That still ignores the repercussions of making it a regular activity. I don't think anyone doubts that busting slot can have big returns when done properly, but, like Matt has said, if it becomes habitual to the point that it provokes a response from other clubs, those returns will be diminished as prices increase. Shop and compare, choose the right item.

kruker wrote:That still ignores the repercussions of making it a regular activity. I don't think anyone doubts that busting slot can have big returns when done properly, but, like Matt has said, if it becomes habitual to the point that it provokes a response from other clubs, those returns will be diminished as prices increase. Shop and compare, choose the right item.

So you support the owners on this one then?

any chance gibson has a scheppers like fall?

ReadingPhilly wrote:any chance gibson has a scheppers like fall?

He was throwing his fastball at 83-86mph in his last start, something is up. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Scheppers fell again.

wait till you see my mock draft!!

Whose your dream fall that the Phillies might actually take, I think Scheppers is mine. I just don't seem them taking Tate or Purke or someone with a big bonus demand.

PSUPhilliesPhan wrote:Whose your dream fall that the Phillies might actually take, I think Scheppers is mine. I just don't seem them taking Tate or Purke or someone with a big bonus demand.

Scheppers wants top 5-6 money, I believe

FTN wrote:

kruker wrote:That still ignores the repercussions of making it a regular activity. I don't think anyone doubts that busting slot can have big returns when done properly, but, like Matt has said, if it becomes habitual to the point that it provokes a response from other clubs, those returns will be diminished as prices increase. Shop and compare, choose the right item.

So you support the owners on this one then?

I think you said something to the effect of "having to place trust in your scouts". If a team is sure on a guy, then by all means go out and get him. The key is for it not to be habitual, for the reason stated above and because I don't think there are enough guys and situations for it to occur.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Phils be a little more willing to jump in on the high stakes guys (Porcello being the perfect example), but overall, I actually think they've done pretty well (last year, specifically) on this in the later rounds.

I'd really like to read Ohlendorf's thesis, if for no other reason than to see if he accounted for the future risk of creating an inflated market for prime and average prospects.

Here's my main issue. The "slot recommendations" are nothing more than collusion from the owners, and its been like this forever, just as there was collusion pre-free agency. Owners feel like they should be able to pay guys whatever they want, just like they felt like they should be able to exclude blacks and minorities. You can say its not the same issue, but it is.

Who is to say how much Strasburg is worth? Bud Selig? Is he worth only what Mark Prior was worth? Is he worth 5% more? Is he 5% better as a prospect? The draft itself is collusion. Why aren't all prospects allowed to sign for what they are worth, by whoever is willing to pay them?

If I'm Strasburg and the Nats offer me $30M, but the Yankees offer me $28M, I know I'd forgo the extra $2M to have a chance to win a playoff game in my pre-free agency years.

In many cases (almost every case), the #2 pick in the draft makes about 3M more than the 25th pick, but in almost every case, the #2 player in the draft is worth far more than the 25th pick, far more than 3M. The system is inefficient as it is, but slot recommendations are just a form of collusion, and a bad one at that.

The goal is talent acquisition. Its the job of your scouting team to determine how good the player is now, and how good he'll become, and then to evaluate the market. If Matt Purke is considered the top talent left on the board and our scouts project him to be a solid #1/2 SP in 5 years, then they should certainly pay him 4, 5, even 7 million dollars. Because #2 SP don't grow on trees, and they certainly cost more than 7M. Might he get hurt, be a bust, or leave baseball to live in a grass hut? Sure. But you can only make decisions based on what you know at the time.

Game theory is well and good, but I think big market teams are best served to forget it and invest substantial money in the draft. If the Mets decide to invest after we do, then fine, but they'll be playing catchup. Some teams will always do whatever the Commissioner tells them to do, and as long as that small group exists, the overall price average will be kept reasonable. The Nats have shown a willingness to spend after the first round, and the Braves and Marlins both draft well, all things considered. We'd be well served to use our superior financial means to stay ahead.

I've got to head out, but I'll get back to this later tonight.

BA reporting that RHP Kyle Gibson diagnosed with stress fracture in his right forearm and won't throw for 6 weeks.

SQUIRE

crawdaddy at minorleagueball serving as Phillies Scouting Director in the fan mock draft.

75 - Jake Marisnick, OF, Riverside HS (CA)
106 - Ian Krol, Nequea Valley HS (IL)

SQUIRE

Squire wrote:BA reporting that RHP Kyle Gibson diagnosed with stress fracture in his right forearm and won't throw for 6 weeks.

SQUIRE

will fall out of the first round. Phillies maybe re-draft him?

FTN wrote:

Squire wrote:BA reporting that RHP Kyle Gibson diagnosed with stress fracture in his right forearm and won't throw for 6 weeks.

SQUIRE

will fall out of the first round. Phillies maybe re-draft him?

absolutely the pick you make when your first selection is #75

I suddenly got excited about this draft.

