I know it's weird but generally speaking, I can barely tell one organisational soldier from another. However, I will always be able to recognise guys like Brad Delatte and Tucker Donahue as Those Guys Who Signed For Peanuts. Even though making the majors might be a tall order for Delatte, he really does have something money can't buy.

I expect we'll become even more familiar with their names as genuine fourth (and subsequent)-rounders blow past them in the minors and become actual prospects. They will become answers to trivia questions. Hope Smoral is worth it.

Smoral was a great signing.  Alford was not (and this is a consensus among most people due to the terrible contract terms).

With Smoral, you're betting on his potential as you would be with a guy like Giolito.  Smoral had the 3rd or 4th highest ceiling of pitchers in the draft.

Great, because we punted 7 rounds of the draft (almost entirely) to sign him.

Most people are negative on the Alford signing because he won't get enough reps.  I assume the Jays knew this before they signed him.  In order for this pick to work Alford needs to give up on football.  What are the chances of that?  I would hope the Jays consulted a football expert who said that Alford is unlikely to win the QB job in college and therefore might drop football.  I did read an article that said there were four candidates, including Alford, for the QB job. One or two of the candidates were red-shirted players who sat out last season.  After mini-camp could Alford be asked to red shirt too?   I know nothing about college football but there is a scenario where Alford becomes valuable. 

Great, because we punted 7 rounds of the draft (almost entirely) to sign him.

Go look at the average WAR curve for players drafted by round; it falls off completely at an accelerating rate.  A mid-first round talent like Smoral is absolutely worth punting rounds 4-10 for; because you realistically are only going to find 1 useful MLB player (and "useful" doesn't even mean "good") in that entire grouping of picks, if that.  Every study done on the draft suggests that your optimal strategy should be to load up on high-round talents.

I will defer to anyone who has done some research on the draft and the likelihood that guys who were considered fringy or less-high ceiling at draft time than someone like Alford or Smoral, who are considered to have very, very high ceilings, and how they turn out at the big league level.

I like the strategy. My understanding is the Jays need superstar-type players to compete in this division. Bottom line, I think that needs to be the goal. To have players that are better at every position than the opponent. Acquiring these players through free agency is out of the question, through trade is difficult, but possible. The third alternative is through the draft/IFA signings and the Jays have vigorously pursued this way. With the new rules, "punting" the rounds four to ten picks was the best way of acquiring the most players with superstar qualities. I would think the frequency you find those players at $200,000 vs. $1,000,000, I would think is substantially lower. But again, I will defer to someone who has done more research.

Alford by all means is reported to have the tools of an exceptional ball player, but as mentioned, there are issues to go along with the traditional baseball development ones. If he gives up football in the near future, I would think he'll be OK and the development lost would be negligible. If not, you might be looking at a kid with the same career path as Jared Mitchell. A guy with serious potential who would be learning the game well into his mid-20s in the minors.

interesting analysis of Lind http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/index.php/adam-lind-is-a-major-leaguer-again/

I genuinely would very much like to see the studies you have described metafour (not being facetious. I really can't find any on a google search). If you have a link I'd be happy to see what the numbers say.

One thing I would point out to you though. The trade-off is not between Smoral and the picks you otherwise would have made in the last seven rounds. The trade off is between the marginal improvement of Smoral over the guy that you would have drafted (for slot) 50th overall, compared to the last seven rounds of the draft.

On its face it looks like a high price to pay for some marginal upside (to convert a sandwich rounder into a first rounder). Remember also that Smoral didn't drop because of his contract demands -- he dropped due to a serious foot injury. So you can talk about being a first round talent if you want, but the reason he dropped was because he carries risks with him that other first rounders do not.

You can't assess the strategy without knowing more about Smoral. As they say, no strategy survives contact with the facts.

I agree that the returns on rounds 4-10 drafted players thorugh history is awful but one shouldn't get the impression that the returns on 1st round picks is great either.  It sucks too but to a much lower extent.  Someone was complaining that Deck McGuire at 11th overall was a bad pick because he had such low upside.  Well there have been 20 pitchers selected 11th overall since 1965 and the best of the bunch so far is Shawn Estes with a career WAR under 10.  Were there no high upside guys drafted 11th overall ever?

Would you do this?

To Jays:
Carlos Gonzalez
To Rockies:
Henderson Alvarez
Travis d'Arnaud
Anthony Gose
Justin Nicolino

That's a tough one. I'd like to say it is a bit rich, but with Gonzales signed through 2017, I'm not sure.

To me Henderson Alvarez may be the dealbreaker. I'd absolutely give up the other three.

