BP Comment Quick Links
![]() |
|
|
|
July 16, 2012 Future ShockThe Nats Are Geniuses! Appel Is Stupid! Not So FastEven with the new signing system, this year's draft deadline had far less drama than previous years did. Nonetheless, the two biggest stories in the first round did end up lasting until that Friday, 5 p.m. Eastern deadline. Mark Appel, the eighth overall pick by the Pirates, did not sign. Lucas Giolito, the 16th overall pick by the Nationals, did. The general reaction seemed to come pretty quickly: the Nationals are geniuses and Appel is dumb. It's an easy narrative, but worth pointing out that in these scenarios the players are never called brilliant. Only teams are brilliant, and only players are dumb. But I digress. The point is that the Nationals might be geniuses, and Appel might have made a foolish decision, but you can't judge yet. Nobody can. So you shouldn't. Make no mistake, the Giolito signing is potentially a steal, but that's the key word: potentially. In March, before he suffered what turned out to be a season-ending elbow injury, Giolito was the top talent in the draft. He was touching triple-digits with his fastball and throwing quality secondary pitches. He was in many ways like Dylan Bundy, only with a much more traditional power pitcher's frame. He could have been the first high school right-hander to ever go No. 1 overall, so if he gets back to that status as a player, it's highway robbery. The assumption that he's just going to automatically make it all the way back there is where the mistake lies, though. He might, but it's not a sure thing. Because how quickly we've forgotten about Matt Purke. Just a little more than a year ago, Purke was the guy people thought could be the No. 1 pick in the draft. Then—as with Giolito—injury struck. In Purke's case it was a shoulder and not an elbow, and he rested and then tried to pitch through it, but his stuff was well below what was seen during his incredible 2010 campaign, when he went 17-0 as a freshman at TCU. Purke's bonus demands remained high, dropping him to the third round, where the Nationals took him and signed him to a deal at the deadline with a total package worth more than $4 million. The reaction at the time was similar to the general consensus on Giolito: Mike Rizzo got his man. The Nationals just turned a third-round pick into a top-ten talent, and they're brilliant. So much of that is true. It was a good pick, and it was a good risk. It's the pretending that there's no risk, that Purke will just automatically return to form, where mistakes are made. Cut to the present and Purke is still dealing with arm problems, still showing sub-par (for him, certainly) stuff during the rare times he takes the mound, and he has a career that consists of just 15.1 innings nearly a year into his professional life. Still a genius move by the Nationals? Debatable. And this isn't the first time. The year before Purke, we had Anthony Ranaudo. A potential No. 1 pick, an elbow injury, a drop to the supplemental first round, a $2.55 million bonus, and praises all over for finding such a great talent so low. Two years later, and he's thrown just 37.2 innings this year because of a groin injury and has a 6.69 ERA in nine starts at Double-A Portland. You see a pattern here? That's not to say Giolito is doomed. One of the first gambits of this kind was a rousing success. Eight years ago, Maryland high school righty Nick Adenhart was the top high school player in his class before snapping his elbow ligament in a May start, requiring Tommy John surgery. The entire industry assumed he would attend North Carolina and work his way back to a team after three years, but the Angels took a flyer on him in the 14th round, and ultimately signed him to a bonus just north of $700,000. The ironic thing was that at the time, there was a lot of criticism of the selection, but he made a full recovery and turned into a bright young starting pitching prospect before being killed in a tragic auto accident at the age of 22.
