Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    Forty-eight players have been taken with the 44th pick since 1965:

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?overall_pick=44&draft_type=junreg&

    Only three -- Joey Votto, Jon Lieber and Bob Wickman -- have produced a career WAR* over 6.0. Forty-four have produced a career WAR of 2.0 or less (in 2012 alone, Mike Aviles posted a WAR of 2.0 for the Red Sox).

    The 44th pick has value, but don't overestimate that value.

    * Wins Above Replacement as reported at Baseball Reference

     

     

     

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

      This won't happen !!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Just look back to 2011. Boston used its two compensation picks -- from losing Victor Martinez and Adrian Beltre in free agency -- on Henry Owens and Jackie Bradley, Jr. Owens was an intriguing high school pitcher who flashed dominant stuff in his first full season in 2012. Bradley, Jr. was a more polished college player who quickly became one of the jewels of the farm system.

    Those aren't the only strong prospects Boston has selected in that area of the draft. Bryce Brentz (36) and Anthony Ranaudo (39) were taken in 2010. The Red Sox drafted Clay Buchholz 42nd and Jed Lowrie 45th in 2005.

    [/QUOTE]


    I agree. It's not so much the specific # pick that has value as the idea of getting as many draft picks as possible, and getting them as high in the draft as possible. While the #44 pick might not amount to anything, the chance of getting a player that might become a bonafide major league contributor increases with more picks we get in the higher rounds.

    Some players are worth a draft pick. I personally don't like the idea of giving up that pick for LaRoche.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    Of the 48 players taken with the 44th pick since 1965, 18 have played at the MLB level, posting a combined career WAR* of 70.9, or 3.9 WAR per MLB player, or 1.5 WAR per pick.

    The corresponding numbers for picks 36-50:

    36. 25, 198.5, 7.9, 4.1

    37. 20, 150.1, 7.5, 3.1

    38. 20, 123.8, 6.2, 2.6

    39. 19, 221.9, 11.7, 4.6

    40. 15, 65.3, 4.4. 1.4

    41. 23, 77.1, 3.4, 1.6

    42. 16, 60.6, 3.8, 1.3

    43. 19, 32.4, 1.7, .7

    44. 18, 70.9, 3.9, 1.5

    45. 18, 19.4, 1.1, .4

    46. 22, 138.4, 6.3, 2.9

    47. 20, 162.1, 8.1, 3.4

    48. 20, 120.7, 6.0, 2.5

    49. 19, 164.1, 8.6, 3.4

    50. 21, 160.0, 7.9, 3.3

    A pick in this range has value, but should not be overvalued.

    * Wins Above Replacement as reported at Baseball Reference

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    We need middle of the lineup hitters.  Who hits third if Ortiz gets injured?  Who hits fourth?

    Our lineup needs work and LaRoche is a good hitter.  I would prefer Napoli because Napoli hits from the right side and has more raw power; however, if Napoli isnt a go, we need to find a middle of the order hitter.

    LaRoche isnt an ideal middle of the lineup guy, but he may be the only one available.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Of the 48 players taken with the 44th pick since 1965, 18 have played at the MLB level, posting a combined career WAR* of 70.0, or 3.9 WAR per MLB player, or 1.5 WAR per pick.

    The corresponding numbers for picks 36-50:

    36. 25, 198.5, 7.9, 4.1

    37. 20, 150.1, 7.5, 3.1

    38. 20, 123.8, 6.2, 2.6

    39. 19, 221.9, 11.7, 4.6

    40. 15, 65.3, 4.4. 1.4

    41. 23, 77.1, 3.4, 1.6

    42. 16, 60.6, 3.8, 1.3

    43. 19, 32.4, 1.7, .7

    44. 18, 70.9, 3.9, 1.5

    45. 18, 19.4, 1.1, .4

    46. 22, 138.4, 6.3, 2.9

    47. 20, 162.1, 8.1, 3.4

    48. 20, 120.7, 6.0, 2.5

    49. 19, 164.1, 8.6, 3.4

    50. 21, 160.0, 7.9, 3.3

    A pick in this range has value, but should not be overvalued.

    * Wins Above Replacement as reported at Baseball Reference

    [/QUOTE]


    comparing past picks to present picks is fruitless... we're dealing with totally different individuals year to year and also the pattern in which teams pick. especially when dealing with such a hit-or-miss thing as an amateur draft it is pointless and utterly stupid to compare from year to year.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    Of course past picks may not reflect what we may get this next draft, but it is a useful tool in determining the relative value of such a pick.

    Thanks for the information, Hill.

    We do need a middle order bat, but neither Napoli or LaRoche are going to be the next Manny. This team needs a heck of a lot more than a middle order bat.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    In response to mef429's comment:

    comparing past picks to present picks is fruitless... we're dealing with totally different individuals year to year and also the pattern in which teams pick. especially when dealing with such a hit-or-miss thing as an amateur draft it is pointless and utterly stupid to compare from year to year.


    I did not compare year to year.

    I suspect every team has a method of assigning a value to a draft pick. I'm confident that the numbers I provided are among the variables considered in making that calculation.

    The list I offered covers 720 draft picks over 48 years ... not the tiny cherry-picking sample in the Providence Journal story.

    It's true that you can't win the lottery* if you don't buy a ticket.

    * As ads caution in my state: "'Lottery games are based on chance, should be played for entertainment only and should not be played for investment purposes."