I'd say that's a lot rich, considering the recent trades of star talents. I'm sure the CarGo can hit alright in his home field, but I highly doubt he's the hitter he's been at Coors. Then there's the budget implications, and the fact that CarGo is 27 already.
Sure he's signed, but the players in that offer would be the ones you'd be surrounding CarGo with to try for the Championship.

I need much more for all those prospects. Other prospects, fine, but not Alvarez, D'Arnaud, or Gose.
 

No way would I do that trade.  Have a look at Gonzalez' splits.  For his career, away from Coors Field, he's a .267 hitter with a .319 on base % and an OPS of .753.  That's basically the player you're trading for.  You can bump those numbers a bit because he plays a fair number of road games in 3 poor hitters parks in LA, SF and SD, compared to only 1 good hitters' park in ARZ.  That's in almost 1,000 road AB's too, so it's a good sample size.   Colby Rasmus has a career OPS of .763, and Alex Rios is .759, both of which are better numbers than Gonzalez' road OPS.  In evaluating players, you must be very careful to properly account for extreme home parks. 

To me Henderson Alvarez may be the dealbreaker. I'd absolutely give up the other three.

I like the phrasing, not the details. So... to me, Travis d'Arnaud would be the dealbreaker. I'd absolutely give up the other three. (But not necessarily to get CarGo.)

You can't just use the road splits and assume that's how he hit. That's not how it works. Pretty much everyone hits better at home, even if it's not Coors.

Gonzalez is a left-fielder who might hit .270/.335/.485 in a neutral park.  I'd sure want to see what Travis Snider did for a half-season before contemplating giving up two of those players, let alone four. 

The splits are a bit scary, so I think whiterasta is right about that. In terms of giving up too much, I'm not entirely sure. There's five years of control and the numbers, barring the age 31 year are not too painful. For the record, he turns 27 in October. If Carlos Beltran is the comp. Based on WAR, Gonzalez could be as followed:
27: 6.6 (over two teams)
28: 2.7
29: 8
30: 5.2
31: 6.7
= 29.2 (5.8 avg.)

The Gonzalez, Rasmus, Bautista outfield would be mighty fearsome defensively as would Gonzalez's bat in the lineup.

The money roughly works out to:
27: $8 mil
28: $11 mil
29: $16.5 mil
30: $17.5 mil
31: $20.5 mil

Three quarters of this deal have not played a day in the big leagues, and the other quarter doesn't look much more than a ground ball-mid rotation starter.

Then again, all three of the prospects are top 100 guys. There's gold glove potential in two of the guys (d'Arnaud and Gose) and both are close. Nicolino is also an arm that could (optimistically) work his way into a top half of a rotation. Considering the lack of depth of ML ready arms in the system, giving up one of your better options, might not be advisable especially considering the price of acquiring said pitchers.

I think you can rationalize it either way. Yes, it's steep. For me, d'Arnaud might be the deal breaker. If it was Arencibia going back instead of d'Arnaud and maybe the addition of another prospect like a John Stilson? Then I'd do it in a heart beat, but I imagine in this hypothetical world d'Arnaud is probably the center-piece.

Personally, I think these are the type of trades Toronto should be looking to do.

"You can't just use the road splits and assume that's how he hit. That's not how it works. Pretty much everyone hits better at home, even if it's not Coors."

It's true, but Coors is obviously very different. I think a safe assumption would be that Gonzalez would be in the .750-.850 OPS range. Good, but certainly not worth that sort of package. You also have to ask yourself, would getting Carlos Gonzalez make the Jays a contender and the answer is a pretty easy "no".

Glevin, I think that's a good point about making the Jays a contender. I agree with you that Gonzalez on his own does not make the Jays a contender, but does any single player acquisition make the Jays a contender? I think the answer to that is no. I don't think you make this trade saying well this is the trade that puts us over the top. I think it's adding another excellent piece to the core.

CarGo? He of the 2010 1.161/.775 and 2011 .999/.757 and 2012 1.074/.806 OPS splits? Blah. Well, his baseball-reference comp is through age 25 is Raul Modesi so that's always good for a laugh.

If the Jays want to make a splash, instead of giving up 3 top prospects (including a SP -- and we'd replace Alvarez with who again?), then spend that $16/$17/$20 million bucks due to CarGo in his age 29-31 seasons for actual FREE AGENTS who won't cost us a SP, plus our CF and C of the future. Yikes.

I would hope the Jays consulted a football expert who said that Alford is unlikely to win the QB job in college and therefore might drop football.  I did read an article that said there were four candidates, including Alford, for the QB job. One or two of the candidates were red-shirted players who sat out last season.  After mini-camp could Alford be asked to red shirt too?   I know nothing about college football but there is a scenario where Alford becomes valuable.