But I have a feeling a team in the sandwich round will roll the dice on him

Goldstein rates Jeff Malm #50 in his top 100, BA has him at #59, and KLaw doesn't have him in the Top 100.

I kind of want him.

Current preference is Gibson > Malm > Heathcott

FTN wrote:Goldstein rates Jeff Malm #50 in his top 100, BA has him at #59, and KLaw doesn't have him in the Top 100.

I kind of want him.

Current preference is Gibson > Malm > Heathcott

I doubt the Phillies even bothered to file the paperwork to re-draft Gibson. There was no reason to think he'd drop that far. I'd really like Malm but he's probably not athletic enough to pique the Phillies interest. Heathcott by all accounts they are seriously interested in.

Squire wrote:

FTN wrote:Goldstein rates Jeff Malm #50 in his top 100, BA has him at #59, and KLaw doesn't have him in the Top 100.

I kind of want him.

Current preference is Gibson > Malm > Heathcott

I doubt the Phillies even bothered to file the paperwork to re-draft Gibson. There was no reason to think he'd drop that far. I'd really like Malm but he's probably not athletic enough to pique the Phillies interest. Heathcott by all accounts they are seriously interested in.

i'm sure they submit the paperwork they need to for every guy every year. it'd be sheer laziness not to. i'd be ecstatic with any of gibson, malm and heathcott.

FTN wrote:Goldstein rates Jeff Malm #50 in his top 100, BA has him at #59, and KLaw doesn't have him in the Top 100.

I kind of want him.

Current preference is Gibson > Malm > Heathcott

I'm Malm in too

FTN wrote:Here's my main issue. The "slot recommendations" are nothing more than collusion from the owners, and its been like this forever, just as there was collusion pre-free agency. Owners feel like they should be able to pay guys whatever they want, just like they felt like they should be able to exclude blacks and minorities. You can say its not the same issue, but it is.

Who is to say how much Strasburg is worth? Bud Selig? Is he worth only what Mark Prior was worth? Is he worth 5% more? Is he 5% better as a prospect? The draft itself is collusion. Why aren't all prospects allowed to sign for what they are worth, by whoever is willing to pay them?

If I'm Strasburg and the Nats offer me $30M, but the Yankees offer me $28M, I know I'd forgo the extra $2M to have a chance to win a playoff game in my pre-free agency years.

In many cases (almost every case), the #2 pick in the draft makes about 3M more than the 25th pick, but in almost every case, the #2 player in the draft is worth far more than the 25th pick, far more than 3M. The system is inefficient as it is, but slot recommendations are just a form of collusion, and a bad one at that.

From an ethical perspective I agree with you (I'd go as far as saying the draft system itself is unfair to players), but that's not what we're talking about here. Although I'm sympathetic to the players, I'm more concerned with how the Phillies can benefit most in the confines of the current structure.

The goal is talent acquisition.

That's the main issue.

Its the job of your scouting team to determine how good the player is now, and how good he'll become, and then to evaluate the market. If Matt Purke is considered the top talent left on the board and our scouts project him to be a solid #1/2 SP in 5 years, then they should certainly pay him 4, 5, even 7 million dollars. Because #2 SP don't grow on trees, and they certainly cost more than 7M. Might he get hurt, be a bust, or leave baseball to live in a grass hut? Sure. But you can only make decisions based on what you know at the time.

Agreed. My outlook on who to bust slot for is a bit conservative though for the reasons stated in my previous post. If the team trusts its scouts and they love a guy, it's foolish to allow an arbitrary price to dictate if you will or won't pick him. However, in most instances (and this is nothing more than a gut feeling, so correct me if I"m wrong) teams usually aren't enamored with just one prospect. So even if they like Purke, they may not be able to justify his talent as being worth paying that extra cost as his talent, in their eyes, isn't worth the extra cost + possible ramifications of breaking slot.

Game theory is well and good, but I think big market teams are best served to forget it and invest substantial money in the draft. If the Mets decide to invest after we do, then fine, but they'll be playing catchup. Some teams will always do whatever the Commissioner tells them to do, and as long as that small group exists, the overall price average will be kept reasonable. The Nats have shown a willingness to spend after the first round, and the Braves and Marlins both draft well, all things considered. We'd be well served to use our superior financial means to stay ahead.

I'd just add the caveat of having to mind the market. In the current situation where very few teams are constantly breaking slot, it's in our best interest to go over for the right players. If signing bonuses should reach a point where the returns (using something like Ohlendorf's model) are depressed, they have to know when this occurs and shift strategies.

I think the disagreement between our two positions (and this is where game theory comes into play) is the probability each of us puts in returns becoming diminished because of rising prices caused by other teams deciding to disregard the slot recommendations in order to keep pace. I've got no clue where that tipping point is (fucking Gladwell), but I think it's in any teams best interest to avoid contributing to a movement that could cause the system to get to that point. The degree of aggressiveness in breaking slot should correlate to how probable that scenario is.