still was choosing a team in a situation where the team is choosing the player. He is essentially saying that he is above the league and that any team not willing to pay his demands has no chance of using him.
"He is essentially saying that...any team not willing to pay his demands has no chance of using him"
Correct! The Angels should have not selected him if they didn't want to pay his asking price!
Correct! The Angels should have not selected him if they didn't want to pay his asking price!
Any player could say what Weaver said and then if a team he wants to play for selects him, he purposely takes less money than he had asked and then it is the same thing. What they are doing is within the rules, so I am not particularly griping at Weaver...but they should change the rules so that a player can't do that and I understand that the Angels shouldn't have selected him if they weren't willing to pay something approaching his price...but they should have been in no position to select him at all, he SHOULD have been a top 5 draft pick. What is the point of being able to select first if you know you aren't going to have the best player anyways?
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.