I follow SEC football very deeply and what I can tell you is that Alford is the most talented football recruit that Southern Miss has signed in years.  They do not have a quarterback on the roster that can come close to his natural talent.  To take things even further HC Ellis Johnson hired Alford's HS football coach and guardian; Steve Buckley, as Assistant HC, Offensive Coordinator, and QB coach.  It has been widely speculated that Buckley was hired as a package-deal to secure Alford's signature.  Southern Miss has a lot invested in Alford and I can almost guarantee that he will not redshirt.  Worst case scenario is they use his athleticism to run a wild-cat package...more likely he ends up being the starter.  USM isn't a program that can go out and recruit a Top 100 QB like Alford every other year like an elite SEC school can; when you hire the kid's HS coach to be your Ass. HC and OC you can already tell that they are going to make sure that Alford thoroughly enjoys his time on the football team.

Given the circumstances with regards to where Alford ended up signing with to play football I just simply dont see how there could possibly be a high probability of him giving up football anytime within the next year or two.  Had he ended up at a top tier SEC school like LSU (which he had offers from) he most likely would have rode the bench and very potentially been over-passed by an incoming QB recruit that is just as talented as he is...in this case I could have seen him giving up football to play baseball.  But at USM with his former HS Coach and guardian running the offense? They're going to roll him out there as the man and do anything they can to keep him on the football team.  The only thing we can really hope for is that he either somehow finds out that he hates playing college football (which is unlikely) OR that he ends up completely sucking at which point a career in baseball begins to look like the choice he needs to take.  Honestly I think regardless of whether or not he has an NFL future he will be playing football long-enough to completely derail his baseball development.  That is my realistic outlook, and I certainly hope the Jays know something that I dont but I feel that they are simply choosing to take a complete shot-in-the-dark here regardless of how unlikely this scenario is of working out.  Had we not had 2 first round picks and 3 comp 1st round picks I see no way in hell that the Jays choose to draft Alford and sign him under these conditions.

You can't just use the road splits and assume that's how he hit.  That's not how it works.  Pretty much everyone hits better at home, even if it's not Coors.

Yes, players generally hit a bit better at home, but the difference is not even remotely close to the vast chasm that exists between Gonzalez' home and road numbers.  Most of his split is due to the park effect, and if you don't allow for that, you are making a big mistake in evaluating a player for a potential trade.  If his career OPS on the road is in the .750 range, maybe he's going to be an .800 OPS player with the Blue Jays.  You don't make that trade, and take on that contract for an .800 OPS outfielder.

Realistically he's not going to be a .750 OPS hitter either though.  If you look at all the big stars that have played for the Rockies in the past, their away OPS has improved markedly once they have left the Rockies (Matt Holliday is a good example).  The tradeoff of the extra home hitting in the thin air seems to be countered by a subsequent fall in away production due to, i'm guessing, a mix of the other parks in the division, and less regular experience with sharp pitch movement.  CarGo likely isn't as good as his Coors stats, but he's also likely a far better hitter than his away record would suggest.

RE Alford - I'm forced to wonder if there's not some contingency clause in the contract which allows them to re-coup some of the investment.

Initially I had thought that the play was to either surprise the world and land him (giving up football) or be happy to get the pick back next year. But then they signed him to an ambiguous deal.

As long as they sign Storman and DeJong and Kellogg then I'm prepared to wait and see how it plays out. We don't know yet who they passed on, if anyone, that will end up being a great success.

I am not sure who all the departing Rockies' star players are that were referenced, but a quick look at Holliday's road wRC+ numbers show a linear progression year over year while in Colorado. This coincides with his development as an All-Star level performer and stands in contrast to Gonzalez whose road numbers have remained consistently around league average in his four season in Denver. Couple that with declining defence and I would be very hesitant to give up a such a talent-laden package for what could be a small but expensive upgrade to LF.

"Realistically he's not going to be a .750 OPS hitter either though. If you look at all the big stars that have played for the Rockies in the past, their away OPS has improved markedly once they have left the Rockies (Matt Holliday is a good example)."

No, Matt Holliday is not a good example. Holliday, in his last 3 years in Colorado had road OPS of .860, .892, and .819. He was an excellent hitter even away from Coors. His OPS post-Colorado has been around .900 which is not surprising. Carlos Gonzalez has a lifetime OPS of .753 away from home. That translates into a likely OPS of around .800 elsewhere. Basically, what Colby Rasmus has given the Jays this year. It's useful, but the discussion is about giving up an insane package of elite prospects for an .800 OPS guy. It's just silly.

