The Cubs have traded Scott Hairston to the Nationals for a class A pitcher. Hairston was signed this past offseason for 2-years and $5 million after his solid 2012 season. In 112 plate appearances with the Cubs, Hairston hit only .172/.232/.434. His wOBA was .283 and he had a wRC+ of 73. He had -0.6 fWAR and -0.5 rWAR.
Hairston had never been a good hitter vs right handers, but had always hit lefties quite well. All 8 of his home runs this year came against lefties, but his average and OBP were so poor that he still had a wRC+ just above 90. He’ll play in the same role for the Nationals.
Hairston was owed another $2.5 million next year and the Cubs will chip in about $500,000 while the Nationals pay the rest of the salary.
It’s not known at this time who the pitcher is that the Cubs got. I will update the post, or create a new one, with that information when it’s available.
UPDATE: According to Buster Olney, the Cubs will be getting 21 year old right hander Ivan Pineyro. Pineyro was just promoted to High A after 13 impressive starts at A ball. He has good command and has shown the ability to strikeout batters.
Baseball America talked about Pineyro back in March. It was related to his comeback after getting hit in the jaw by a batted ball. Scouts like the guy. Prior to the season, John Sickels ranked him outside of the top 22 Nationals prospect with a grade equal to or less than C.
UPDATE 2: According to @NationalsPR, the Cubs are sending a player to be named later while they are also acquiring one from the Nationals.
UPDATE 3: Below is from the most recent Baseball America chat on the Nationals top prospects for 2013.
Karl of Delaware (Georgetown, Delaware): Name a sleeper from the Nationals low minors (below A+).
Aaron Fitt: I’m intrigued by Ivan Pineyro, a Dominican righty who just turned 21 this September. His velocity has jumped into the 90-94 range, he has good feel for a changeup that could become a plus pitch, and the Nats have been impressed with his maturity and professionalism. The key will be improving his breaking ball and refining his command. But he’s got a good arm — definitely a guy to keep an eye on.
A guy who throws 90-94 with some control is a pretty good return for someone like Scott Hairston. I don’t imagine the PTBNLs will be a big deal.
Comments
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
Aisle424Quote Reply
GWQuote Reply
@ Aisle424:
Did a Yellon parody site just post what Yellon actually said because it requires no additional parody?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6Na5ufB29U
GWQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
It’s a twitter handle that reposts comments from BCB that are especially stupid. Most of it is just stuff from Al’s posts I imagine.
MishQuote Reply
apparently there are dueling ptbnls as well
GWQuote Reply
post updated
dmick89Quote Reply
brooks raley called up. looks like he hasn’t pitched since june 30, so could start if garza moved today
GWQuote Reply
I was hoping the Cubs would get some pool space in this Hairston deal. How much longer can they have Jimenez hold out?
dmick89Quote Reply
@ GW:
Ryan Howard’s career OPS vs. LHP: .728
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
It’s very hard to find a RHB who hasn’t hit LHP’s better than Ryan Howard. But they won’t platoon him because the Phillies don’t know what a sunk cost is (or they’re too embarrassed to admit they made a mistake).
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ Aisle424:
There are not enough (dying laughing)s
BerseliusQuote Reply
I don’t know what’s funnier, Yellon’s post or that reportedly three teams are interested in signing Francouer. Yellon posits in the comments that since the Reds are interested, clearly it would be worth the Cubs while to sign him.
BerseliusQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
The Nats have already earmarked their extra pool money for money skimmed off of bonuses to scouts and buscones.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
I think the Cubs should let Yellon run the team for 24 months. It would be pure comedy.
dmick89Quote Reply
My favorite part is Yellon arguing the Cubs should acquire the guy he used as a cautionary tale about how the Cubs are ruining Castro by trying to make him walk more. And he wrote that JUST LAST WEEK.
“You guys, we don’t want Castro to turn into Jeff Francouer, do we? Something must be done! Also, on a completely unrelated topic: we should totally sign Jeff Francouer.”
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ Aisle424:
That’s pretty funny.