Related Content: Prospects, 2012 Draft
BP Comment Quick Links HalfStreet (51017) Skelton - Before I respond to the article, that was brilliant. To be clear, I'm a big fan of taking chances. I'm just trying to see I'm not a big fan of rushing to judgement. Jul 14, 2012 14:49 PM Lindemann (852) As a fellow Nats fan, I'm just glad we're rolling the dice and thinking creatively about ways to get better talent than might otherwise be available at the spot in which we are picking. Not every one of these picks has to work out for the strategy to be right-minded. edwardarthur (4967) The Giolito signing also points out that Appel's downside risk may not be as large as it seems. If he hurts his arm or has a bad year, he's not down to eleventh-round money; he probably just gets a smaller number of millions. pfe1223 (59642) I am more interested in how this plays out next year. Will Boras clients be so bold as to ask teams to forfeit future picks? Will teams take a flyer on signability guys? Teams and players are trying to learn how to work the system to their advantage. What will the take away be from this draft? Leg4206 (67464) Selfish would not have crossed my mind. Stupid is way too harsh. Does seem to be a poor judge of risk though. The whole idea floated throughout the year, and still in his and Boras' head, is that he was heads above everyone else. He never was, and won't be next year either. sitdancer (67002) Any chance Appel's decision was less based on money and more on organization? Not that I think he shouldn't want to go the Pirates, but maybe he is hoping for a different landing spot if he has to take the pay cut associated with not being picked in the top 3. gilgamesh (19005) It's the owners whose strange obsession with the draft has created a system that punishes players by protecting teams from themselves. jtwalsh (1154) I believe the draft was collectively bargained between the owners and the MLBPA. Why no critiism for the players bargaining away the rights for the next generation? Seems to be a national trend. Every suggestion for draft changes came from the owners. EVERY one. And of course that's where the players will make concessions. Jul 15, 2012 10:25 AM jtwalsh (1154) Kevin, Behemoth (46675) Clearly, the players approve of the whole package. That doesn't mean that they like every element of it. This is very likely one of the parts they don't like, but it's a bit silly to expect the union to sacrifice the interests of its members to help people who currently aren't union members. The draft and the way it operates is very much the design of the owners, and it's foolish to suggest otherwise. danteswitness (39502) I would actually guess that the players don't really care about wrecking a draft process that none of them will ever go through again. Drakos (65578) This is my thought. I'd say that most union members care more about themselves and other current members than future members. Leg4206 (67464) That, and I doubt there is much sympathy (from the players or owners) for paying large sums to players who haven't contributed jack squat to wins for the parent club. The commonly held belief that "you should earn what you get paid" runs counter to paying new players huge sums. NFABrian (62275) I still wonder if/when we will see a team completely ignore their bonus pool amount, draft/sign the best available and forfeit first rounders in the next two drafts. Richard Bergstrom (36532) The intriguing part for me is that the Pirates have had enough success the last two years where the inability to sign Appel hasn't resulted in a lot of bad PR. eliyahu (11036) My sense of the Appel non-signing is that Boras is trying to demonstrate to teams that "his guys" that fall will insist on teams forfeiting a draft pick, and will not flinch. Teams that take Appel with the #8 pick will be reluctant to do that, as it's debatable whether Appel will deserve to be meaningfully better than #9 next year, not to mention the other pick they'd give up. Richard Bergstrom (36532) I think you're right about Boras's intentions, and it's actually a good plan of his. tannerg (65727) You've got to be kidding. Sacrificial lamb? I agree with this. Boras is an agent. Remember Jered Weaver. Weaver wanted to stay in LA, and Boras worked out a deal. He would have made more money in free agency, but he told Boras where he wanted to stay and Boras did a deal for him. Jul 15, 2012 10:26 AM Behemoth (46675) It always amazes me how Boras makes otherwise sensible people become lunatics simply by doing what he's supposed to do. eliyahu (11036) Tannerg and Kevin, Behemoth (46675) Ot alternatively, you could come up with some evidence that Boras somehow forced intelligent adult Mark Appel to refuse to sign for the Pirates when he really wanted to. I suppose just shouting BORAS!!! EVIL MONSTER BORAS!!!!1!! is easier. eliyahu (11036) No one here is suggesting that, Behemoth. What I am suggesting, is that Boras is completely within his rights -- morally and professionally -- to tell prospective new clients that he positions his firm a certain way, and that anyone who wants to retain him needs to understand that. Given that, I think it's perfectly understandable for Boras to tell someone like Appel something along the lines of "I'm happy to represent you as one of the best players in the draft. However, it's important for you to know that my firm is known for X and I intend to demand