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    I'm fine with keeping the draft pick since I do not see us seriously competing in 2013 anyways, but I am surprised to see so many posters who actually think we have a chance of winning it all this year seemingly content to go with Mauro Gomez fulltime at the most important offensive position in MLB (1B).

    What's the alternative? Berkman? The next bum-hipped Mike Lowell (Naps)?

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm fine with keeping the draft pick since I do not see us seriously competing in 2013 anyways, but I am surprised to see so many posters who actually think we have a chance of winning it all this year seemingly content to go with Mauro Gomez fulltime at the most important offensive position in MLB (1B).

    What's the alternative? Berkman? The next bum-hipped Mike Lowell (Naps)?

    [/QUOTE]

    I think we have a good chance of contending in 2013. LaRoche is not the piece that is going to make or break this team's chances, IMO. Or more accurately, the difference between LaRoche at 1B versus Gomez at 1B is not likely going to be the difference between contending or not contending.

    My understanding is that Gomez has done very well the past couple of years in AAA. FWIW, Bill James projects LaRoche to hit .256/.334/.471/.805 next year and Gomez to hit .280/.335/.469/.804 .

    All things being equal, I would rather have LaRoche because of his experience. But if one is costing a draft pick and possibly $39 mil for 3 years and the other is costing league minimum, I don't think LaRoche is worth it.

    I haven't looked, but I'm thinking there are probably other options for 1B as well, possibly through trade, that would give us production comparable to Laroche at a better value.

     

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    i looked at the last 20 years or so of #1 sox picks and they are hit and miss....to say that a 44 overall is a sure-fire MLB future star is simply a stretch..it could be...but I doubt they will be as good as LaRouche = especially last year

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThefourBs. Show ThefourBs's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    In response to georom4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    i looked at the last 20 years or so of #1 sox picks and they are hit and miss....to say that a 44 overall is a sure-fire MLB future star is simply a stretch..it could be...but I doubt they will be as good as LaRouche = especially last year

    [/QUOTE]

    Who said it was a "sure-fire MLB future star"?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from MadMc44. Show MadMc44's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    Ben is not doing anything until Nap gets figured out. 

    There will be no trades for 1b's until there is closure.

    Looking at Abreu for 1b--due dilligence.

    I would suggest looking at Justin Smoak for the PawSox: the Sox are 2-3 years away from a legit in house option---the M's have a surplus.

    Now if you said the Sox are moving Boggie to 1b during ST and he will be starting there for the PawSox that's different story one I would like to read about or we are moving him to LF and work with him there--I think an excellent option.

    As others have said we need a legit middle of the order bat, as many have already pointed out.

     

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Of the 48 players taken with the 44th pick since 1965, 18 have played at the MLB level, posting a combined career WAR* of 70.0, or 3.9 WAR per MLB player, or 1.5 WAR per pick.

    The corresponding numbers for picks 36-50:

    36. 25, 198.5, 7.9, 4.1

    37. 20, 150.1, 7.5, 3.1

    38. 20, 123.8, 6.2, 2.6

    39. 19, 221.9, 11.7, 4.6

    40. 15, 65.3, 4.4. 1.4

    41. 23, 77.1, 3.4, 1.6

    42. 16, 60.6, 3.8, 1.3

    43. 19, 32.4, 1.7, .7

    44. 18, 70.9, 3.9, 1.5

    45. 18, 19.4, 1.1, .4

    46. 22, 138.4, 6.3, 2.9

    47. 20, 162.1, 8.1, 3.4

    48. 20, 120.7, 6.0, 2.5

    49. 19, 164.1, 8.6, 3.4

    50. 21, 160.0, 7.9, 3.3

    A pick in this range has value, but should not be overvalued.

    * Wins Above Replacement as reported at Baseball Reference

    [/QUOTE]


    comparing past picks to present picks is fruitless... we're dealing with totally different individuals year to year and also the pattern in which teams pick. especially when dealing with such a hit-or-miss thing as an amateur draft it is pointless and utterly stupid to compare from year to year.

    [/QUOTE]

    You need to cut off the study at about 2005.  To take the obvious, someone picked #44 in 2012, has contributed exactly -0- to the WAR, bringing the WAR average down.  Probably the same with 2011 and 2010, with minor contributions in 2009 and 2008, etc.

    The second thing is that it looks like the average WAR is 2.4.  That alone is worth >$10M in today's methodology.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Signing LaRoche will cost us a #44 draft pick

    You need to cut off the study at about 2005.  To take the obvious, someone picked #44 in 2012, has contributed exactly -0- to the WAR, bringing the WAR average down.  Probably the same with 2011 and 2010, with minor contributions in 2009 and 2008, etc.

    The second thing is that it looks like the average WAR is 2.4.  That alone is worth >$10M in today's methodology.

    You really think it is fair to count theMLB  WAR on the 2012 draft picks? One could argue that we shouldn't count the 2011 and 2010 drafts until a few years down the line as these guys get their chances to show their stuff.

    To me, looking at the numbers from prior to 2008 or 2009 gives a truer sense of what early draft picks normally amount to value wise.

    The Sox have had some hits and misses in the 1st two rounds over the years, but the #44 pick has quite a bit of value.

    BTW, this same approximate value is attached to any pre-season trade we make involving Ellsbury. The team getting Ellsbury before the season begins gains this same value in next year's draft (or we lose that value if we trade him rather than keep him and let him walk).

     

Share