Then again, if Castro did turn into Francouer, it would actually be an improvement. That’s the part that is not funny.
dmick89Quote Reply
It wasn’t that long ago that Elvis Andrus, Alcides Escobar and Starlin Castro were very good SS prospects. This season, each of their wRC+ is in the bottom 9 in baseball. Andrus (3rd worst), Castro (8), Escobar (9). Darwin Barney is 4th worst.
dmick89Quote Reply
http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/midseason-prospect-update-top-50-prospects/
Baez, Almora and Soler in Top 20.
MuckerQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
Looks like that doesn’t include any of the 2013 draftees. I wonder how that would shake things up (also, where Bryant would land in BA’s list). Though I think those three (probably four) would probably still fall in the top forty.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
bullpen banter had Bryant at 26 in their mid-season list, I believe
GWQuote Reply
http://bullpenbanter.com/bullpen-banter-midseason-top-75-prospect-list/
GWQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
I think I read that somebody would have Bryant as top Cubs prospect when he signs. I don’t know about that but it’s definitely nice to see the Cubs with some names in the Top 20.
MuckerQuote Reply
From the front page of ESPN.com:
Ummm…..
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ Rizzo the Rat:
I don’t know what that writer was thinking – Kevin Gregg is exactly the kind of pitcher that the Cubs FO wants to build around (dying laughing).
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Rizzo the Rat:
Maybe they could get Joe Borowski
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
Andrus making $120M makes me feel a little better about Castro’s $60M.
GBTSQuote Reply
And it makes me feel A LOT better about Barney’s $562,000. (dying laughing)
GBTSQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
Yeah, and the Phills are going to sign Papelbon to a 10-year, $6 billion contract extension.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Someone explain to me why Lindor is so highly regarded. Because he can stick at SS? He seems to lack the bat and although 2013 looks better than 2012, it’s still just a half of a season in A+.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat wrote:
That doesn’t take effect until 2021.
MishQuote Reply
Man, the Twins farm is stacked.
GBTSQuote Reply
JonKneeV wrote:
this is a big one, I think. he’s supposedly very good with the glove. also, very little swing and miss, good plate discipline, and young for his level
GWQuote Reply
JonKneeV wrote:
See also: Hak-Ju Lee
BerseliusQuote Reply
Matt Loosen ——–> no hitter for Daytona
BerseliusQuote Reply
GBTS wrote:
I’m saving up for season tickets now, because good lord am I looking forward to watching Sano and Buxton every day.
sitrick2Quote Reply
From MLBTR
I guess they don’t care about going over, taxes, etc. Or maybe they just care a wee bit and just decided to trade for a miniscule amount of space to reduce the tax. OR they just cleared out that space so Alcantara could be promoted.
It seems apparent that the Cubs are just going to spend out the nose, damn the penalties, and the trades aren’t really related to IFA.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Sorry, travel day, no JOT. Double-sized version tomorrow.
MylesQuote Reply
Rice Cube wrote:
Could it be that they had a trade lined up for Jimenez cap money which fell through, and now they decided that if they are going to go over, may as well get everything they can?
WaLiQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
I think that was possible too and all you OV folks have talked about that at some point, methinks. Theo Epstein had also previously said that acquiring additional pool space was not a priority.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
Could be. An alternative would be that they view the IFA process as fluid (i.e. there might be a draft next year, which would dramatically change the dynamics of the market and how cap space is valued/used) and they’re just looking to make hay while the sun shines. Even if what we’re hearing about the international draft is true and nothing changes, the worst-case scenario is that they have a metric fuckton of space to sell off next year. It’s less than ideal, but better than nothing.
uncle daveQuote Reply
Isn’t the most obvious explanation that the Cubs just don’t give a shit about having a $250k or $500k cap next year because they really like this year’s talent? We’re talking about teenagers who have never seen real competition. It’s practically a crapshoot already, and maybe the Cubs are employing an every-other year strategy to IFA. I think I’d actually prefer that approach.
If we’re talking about crapshoots, I’d rather give myself the clear best chance to win 50% of the time than an average chance to win every year.