that a team forfeit draft picks for a player of your talents. If you are uncomfortable with that, you're probably best served by seeking other representation." Behemoth (46675) This is the thing with Boras. There's no evidence to suggest that he had a conversation like that with Appel at all, but everyone somehow decides that he's used his secret magic powers to stop/influence Appel away from signing. Appel seems to me to be an intelligent young man who is entirely capable of making his own decisions. amazin_mess (9525) The new draft makes for some strange occurances. The Mets had enough money left on deadline day to give second-rounder Teddy Stankowicz a little more than slot money. They refused to offer him more than 90% of the slot allowance. No one will ever know why. werdnassiew (46103) Could not agree more with the premise of the article. I have always wondered why the Nats never employed the same intelligent buckshot approach to international players. For the same dollars they spent on the previous two drafts they could have bought several villages in the DR and elsewhere and two or three prospects could have hit from that large a group. Are those odds any worse than taking chances on damaged players with high pre-injury rankings? HalfStreet (51017) I also am disappointed with the Nats' pathetic approach to international signings. "Smiley Gonzalez" happened several years ago now. Get over it. The new cap on international signings limited the risk, so I have no idea what is holding them back. ofMontreal (37476) To be honest, baseball was last sport not to have rookie/first year slotting. I don't think the slot values skew too low either. The way rosters are constructed, the value of position players that consistently play will now only go up. It's not as if this was a unilateral decision, the union agreed to this because it drives up the value of regulars because teams will spend most of what they can afford to spend. OonBoon (40517) Who cares about the guys in round 4-10? There's a 98% chance they amount to organizational filler with 4th outfielder upside. Pay Appel 5 slots worth of money and offer the rest a box of donuts. Richard Bergstrom (36532) Appel has talent, but no one saying he's an amazing, groundbreaking, earthshattering, guaranteed to pitch 20 years in the majors talent. Why risk losing future picks, especially for a team like the Pirates that's still trying to restock its system? Asinwreck (2072) My one surprise in this draft was that Appel was the only first round pick to go unsigned. A survey of agents and front office personnel on how they were surprised/delighted/dismayed by the first year of the new system would be a good column, and an interesting benchmark for next year's draft. dwinning (31741) My question is what kind of dynamic this creates for teams looking at Appel in next year's draft. Say next season he does what he did this season and is basically the same guy that 7 teams passed on this year. Six of the teams that passed on him this year will be picking at the top of the draft again next year - Minnesota, Houston, Seattle, KC, Chicago, San Diego. If those teams didn't want to deal with Boras/didn't think Appel was worth what he was asking for this year, why would those same teams decide to give him huge money next year, especially now that they know he won't sign for $3.8m and (allegedly) turned up his nose at $6m? Seems like in order for the gamble to pay off, he has to transform himself into a no-doubt 1.1. Richard Bergstrom (36532) Technically, teams could offer him the same $3.8 million next year since, unless Boras has some trick up his sleeve, he would've lost all his leverage as a college graduate. Llarry Amrose (1146) At least some of those teams likely passed him over because they liked who they got better, and not simply about the $$. There's a good chance that if he can remain essentially the same player, that given a different mix of candidates, a team will be glad to pick him and give him the higher slot money. Lagniappe (27010) Fine article, Kevin. The other factor is the Appel decision is that Appel will now have a degree from Stanford, which over a lifetime will be worth more than the bonus and it vulnerable to sore arms and pulled groins. MaineSkin (65713) I totally disagree with Appel. How about the $ he would make in endorsements, especially right now while the Bucs and McCutcjen are on the front page of ESPN. Plus, your stance on Appel follows a paragraph about how pitching prospects fail more than they succeed mainly because of injuries. How can you turn down $4M for a chance to make maybe $2M more when there's no history of success past his prior year? This kid hurts his "arm" and Boras just robbed this kid of being a SaberTJ (10045) Appel turned down the money, not Boras. Boras can tell him he can do better next year, but it is Appel's decision. It is never the agents. David Jackson (68013) He prayed on it, so technically it was Jesus's decision. SaberTJ (10045) Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway. Apparently you don't understand how ones relationship with Jesus works. Your comment could not be more incorrect. dwinning (31741) Yeah David Jackson, Jesus sure isn't going to "advise" Mark Appel if he's not getting a management fee. R.A.Wagman (32721) Jesus sure works in funny ways. Some guys (ie. Daniel Norris), he tells to sign. Other guys (Appel), he says to wait