I genuinely would very much like to see the studies you have described metafour (not being facetious. I really can't find any on a google search). If you have a link I'd be happy to see what the numbers say.

This study was done in 2009:

Part 1: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/06/draft_picks_and.php
Part 2: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/06/the_draft_and_w.php

One thing I would point out to you though. The trade-off is not between Smoral and the picks you otherwise would have made in the last seven rounds. The trade off is between the marginal improvement of Smoral over the guy that you would have drafted (for slot) 50th overall, compared to the last seven rounds of the draft.

Here's the thing: the numbers show that the tradeoff is much more than "marginal".  Looking at simply pick values (ie: without taking into account WHO you are drafting at the #50 pick); the study gives you the following Average WAR value:

WAR = 19.8(50)^-0.5
WAR = 2.80

Now here's where we have to do some hypothesizing.  We dont have a set-in-stone pick value for what Smoral is "worth"; so you pretty much have to estimate.  Smoral is generally regarded as a mid first round talent on pure talent alone.  If we go ahead and say that he is "equal" to the 15th overall pick then you get the following:

WAR = 19.8(15)^-0.5
WAR = 5.11

Now you find that a "15th overall talent" is actually expected to post an average WAR that is 1.825 times greater than that of the arbitrary "50th overall talent".  That is almost 2x greater; a significantly larger "upgrade" than simply "marginal".  However, thats not even where it ends.  If you read Part 2 of the study you'll also find that as you would expect; players drafted higher have a higher chance of becoming >1 WAR, >10 WAR, >30 WAR etc players as well.  This is because more talented players naturally have a greater chance of making it because their skills are greater (ie: Stephen Strasburg had a significantly higher probability of panning out than a 2nd round college pitcher in the same draft would).  So not only is a player of Smoral's talent expected to post almost 2x the average WAR, but his probability of success is also considerably larger (I dont have the exact numbers here because the formula makes my head hurt just looking at it).  For instance, the study finds that a HS pitcher drafted 10th overall has an 11.6% probability of accumulating a >10 WAR career, whereas a HS pitcher drafted 100th overall has only a 3.2% probability of doing the same.

Remember also that Smoral didn't drop because of his contract demands -- he dropped due to a serious foot injury. So you can talk about being a first round talent if you want, but the reason he dropped was because he carries risks with him that other first rounders do not.

Sure, Smoral absolutely carries more risk because of his injury history, but at the same time he dropped because teams picking in the 1st round are generally extremely cautionary when evaluating injuries simply due to the money/pick that is at stake.  Smoral wouldn't have been drafted and given $2 million if his medical prognosis looked bad, yet he probably fell further than he "should have" simply because teams cant afford to take that risk, especially under these new rules where you have a set amount you can spend.  The other perfect example is Giolito.  He is obviously a significantly better talent than where he was drafted, and while he is hurt, his elbow injury at this point looks fairly routine (ie: completely recoverable)....yet a team picking in the Top 5-10 simply can not draft an injured pitcher and allocate 4+ million of their budget, even if Giolito is on track to a full recovery.  Teams will be ultra conservative.

Sure enough the links I just posted dont work, as I expected with the completely non-user-friendly format of this comment box.  Here are the URL's:

Part 1: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/06/draft_picks_and.php
Part 2: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/06/the_draft_and_w.php

Can someone please...please explain what the term "ironically" actually means to Buck Martinez.

It does not, for instance, refer to every aspect of Kevin Youkilis' life.

Thanks for that response metafour. I wasn't using "marginal" in the sense of "small" or "insignificant", but in the sense of "at the margin" -- the margin being the value that the hypothetical 50th pick would have provided.

It strikes me that the value you are ascribing to Smoral (15th pick) is not consistent with what the mock drafts were saying. Keith Law had him going 29th, and others had him going in the sandwich round. It may be that he is a mid first round talent, but no one would have drafted him there, even if he would agree to sign for slot. I took a quick look at the links you posted, and while I haven't looked long enough to analyse the data set, I can see that a lot turns on where in the first round a pick is drafted. The spread isn't nearly as large between 29 and 50 as it is between 15 and 50.

You're not understanding, Beyonder.  Mock drafts don't represent talent, they represent where a player will go.  They expected that despite Smoral's injury, he'd fall into the back end of the first round.  He fell even further than that, but what a player is considered talent-wise is different from where a player goes in a mock draft.

You're not understanding the point of the exercise Kelekin. It is not to measure talent. The question is "what did AA gain by signing Smoral for 1 million over slot at pick number 50 that he otherwise wouldn't have been able to do?" The answer is: he got a guy who otherwise would have been drafted at (around) 29. By pure talent I don't doubt Smoral was around the 15th best. That's probably quite accurate. But Smoral came with injury concerns. Concerns sufficient to drop him 15 slots. You have to look at the entire package. Ignoring the injury warps your valuation of AA's strategy. It is not an obvious win, try as some might to make it look like one.

Half of my trade idea hurt tonight.

I rather like the Smoral pick. Which you rather have? 100 decent players, or 24 decent players and one good one? There is finite space on a roster. You have to draft people who have a chance to be that good one. Smoral fits that bill, David Cooper (say) does not.

Beyonder: If I had a choice between taking Smoral at 1M overslot, or maybe punting round 7-10 and getting a few more quality guys, I'd likely do the latter.  I'm not a fan of the "put all your eggs in one basket" technique no matter how much I like Smoral, and I don't think long-run this draft will look as impressive on paper as we think coming out of it due to the massive punting of picks.  While players in rounds 4-10 usually don't do as well as a 1st round talent, that's seven chances versus one.  You could take plenty of BA top 200-250 talent and sign it in those rounds.

Also, I'm more interested to see how the draft will work next year, when there will be significantly less compensation picks.  The supplemental round will actually almost be the 2nd round.

Kelekin. I think you mean making genuine picks in rounds 4-10? That's what the choice is between anyway: Overpaying Smoral versus making meaningful picks in rounds 4 through 10.

If so, that's what I've been trying to say. The draft is a crapshoot. As MatO has pointed out numerous times, even very high picks are likely to flame out. Draft these guys in bulk.

Kelekin & Sam, How about not taking Smoral or taking him but not signing him for $2mil but try $1.5mil. If he does not sign then we get that pick next year.
Either way based on your research, pick someone else at #50 & then pick your best choices for round 4,5,6. This way we get more talent but may not be able to sign them.
Since this is now just a game strategy, any thoughts.

I agree that the rate of failure with prospects suggests you might be better off accumulating more than a few. It's a good question, my understanding with this draft class was there was some fall-off in the evaluations of the few guys who were considered elite or potentially elite, which Smoral qualifies, and the second or third tier of prospects who were commanding six figures to sign. I don't know how to answer the question with any conclusive answer other than that?

My opinion is that this class was short on guys with front end/special abilities and potential. For the Jays, the name of the game has to be acquiring as many of these types as possible. Smoral comes with a significant amount of risk, but the upside is there to front a rotation. I don't know if the Jays look at it this way, but if the option is Smoral and college seniors who will likely not make it to the big vs. three solid looking prospects (say Gonzales, Kellogg, and Heyman) who perhaps don't possess the potential to be impact players to the degree of Smoral, I think I might opt for Smoral considering the need for players of his ability or potential in the division.

Next year will be very interesting to follow for the reasons Kelekin alluded to. I'm unsure how MLB will adjust the signing bonuses considering there will be significantly less supplementary picks. I imagine then that teams with one pick per round might then go best player available and less with the gamesmanship. Employing this year's strategy to next year's draft might result in the Jays coming away with only two or three prospects who have a reasonable chance of progressing past Dunedin. That can't happen. Next year though will be the real breaking point for amateur players and their expectations on what they think they should be getting and what's going to be on the table.

One of the big differences with paying for a Smoral vs a bunch of of 200-250 guys is that if Smoral does become a success, he will be a 2/3 starter, very expensive on the open market. The other guys, even if (and that's a big if) they become major leaguers will usually become bullpen arms/backup position players, not without value, but available at reasonable prices each off season.

Also FWIW, at the time of his injury, KLaw had Smoral ranked as his #10 draft prospect.

Great point Sam. This was considered to be an extremely weak draft class. Smoral is one of the few pitchers who projects as front end, down the road. If you have the extra picks and thus extra money to allocate, you take the talent early, warts and all.

In all this discussion, it bears mentioning that AA is saying that Stroman and DeJong are going to have to basically take slot and be happy if they sign. Also, apparently, they have the extra $$ to sign one more guy in the Post-Tenth group, and they will offer it to their first choice and if he says know roll the offere to their second choice and so forth.

One might presume Kellogg gets first dibs but they may have different ideas.

Refresh my memory - if one or the other of the high-round guys bails, can they not use that money to sign the other one over slot?

or, conversely, you could essentially punt DeJong and lock up Stroman (or vice-versa)?

Refresh my memory - if one or the other of the high-round guys bails, can they not use that money to sign the other one over slot?

No. The money for that slot is forfeited if the player is not signed. Hence the draft strategy the Jays, and other teams, employed.