GBTSQuote Reply
The Cubs are looking at another top-8 Rule 4 pick in 2014, plus the team is likely getting a couple more Top 100 prospects in the impending Garza deal. Maybe they figure they can load up on IFA talent in 2013, skip 2014, and load up again in 2015.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
to be honest, the only way I’ll believe that going over was the plan all along is if they acquire sufficient space for Eloy and then sign someone else. (or potentially, if they cut a bunch of major league salary soon, sending out very little $ in trades.) if it’s too steep to acquire space, then they should go over.
GWQuote Reply
GBTS wrote:
that would be true if they hadn’t made a significant effort to acquire space. also, as we talked about last week, judging a class of 14-15 year olds is difficult, at best, silly, at worst.
GWQuote Reply
So…if Garza extension talks are true, is that for reals to keep him, or to make other teams more desperate to trade for him?
/thinking
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
After Samardzija’s last start, he is clearly not an ace, so we need to extend Garza!
WaLiQuote Reply
Re: Cubs IFA monies, it’s rumored Moreno will sign for $650K, rather than the reported $800K, I’m guessing THoyer are going to try and save this way.
Re: Garza, this is a leveraging move. Looking at the Nolasco deal, I suspect the Cubs are getting lowballed by everyone and leaked this for two reasons:
1.) Get a bit of leverage back. If you don’t want this thing enough to pay what it costs, I’ll keep it. They’re running a baseball team, not a clearing house.
2.) Smoke out the real bidders. No doubt there is a suitor or two that’s just in this to drive up the price and/or block competitors, but they don’t really want Garza. Maybe THoyer are jsut trying to find out who is serious and who is an asshole.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
Most folks on Twitter think it’s a ploy but I think an extension isn’t unrealistic.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Mercurial Outfielder:
If the Cubs can’t get more value in trade than a first round pick (and Garza’s remaining salary), they might as well hang on to him and give him the qualifying offer. Chances are they’ve already gotten such an offer, so I think they end up trading him at the deadline if no one goes over the moon before then.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Now that Feldman and
NolascoMatt Cain and Felix Pie have been traded, are there any other credible pitchers that are even available? Gallardo is the only one I can think of, and it’s more unclear if he’s on the block. Not like the Cubs have to worry about potential trade partners getting someone comparable at this point.BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
gallardo, lohse, bud norris, peavy is starting a rehab this week…
GWQuote Reply
Rumors about Cliff Lee, but who knows.
sitrick2Quote Reply
Garza will command an Anibal Sanchez-type deal as a starting point, and if Theo spends that kind of cash on a guy who will be in decline by the time the Cubs are contending, then it will run counter to everything he’s told us about what the Cubs are doing. The qualifying offer gambit b suggests above is a possibility, but I just see no chance for a long-term deal, given what Theo has said about what he wants to do here.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
if the royals decide to sell, then shields and santana, but that’s not likely to come for a while.
GWQuote Reply
It also wouldn’t surprise me to find that the front office is trying their very best to tank the rest of the season to set up for next year’s draft, as I’ve heard various folks say that it’ll be a strong class. Keeping Garza around for the rest of the year wouldn’t do a whole lot to help them in the race to the bottom. I’d consider it a pretty substantial failure if they didn’t ship him out by the deadline.
uncle daveQuote Reply
I’d still rather the Cubs just extend Garza, given the lack of other pitching worth a damn on the FA market and in the system. Heyman’s report today aside I don’t think Garza is interested in an extension. It’s probably too late for the Cubs to get any kind of a discount anyway. But at least if they sign him to a FA-ish deal now they’ll only be competing against Garza’s expectations, instead of watching other teams drive up the price.
BerseliusQuote Reply
FWIW if the Cubs sign Garza he would be only ~9 months older than Edwin Jackson was when he signed his deal, which we thought was a reasonable one.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
He’ll command a lot more than Jackson did.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
Kasper said on the radio this morning that Garza will be looking in the neighborhood of 5/90-5/100.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
@ Mercurial Outfielder:
Jackson didn’t have Garza’s recent injury history. FWIW Dierkes doesn’t think teams will want to go more than 3 years with him.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Mercurial Outfielder:
If Garza thinks he can get 5/100, let him go (dying laughing). Good luck with that one.