another year (or three). Maybe he has the extra 2%. Richard Bergstrom (36532) Can you explain to me how one's relationship with Jesus should work so I know how to comment about Jesus and praying correctly? SaberTJ (10045) Richard, Richard Bergstrom (36532) SaberTJ, SaberTJ (10045) I am non-denominational. It is a Christian faith that derives its practice purely from what is in the Bible. Richard Bergstrom (36532) We do have an idea he prayed to Jesus. I wouldn't call Google miraculous, but it is useful. As follows: SaberTJ (10045) Thank you. I tried to check before hand, but my search didn't prove as useful as I had hoped. Richard Bergstrom (36532) It wasn't a very easy search since the first few links all referred to the recent press release, so I can understand the difficulty. I'll also admit that I was taking Appel at face value when he said he prayed before researching whether he was actually Christian or not. mbyrnes (354) Maybe Pittsburgh will take him again next year (and draft a third round type cheap sign with their comp pick so that they can go way above slot). John Lowe (42186) If Appel gets his degree from Stanford he will have a chance to be a millionaire even if he never plays baseball. Mr. Cthulhu (47348) Does anyone here know what degree Appel is getting at Stanford? People seem to assume that he will be a financial success just because he has a Stanford degree (a sentiment held outside these comments as well). A degree from Stanford does not guarantee financial success. Sure his degree will compare favorably to those earned from a lesser school, but it still matters what he studied. I really doubt everyone with a four-year degree in art history from Stanford is a millionaire. dREaDS Fan (51622) What get's lost in the "Appel is greedy / Boras is pulling the strings" hyperbole is that it's simply appears a poor economic decision on their part to not sign. When you factor in the time cost of money for the $3.8m bonus and delaying albeit low probability free agency payout by a year, he'll need to make much more with next year's bonus to come out ahead. Making much more in next year's bonus means getting drafted much higher, which is risky, and also converting that draft selection into a corresponding bonus, also risky given he'll be a senior sign. jrbdmb (29231) And if you believe that he could have had $6.0M or more from the Astros, it becomes more of a head-scratcher, as it would take a very fortunate set of circumstances to repeat as a consensus 1st pick next year and get the same or better bonus offer. ncooke (4512) Is it a poor economic decision, though? We can't know. If Lucas Giolito and his popped elbow were picked eight picks later and signed for $4M - isn't that Appel's most likely downside? Because from this article (I haven't read much more), that's still better than the $3.8M he turned down. Especially since he's living and eating for free in beautiful Palo Alto for that extra year. thegeneral13 (32625) His downside is not $4 mm. First of all, he doesn't have the raw talent of Giolito, so if he is similarly injured he will still be worth less. Secondly, he could suffer a torn labrum or something else more serious than an elbow injury. Thirdly, he could just wear down or generally lose effectiveness, sliding him down draft boards (keep in mind he was a borderline 1.1 in a terrible draft class). Fourth, the draft class around him could prove stronger, also pushing him down the board. And finally, he will have no leverage as a college senior, so it's hard to imagine him having a strong hand in negotiations. eliyahu (11036) This isn't getting lost; this is the reason people think Boras is pulling the strings! Appel did something that is very likely to cost him money in the short and long term, so that Boras could send a message that his players that fall will not capitulate. Behemoth (46675) And this is the problem. You are assuming that Appel is some sort of idiot who can't make a rational decision for himself, due to Boras-magic. tannerg (65727) Why wasn't everyone claiming that Andrew Luck was greedy and stupid for not declaring for the 2011 NFL draft after his junior year? bheikoop (32208) Appel has a zero chance of getting injured and then punting his $3.8M next year? JW (60886) While I do 100% agree with Kevin's point that the player certainly has the right to pass this up, has anybody done a study of how well it works passing up first round money? It seems like baseball is such a fickle sport (especially for pitchers), I just don't know if I would take the chance to pass up several million for the potential to earn a little more. Tommy Fastball (19193) I don't think this was the right time to be waving the "Boras defense" flag. By all accounts, Boras/Appel gave up the $6m bonus by over-playing their hand and then it seems like just being stubborn sent him back to college despite a rational analysis probably pointing toward accepting the deal. Boras does what Appel says, but it's Boras' job to guide him and it seems like the whole effort ended far more badly than needed. cmaczkow (31488) Is the marginal value of that extra +/- $2 million worth the risk of not getting the original $4 million? Appel has to decide that for himself...but Matt Harrington would probably suggest signing.
|




81 comments have been left for this article.
Far too rational, Kevin. Let's hear Skip and Steven A settle this once and for all.