BerseliusQuote Reply
GW wrote:
This. I don’t buy for a moment that this front office thinks they can look at kids at that age and estimate how good an international class will be in a year. I don’t even believe it when people say that about the MLB Draft and there is a hell of a lot more known about those kids. Not to mention, 18, 19, 20 and 21 year olds can be more reliably projected. You can’t do that with 14 and 15 year olds.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Berselius:
No doubt. I wouldn’t mind going 5/65 and up to 5/75 or so with incentives, but I don’t want to go anywhere near $20 million per year. He’s not even that good if he stays healthy.
dmick89Quote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
I think there are two things to consider. First, in order for the Cubs to trade him, they’re going to have to be offered more in return than they can get with a supplemental pick. This shouldn’t be a problem, but we can’t count on it. Second, if the Cubs sign him to an extension then that changes things. There are Cubs fans who think this team could contend as early as next year. Matt Garza helps the team and gives them a better chance of doing so.
If the Cubs think they can contend in 2014 or 2015, they should sign Garza to a reasonable extension. If the Cubs still feel they’re years of contending are beyond that, they should trade him.
dmick89Quote Reply
Sanchez got 5/80. Garza will want to start there. And FWIW:
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
Ryan Howard out 2 months with torn meniscus.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
Mercurial Outfielder wrote:
Good thing the Phillies still have ~ $95 million committed to him (dying laughing).
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
That extension just looks worse by the day.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
It doesn’t matter how good this year is – or, to be more precise – it doesn’t matter how precise your assessment of that is. You just have to pick a year, and accept the rankings of individual prospects as being somewhat meaningful, at least to the level of divisions between the top-tier prospects and the sub-$200,000 prospects.
Think of it this way: if the Cubs decided to just dump truckloads of $ into the international market in search of impact talent, and had more to spend than their allotments would allow, this is probably the best way to do so. They’re effectively “trading” next year’s signee opportunities for the ability to not have any limits this year, other than those imposed by their own internal budget. But the calculation really requires them to go all-out. They must have an international FA budget to spend more than the combined cap from the two years (plus penalties) in a single year, and then take a year off of top-line prospects in the following year.
This is more difficult to do when the Cubs are coming off horrible seasons and their caps are larger. But it’s easier to do when (like the Texans) your caps are lower.
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
@ Mercurial Outfielder:
One of the few extensions that makes the Marmol one look good in comparison.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ shawndgoldman:
Actually, now that I think about it you don’t even have to assume this year’s prospects will be better. You just have to assume you’ll have a lower relative share of the cap market in 2014 than in 2013. Even if the talent is ~equal between the two crops, you’ll be paying lower penalties in 2013. I think that’s roughly equivalent to assuming the Cubs won’t have the 2nd-worst record in baseball this year.
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
@ shawndgoldman:
I disagree. I’d rather have two very good classes than one good one and one that is shit. If the Cubs had less money available, go all out like the Rangers are doing.
The Cubs clearly agree with this too. It’s why Jimenez hasn’t been signed. It’s why they acquired IFA space, too. They would much prefer to not have a limit next year. That much we can’t be pretty damn certain of.
That said, if they’re unable to get the space then they should go all out.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ shawndgoldman:
Texans/Rangers, whatever. Clearly I’m ready to watch CFL offenses in action.
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
To me it’s just a question of which strategy will get you more “top” prospects? I don’t care if they come in every year or spaced out in a biannual basis.
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
There’s also this:
http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/05/31/its-official-no-international-draft-for-2014-and-increased-spending-penalties/
I think, for many reasons, blowing past your limits is a sound strategy. And if you’re going to do it, 2013 is the year to do so.
But (and this is a HUGE but), you have to truly blow past them. Going just enough over to trigger the penalties doesn’t make much sense.
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
What a couple of you are saying here should also apply to the MLB Draft. A team should have one great year by going way over and then a crappy year the next. To me, this makes no sense. Two good drafts are better than a great one and a shitty one.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ shawndgoldman:
Something else to consider is that if a few teams really do blow past the limits every year, it’s probably not a good long term strategy because MLB will probably change the rules.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ shawndgoldman:
But you can’t know you’re going to get more top prospects this way. These guys are 15 and 16 years old right now and you’re trying to evaluate a class next year that currently includes 14 and 15 year olds. A year from now we could be talking about how it’s the best IFA ever. Nobody knows right now how good it’s going to be. You could end up signing a bunch of guys in a shitty year and have restrictions next year.
I’m not comfortable with that and I feel confident saying that teams that expect to have a decent bonus available next year agree. It’s clear they see it that way with the MLB Draft and AFAIK, only the Rangers have blown past their bonus pool this year. They’re not expecting to have much of one next year anyway.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Berselius:
From what I understand of a previous post by Brett, they already did change the rules for 2014. But doesn’t that emphasize the preference to go hog wild this year, when the penalties are less severe?
Heck, by 2016 there may be an international draft.
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
right. the Rangers are currently millions over their slot space, while the Cubs are over by ~$450k. had they meant to go over, I think not only Jimenez would be signed, but at least one or two other names would, as well.
now they are talking to Tseng, because he’s one of the few big names that hasn’t committed somewhere else, and thus a realistic possibility if they don’t get the space (unlike some of the other names that phil rogers threw out).
GWQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
But remember, it’s not about dividing guys into camps of “2013” and “2014.” It’s about dividing them into the “count towards the limit” and “don’t count towards the limit” camps. I’m reasonably confident in the ability of scouts to get decent accuracy to that level. And given that, I’d rather the Cubs pursue whatever strategy nets them the most top-talent teenagers possible. Actually, the level of uncertainty in the difference between, say this year’s 13th-best prospect and next year’s 5th-best prospect (or vice versa) demands that. When uncertainty is high, you want more rolls of the dice. That is effectively what this strategy gets you.
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
shawndgoldman wrote:
GW mentioned this the other day, but the Cubs have barely been linked to the other IFA prospects expecting a big bonus.
Personally, I think it’s fairly clear that the Cubs intended to stay within the limits of their bonus pool. It’s not so clear even yet that the Cubs intend to go over. The best thing for the Cubs would have to been to hold off on signing Moreno so they could already announce the Jimenez signing. A trade that frees up space becomes less likely every day as the Cubs are going to be held ransom for it since every other team knows their situation.
So now the Cubs are left with a few options if they can’t free up space. Just sign Jimenez and deal with the restrictions. Back out of that deal and sign a couple others. Sign Jimenez and everyone else they can think of.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ GW:
Yeah although I’m a proponent of the “blow past the limits” it only works if you go past them by millions. Basically, you have to go past them by more than you expect to have on hand to spend next year.
Another possibility re:Tseng is they are pursuing him in case they can’t afford Jiminez but still want to spend what cap space they have remaining. His reported $1.5M bonus would fit nicely into the Cubs’ current cap.
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Yeah I agree with this, too. I also wonder if the Tseng rumors are more smokescreen by the Cubs adding to the impression for prospective trade partners that they don’t care about their caps.
Basically, we don’t know shit. (dying laughing)
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
shawndgoldman wrote:
Then they’ve already missed out on a lot and now are left with a pool of players that has very little difference between them. Of the top 30, only 3, 4, 5 and 29 remain unsigned. It seems that the Yankees will sign at least one of the top 3 there, if not more. The Red Sox probably sign 1 or two. Both teams have been heavily linked to the players.
If blowing past the budget ever sense, it relied on the Cubs being more active among the top 10 prospects. What does blowing past your budget do for you if it’s to sign mediocre prospects?
dmick89Quote Reply
@ shawndgoldman:
I think the Tseng rumors are more about the Cubs recognizing the situation they’ve put themselves in. It’s becoming less likely that they can acquire additional pool space while at the same time becoming more and more likely it was their intent to remain within that limit. Since it appears there’s a better chance of not being able to acquire space, reach out to anyone left and see what might be able to happen should you not acquire the space.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
There were reports on signing day that Devers (#3) had agreed with the Red Sox, who have been linked to him previously. 4 and 5 are under 16, which likely explains why they are still on the market. most believe it will be encarnacion (4) to the phils and molina (5) to the yanks.
GWQuote Reply
http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/cubs-juan-carlos-paniagua-gets-his-visa/
GWQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
I agree with this. If the ship for doing this in practice in 2013 has already sailed then never mind.
And perhaps it was never a possibility for the Cubs. They’d have to outspend too many other teams (including the Rangers, who supposedly plan on disregarding the limits) for this to be practical. That goes double given the Cubs relatively high ceiling setting a REALLY high break-even point for where this strategy makes sense.
But hey, I’m a theorist. If it’s good in theory that means it’s good in practice and NO DATA ARE NEEDED LALALALALA. (dying laughing)
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
@ shawndgoldman:
(dying laughing)
GWQuote Reply
@ GW:
finally.
dmick89Quote Reply
shawndgoldman wrote:
I’m a big fan of Proof by Convenience (dying laughing).
BerseliusQuote Reply
It would be nice if MLB moved the international signing day back a month, so it’s closer to the trade deadline.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Finally, at the age of 23-ish, he can begin his professional career here.
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
shawndgoldman wrote:
dmick89Quote Reply
bottleasmoke posted this on the forum: http://obstructedview.net/discussions#/discussion/239/what-the-hell-should-i-do-with-my-life
dmick89Quote Reply
http://mlb.si.com/2013/07/08/trade-deadline-watch-matt-garza-cubs/
BerseliusQuote Reply
Oh god, I just made the mistake of watching a few minutes of SportsCenter. They had a discussion on who was the most valuable Tiger Max Scherzer or Prince Fielder. Why Fielder? Because since he joined the team, Cabrera’s numbers have been through the roof, and obviously Fielder deserves the credit. I am not making this up.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
One day, Beltre is going to murder Elvis on the field of play.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
What was up with that? Garza and Bosio just walked in from the bullpen in the top of the first during play (dying laughing)
Not Stationary WaLiQuote Reply
I wonder what Hawk Harrelson said about Garza’s IDGAF moment.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Oh, look. The Cubs have a leadoff hitter with an OBP south of .300. I’m shocked.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
mlb.com headline i recently enjoyed:
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
I’d really like to know more about 16 yr old IFA performances. Someone posted a list of IFAs in MLB now a few days ago, but it was only who was an IFA that is in the bigs now.
My questions would be:
1. What is the likelihood (or How many) of the top five ranked IFAs have made it to the bigs and what is there performance when they do?
2. What is the average signing bonus for the Top 20 ranked IFAs, by rank, over the last, say, 15 years? (I know the system changed this year, but I’m still curious to know in terms of scaling.)
3. How much more successful in MLB is an IFA that is given 5x more than the average IFA signing?
Really the bottom line for me is the question: Does Eloy really have that much better of a chance to be a Big Leaguer than some mid-level guy we sign for $300,000, like Johan Matos?
And the foundation for the bottom line question is this: Is there really that much accuracy in IFA rankings considering these kids are only 16? Because I think thisdmick89 wrote:
basically applies to this year too. Like this:
I totally agree that it is pretty impossible to evaluate next year’s IFA class considering their age now. But I think it’s about equally impossible to project this year’s IFA class since they are only a bunch of 16 year olds. I could be all wrong, since I’m not looking up data though. I’m a theoretician too, at least for tonight.
SVBQuote Reply
new shit
GWQuote Reply
SVB wrote:
to extrapolate out, what’s better, 150 players at $10k each or 1 guy at $1.5m? given that, again, since these kids are so young and therefore hard to accurately assess, i would guess that the odds are pretty good that one of the $10k guys will turn out much better than his initial ranking and also that the $1.5m guy will likely not end up performing at any sort of useful level.
SVB, i think the sample size is too small to really address all of your questions (although i was too lazy to look this up and could definitely be wrong here). i also think that the variance involved with IFA performance relative to their ranking is pretty huge.
(and yes, i realize the logistical issues that would apply to a strategy of drafting 150 IFAs. i’m just trying to add to SVB’s point.)
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Well in theory he’s 23, so….
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply