The cost of Pedro Alvarez

[RobZombie]

During the 2005 draft the Sox drafted a high-schooler out of the Bronx named Pedro Alvarez. Alvarez went on to become one of the top college players in the country and is a likely top 5 pick this spring.

 

The Sox didn't sign him because he wanted $1M. The Sox thought this to be too much money and off Alvarez went to Vanderbilt.

 

What did this cost the Red Sox?

 

Well its possible that Alvarez might be ready to contribute at 3B this season or at worst next season. Its possible he'll be a better major league player over the next three years than Mike Lowell will. I believe, its likely that had the Sox signed Alvarez, that Lowell wouldn't have been resigned.

 

The Sox also might have been more willing to do a Crisp for Kouzmanoff deal. Lets assume that the Sox have to eat $3M of Coco's remaining contract. Leaving SD on the hook for $8M, or what they are currently paying Jim Edmonds. Kouzmanoff of course is a risky but interesting player. If you have Alvarez in the minors, you'd be more willing to take that risk.

 

So basically the Sox stuborn refusal to give Pedro Alvarez $1M might have cost them nearly $50M.

[Sox Fan on Cape]

During the 2005 draft the Sox drafted a high-schooler out of the Bronx named Pedro Alvarez. Alvarez went on to become one of the top college players in the country and is a likely top 5 pick this spring.

 

The Sox didn't sign him because he wanted $1M. The Sox thought this to be too much money and off Alvarez went to Vanderbilt.

 

What did this cost the Red Sox?

 

Well its possible that Alvarez might be ready to contribute at 3B this season or at worst next season. Its possible he'll be a better major league player over the next three years than Mike Lowell will. I believe, its likely that had the Sox signed Alvarez, that Lowell wouldn't have been resigned.

 

The Sox also might have been more willing to do a Crisp for Kouzmanoff deal. Lets assume that the Sox have to eat $3M of Coco's remaining contract. Leaving SD on the hook for $8M, or what they are currently paying Jim Edmonds. Kouzmanoff of course is a risky but interesting player. If you have Alvarez in the minors, you'd be more willing to take that risk.

 

So basically the Sox stuborn refusal to give Pedro Alvarez $1M might have cost them nearly $50M.

 

Sounds like a good deal of hoping, wishing, wild guesses and a good deal of Chinese math.

The fact is the Sox saved $ 1 million that they did not pay. There is no guarantee that any prospect is going to pan out no matter how highly rated. Craig Hansen says hi.

[SCM33]

Sounds like a good deal of hoping, wishing, wild guesses and a good deal of Chinese math.

The fact is the Sox saved $ 1 million that they did not pay. There is no guarantee that any prospect is going to pan out no matter how highly rated. Craig Hansen says hi.

 

Owned.

[jacksonianmarch]

At the time, Pedro Alvarez was a nice HS prospect with a bright future. The sox had no idea he'd blossom into the player he is today. He is a dynamite player. As I have been told by one of the PP guys, MLB teams set a max that they will go on a drafted player and since there are so many to sign, they typically dont exceed it.

[yeszir]

He's a stud on campus, thats for sure.

 

I was under the impression that he turned down the Red Sox to go to college though.

[RobZombie]

Sounds like a good deal of hoping, wishing, wild guesses and a good deal of Chinese math.

The fact is the Sox saved $ 1 million that they did not pay. There is no guarantee that any prospect is going to pan out no matter how highly rated. Craig Hansen says hi.

 

I think you missunderstand the difference between a reliever and a hitter for one. Highly rated college hitters are almost always good players at least and often stars. College relievers are a lot more risky. There are tons of David Aardsma's, and Matt Anderson's out there. I think its very likely that Pedro Alvarez will be a star given how he has performed at Vanderbilt.

 

I'm also of the opinion that going to college for three years doesn't improve your game versus going to the pros. It seems very clear now that Alvarez is a much better player than the Sox or anyone else thought at the time. Given his performance at Vanderbilt it seems very likely that Alvarez would have been a top prospect in the Sox system today had he not gone to college.

 

Though Alvarez did turn down the Sox for Vanderbilt, every potential college player has his price. Alvarez indicated that his price was roughly $1M. Though you are right that there is no guarantee on any investment, a $1M cost for a potential $45-$50M in savings represents a pretty significant foregone return.

 

Look I think Theo and his team have done an excellent job putting togeather 2 World Series winners. But that doesn't mean that they are beyond reproach and criticism, and that their mistakes can't be recognized. Not signing Alvarez, seems to be in retrospect a huge mistake, one that could have cost them $45-$50M.

 

Finally, it needs to point out that even the large amateur signings like Hansen are excellent risk reward plays. Hansen got $4M, or roughly 1/7 of what Matt Clement got for one mediocre season of pitching. In the end, you need to go out and spend money on the top-amateur players.

[RobZombie]

At the time' date=' Pedro Alvarez was a nice HS prospect with a bright future. The sox had no idea he'd blossom into the player he is today. He is a dynamite player. As I have been told by one of the PP guys, MLB teams set a max that they will go on a drafted player and since there are so many to sign, they typically dont exceed it.[/quote']

 

Which if you think about it, makes absolutely no sense. This max is still significantly lower than what a mediocre major league player makes in one year. Lets say you have a choice between spendning $29M on Mike Lowell over the next three years, or $29M on the draft. Spending $29M on the draft is almost guaranteed to give you a much higher return. Furhermore, the Sox can do both for one, and for another, there is no way they could spend much less than that on amateur players and still have an excellent draft.

[jacksonianmarch]

but as a 14th rounder, are you saying that the sox should just toss a mil at every player they draft from rounds 1-20?

[RobZombie]

Jackson-

 

Lets be clear. Alvarez was NOT a typical 14th rounder. In fact, if not for his commitment to Vanderbilt which was thought to make him a tough sign, he would have been a late first round or sandwich round pick.

 

Also its probably impossible to spend $20M in the draft. There just aren't going to be 15-20 kids who are great prospects and tough signs. They could probably spend $10-$15M every year on the draft, and international signings which is less than Manny Ramirez costs but could provide a lot more value.

 

Its not really a competition. Potential young stars under your controll are so valuable that money spent on them has a much greater return, than spending money on major league ready players.

[jacksonianmarch]

There were questions about him too. We kinda had the same deal with Peavey, Holle, Storen and Carpenter. All 4 were top 5 round talents who were drafted in the teens to 20s. But they all had massive questions surrounding them and all wanted 1 mil plus in bonuses. Unfortunately, business takes precedence sometimes. Would I have loved for them to sign them all? Absolutely. But the budgets are what they are.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Bryan Smith on Pedro Alvarez, in January:

 

Head of the Class: Pedro Alvarez, Vanderbilt. We move to the likely first overall selection in 2008, assuming of course that his contract demands don't get too out of whack and create signability issues. Alvarez seems to be the one college player everybody knows by now. He's built like Albert Pujols, and like Pujols delivers fantastic power from good strength in his core and legs. Alvarez does strike out a bit much, but nothing out of the ordinary for a power source in the middle of the lineup. He's agile enough to stick at third base, but could be a very good first baseman as well. Especially notable is that Alvarez has been better during the summers with wood than anyone else in the nation. There's reason to think he'll hit 20 home runs this spring en route to Rule Four fame.

 

Strong praise.

 

Kevin Goldstein on Pedro Alvarez, a week ago:

 

While the general consensus is that the draft is a deep one, the amount of truly elite talent is starting to come into question. "In my mind, some of the sexy is definitely gone from this year," said one industry insider. Picking first overall once again, the Rays are still dealing with a large number of possibilities, but the consensus of scouting reports would seemingly cut it to three that are logical choices. Pedro Alvarez is still the top prospect in the eyes of many, but he will remain on the shelf for another two or three weeks recovering from a broken hand. Teams definitely want more looks at him to evaluate his ability to stay at third base in the future, as well as to see him hit against upper-level competition, as he had a tendency to struggle last year against Friday starters (generally each team's ace). This has allowed the top college pitcher, Aaron Crow of Missouri, and the top high school position player, shortstop Tim Beckham, to enter the picture for the number one overall pick.

 

Bold added: that's a really bad sign. Only the few best NCAA pitchers make it as far as AA baseball--here's evidence that Pedro Alvarez is still perhaps AA-level or lower in his skills despite the hype--and as-yet undeveloped skills, while projectable, aren't sure things.

 

jm, your comments about fixed prices are good. A contributing factor that you don't mention is, essentially, price-fixing by MLB, although they'll strongly deny it. Teams are under strong peer pressure not to give higher bonuses to lower picks, because that sets precedent in the market for all ballclubs. In economic terms, the draft is a way to artificially reduce the price of entry-level talent as well as a way to increase parity among teams with dissimilar media market sizes. If ballclubs start paying substantial bonuses in the 14th round, 14th-round picks will start to demand such bonuses, and there's even a wild-card chance that unsigned draftees might bring a class-action suit against MLB for artificial price fixing in the labor market. If ballclubs stay close to the "appropriate" signing bonus by draft position, there's less chance of that happening. Yes, some lower picks get larger bonuses than expected, but $1 million for a 14th-round pick would be very unusual.

 

But RobZombie, your core point is that there has to be a balance between developing amateur talent and buying free agent talent, and I strongly agree with that core point, if not with the details of the Pedro Alvarez situation. I think, though, that Boston has been going in the direction of developing their drafted pitching and investing in key, young pitchers under John Henry: look at Lester, Buchholz, Delcarmen and Papelbon for the home-grown side, and at Beckett and Matsuzaka for the key young pitcher side. For position players, they're looking at acquiring proven veteran talent except where a perceived bargain (Pedroia, Ellsbury) pops up.

 

IMHO. YMMV.

[jacksonianmarch]

and we are seeing it on both sides now. The fact that our biggest off season signee was Latroy Hawkins is a wonder in and of itself.

[ORS]

and we are seeing it on both sides now. The fact that our biggest off season signee was Latroy Hawkins is a wonder in and of itself.

No it isn't, and he wasn't the biggest offseason signee. The Yankees committed $420M+ to retaining Rodriguez, Posada, Rivera, and Pettitte. Had they been less active in maintaining the current roster, you would have seen more activity to improve other areas, IMO. Even the Yankees have a budget, albeit much higher than everyone else.

[SCM33]

The cost of Jeff Bagwell.

 

Who really cares man. Weve won 2 WS in the past couple years, and have a very good team this year with management in place to keep this thing going for the longterm. What more do you want than a championship ballclub who has a chance at competing every year?

 

Pedro Alvarez...please, wake me up when he does something in the show until then, Ill throw the Craig Hansen argument at you all day long.

[RobZombie]

Bryan Smith on Pedro Alvarez, in January:

 

 

 

Strong praise.

 

Kevin Goldstein on Pedro Alvarez, a week ago:

 

 

 

Bold added: that's a really bad sign. Only the few best NCAA pitchers make it as far as AA baseball--here's evidence that Pedro Alvarez is still perhaps AA-level or lower in his skills despite the hype--and as-yet undeveloped skills, while projectable, aren't sure things.

 

jm, your comments about fixed prices are good. A contributing factor that you don't mention is, essentially, price-fixing by MLB, although they'll strongly deny it. Teams are under strong peer pressure not to give higher bonuses to lower picks, because that sets precedent in the market for all ballclubs. In economic terms, the draft is a way to artificially reduce the price of entry-level talent as well as a way to increase parity among teams with dissimilar media market sizes. If ballclubs start paying substantial bonuses in the 14th round, 14th-round picks will start to demand such bonuses, and there's even a wild-card chance that unsigned draftees might bring a class-action suit against MLB for artificial price fixing in the labor market. If ballclubs stay close to the "appropriate" signing bonus by draft position, there's less chance of that happening. Yes, some lower picks get larger bonuses than expected, but $1 million for a 14th-round pick would be very unusual.

 

But RobZombie, your core point is that there has to be a balance between developing amateur talent and buying free agent talent, and I strongly agree with that core point, if not with the details of the Pedro Alvarez situation. I think, though, that Boston has been going in the direction of developing their drafted pitching and investing in key, young pitchers under John Henry: look at Lester, Buchholz, Delcarmen and Papelbon for the home-grown side, and at Beckett and Matsuzaka for the key young pitcher side. For position players, they're looking at acquiring proven veteran talent except where a perceived bargain (Pedroia, Ellsbury) pops up.

 

IMHO. YMMV.

 

I wanted to comment on the last two paragraphs.

 

It is true that MLB does pressure teams NOT to give bonuses far above slot. To that I say screw them. For $2M or the same as the Sox are paying Alex Cora, you can sign two potential stars. The risk reward trade off isn't even close. Why should MLB force teams to make an exception?

 

Sure there has to be a balance between signing acquiring free agent talent and signing amateur talent (lets not forget about scouting and development too by the way). But that balance really needs to be tilted towards signing and developing amateur talent as a dollar spent there goes a lot further than talent spent elsewhere.

 

Of the players you cited, only one I think was signed above slot and that was Lester. Buchholz fell because of a perceived behavior problem, Ellsbury went right where you'd expect in the draft, and Pedroia just turned out to be a little better than many scouts expected. They got very lucky with Papelbon. He never threw 95 at Mississippi State, but started throwing that hard in the Florida State League after he was Red Sox property. Had he thrown as hard as he does now in college, he would have been a much higher pick.

 

In general the Sox HAVE been aggressive in signing talent above slot the past couple of years by signing Anderson, Middlebrooks, and Almanzar (international). Perhaps they should be even more aggressive.

 

Last thing, if Havens is there at 30, I think the Sox take him.

[RobZombie]

The cost of Jeff Bagwell.

 

Who really cares man. Weve won 2 WS in the past couple years, and have a very good team this year with management in place to keep this thing going for the longterm. What more do you want than a championship ballclub who has a chance at competing every year?

 

Pedro Alvarez...please, wake me up when he does something in the show until then, Ill throw the Craig Hansen argument at you all day long.

 

Just because they won two World Series doesn't mean the team is beyond reproach and can't be criticisized.

 

And if you continue to make the Craig Hansen arguement, I'll continue to show you why its worthless. Yes prospects are unpredictable. But major league talent is unpredictable as well! Matt Clement says hi.

 

Oh yes, and as for "what more do I want". I want the team to throw even more money at amateur talent because the risk reward tradeoff is huge. To use an example. In 2006 the Sox drafted Dustin Richardson above slot in a year where the Sox spent $10M on the draft. If Dustin Richardson alone becomes a decent major league pticher he will pay for the entire draft.

[SCM33]

Comparing the predictability of major leaguers and college prospects are two HUGE, and I mean HUGE differences.

 

It is much easier to predict a major leaguer based on previous experience and numbers rather than someone who has never even stepped on the field with other major leaguers, its really a dumb argument.

 

The Sox can afford to make mistakes, and until this kid does something, its hard to feel remorse.

[RobZombie]

Comparing the predictability of major leaguers and college prospects are two HUGE, and I mean HUGE differences.

 

It is much easier to predict a major leaguer based on previous experience and numbers rather than someone who has never even stepped on the field with other major leaguers, its really a dumb argument.

 

The Sox can afford to make mistakes, and until this kid does something, its hard to feel remorse.

 

 

Your argument is dumb because you ignore the cost involved.

 

Yes major leaguers are more predictable, but there is a huge huge cost to that predictability. A top major league star in his 30s will cost you more than $20M a year for several years. If he declines faster than you expect or gets injured, it will set back most teams for several years. Plus, since the player is in his 30s, you probably won't even get the player's best years. Additionally, as it turns out, the difference in predictability is not nearly as large as you think it is.

 

For that same price you can likely sign at least 10 future amateur stars maybe more. If you sign one amateur star or top prospect, they may not turn out. But sign ten? I guarantee you, you will end up with better return than signing one established major league star.

 

I'm sorry that you feel don't feel remorsefull. But that is because you don't know anything about baseball and think that all prospects are nothing more than crapshoots because Craig Hansen hasn't yet performed up to expectations. Your argument is worthless.

 

The point is that Pedro Alvarez's services could have been bought for $1M. His services are currently worth a lot more than that, and won't even be available to the Red Sox. Just because the Sox can make mistakes without killing their chances, doesn't mean that those that they make don't hurt them, or that they shouldn't be pointed out. That's the most worthless part of your argument.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Your argument is dumb because you ignore the cost involved.

 

Yes major leaguers are more predictable, but there is a huge huge cost to that predictability. A top major league star in his 30s will cost you more than $20M a year for several years. If he declines faster than you expect or gets injured, it will set back most teams for several years. Plus, since the player is in his 30s, you probably won't even get the player's best years. Additionally, as it turns out, the difference in predictability is not nearly as large as you think it is.

 

For that same price you can likely sign at least 10 future amateur stars maybe more. If you sign one amateur star or top prospect, they may not turn out. But sign ten? I guarantee you, you will end up with better return than signing one established major league star.

 

I'm sorry that you feel don't feel remorsefull. But that is because you don't know anything about baseball and think that all prospects are nothing more than crapshoots because Craig Hansen hasn't yet performed up to expectations. Your argument is worthless.

 

The point is that Pedro Alvarez's services could have been bought for $1M. His services are currently worth a lot more than that, and won't even be available to the Red Sox. Just because the Sox can make mistakes without killing their chances, doesn't mean that those that they make don't hurt them, or that they shouldn't be pointed out. That's the most worthless part of your argument.

 

You're posting in absolutes, so I'm presuming that you've researched this point, as I have.

 

For each of the following groups of first-round draft picks, at what MLB year do they peak and what is their average value to their teams in wins over replacement-level (AAA) talent?

 

Picks 1-7

Picks 8-15

Picks 16-25

Picks 26+ (including sandwich picks)

 

See, this is pretty important stuff, and it's been researched...you know the answers, right? :dunno:

[SCM33]

Your argument is dumb because you ignore the cost involved.

 

Yes major leaguers are more predictable, but there is a huge huge cost to that predictability. A top major league star in his 30s will cost you more than $20M a year for several years. If he declines faster than you expect or gets injured, it will set back most teams for several years. Plus, since the player is in his 30s, you probably won't even get the player's best years. Additionally, as it turns out, the difference in predictability is not nearly as large as you think it is.

 

For that same price you can likely sign at least 10 future amateur stars maybe more. If you sign one amateur star or top prospect, they may not turn out. But sign ten? I guarantee you, you will end up with better return than signing one established major league star.

 

I'm sorry that you feel don't feel remorsefull. But that is because you don't know anything about baseball and think that all prospects are nothing more than crapshoots because Craig Hansen hasn't yet performed up to expectations. Your argument is worthless.

 

The point is that Pedro Alvarez's services could have been bought for $1M. His services are currently worth a lot more than that, and won't even be available to the Red Sox. Just because the Sox can make mistakes without killing their chances, doesn't mean that those that they make don't hurt them, or that they shouldn't be pointed out. That's the most worthless part of your argument.

 

No.....your argument is a whole lot of If's though, and its also not a dumb argument because last time I checked, the Sox arent penny pinching. My argument stems from reality......your argument is based on IF.

 

You are right, I know nothing about baseball. Judging from that statement, you are most likely 12 (and I am embarrassed for you if you are 1 day older than that, because that is a meager, pathetic, petty statement).

 

You also stated my argument was stupid or worthless 3 times in one post, so Id say you either have turrets or have a hard time putting together thoughtful statements.

 

Nobody gives a damn about some college kid we didnt give 1 million dollars to a couple years ago, except you.

[RobZombie]

You're posting in absolutes, so I'm presuming that you've researched this point, as I have.

 

For each of the following groups of first-round draft picks, at what MLB year do they peak and what is their average value to their teams in wins over replacement-level (AAA) talent?

 

Picks 1-7

Picks 8-15

Picks 16-25

Picks 26+ (including sandwich picks)

 

See, this is pretty important stuff, and it's been researched...you know the answers, right? :dunno:

 

Though I don't know the exact numbers, someone who is picked in the top seven is very likely to be a star, especially if they are a college hitter. There are differences of course because some top picks are just "signability" picks, and some lower picks are higher ranked prospects.

 

In general the draft has been studied at length by Philly Sox fan, and Jim Callis. Callis found basically that in the draft you get what you pay for.

[RobZombie]

No.....your argument is a whole lot of If's though, and its also not a dumb argument because last time I checked, the Sox arent penny pinching. My argument stems from reality......your argument is based on IF.

 

You are right, I know nothing about baseball. Judging from that statement, you are most likely 12 (and I am embarrassed for you if you are 1 day older than that, because that is a meager, pathetic, petty statement).

 

You also stated my argument was stupid or worthless 3 times in one post, so Id say you either have turrets or have a hard time putting together thoughtful statements.

 

Nobody gives a damn about some college kid we didnt give 1 million dollars to a couple years ago, except you.

 

Your argument doesn't stem from reality at all. Your argument is that basically because Craig Hansen was a top prospect and hasn't yet made it, all prospects are equally unpredicatable. This argument is laughable and not based upon reality.

 

#1 Hansen is a relief pitcher who are inherently less predictable than hitters.

 

#2 Top amateur players are more likely to become stars than those that aren't highly rated, so if one doesn't make it its irrelevant.

 

Intelligent baseball fans, which you are not, DO care about the farm system and a guy who will now be a top ten pick in the draft. I feel sorry for you. You throw all your insults around yet have a brain the size of a walnut. Then you have the gall to whine and complain.

 

That's your brain on the floor saying hi.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Though I don't know the exact numbers, someone who is picked in the top seven is very likely to be a star, especially if they are a college hitter. There are differences of course because some top picks are just "signability" picks, and some lower picks are higher ranked prospects.

 

In general the draft has been studied at length by Philly Sox fan, and Jim Callis. Callis found basically that in the draft you get what you pay for.

 

All of these ranges, though, are first-round picks. The average team gets only one pick in one of the top three brackets, and rarely more than two picks total of this caliber. These are very high picks--these are excellent prospects.

 

Picks 1-7

Peak Wins 2.99

(Fourth MLB Year)

 

Picks 8-15

Peak Wins 2.44

(Third MLB Year)

 

Picks 16-25

Peak Wins 1.92

(Second MLB Year)

 

Picks 26+

Peak Wins 0.90

(Second MLB Year)

 

OK...but how good is a 2.99-win player or a 0.90-win player? Let's look at the 2007 Red Sox, evaluated by the same system, WARP (WARP1 to be exact):

 

[table]NAME | Wins

DAVID ORTIZ | 8.2

JOSH BECKETT | 7.9

MIKE LOWELL | 7.6

KEVIN YOUKILIS | 6.9

JONATHAN PAPELBON | 6.4

DUSTIN PEDROIA | 6.3

DAISUKE MATSUZAKA | 6.2

COCO CRISP | 5.4

JASON VARITEK | 5.3

CURT SCHILLING | 4.3

TIM WAKEFIELD | 4.3

MANNY RAMIREZ | 3.7

HIDEKI OKAJIMA | 3.6

J.D. DREW | 2.8

JACOBY ELLSBURY | 1.8

JULIAN TAVAREZ | 1.5

MIKE TIMLIN | 1.5

ALEX CORA | 1.4

MANNY DELCARMEN | 1.4

JAVIER LOPEZ | 1.4

JULIO LUGO | 1.4

KYLE SNYDER | 1.3

ERIC HINSKE | 1.1

BRENDAN DONNELLY | 1

JOEL PINEIRO | 0.5

BRANDON MOSS | 0.3

DOUG MIRABELLI | 0.2

DAVID MURPHY | 0.1

KEVIN CASH | 0

BOBBY KIELTY | 0

WILY MO PENA | 0

JEFF BAILEY | -0.1

ROYCE CLAYTON | -0.2[/table]

 

OK...This means that a truly elite draft pick, one of the top eight overall, can be expected to do roughly as well at his peak as JD Drew did in 2007. A sandwich pick would be as good as Brendan Donnelly in 2007 or Eric Hinske in 2007 at their peaks.

 

There are 24 roster slots at Pawtucket. Each year somewhere around two or three players who were starting at Pawtucket (or, more rarely, Portland) the previous year will play more than a handful of innings for Boston. Those players reflect the net value of an entire year's drafting and player development: of 24 roster spots at Pawtucket, maybe a half dozen players fill a few MLB at bats via waivers and just two or three contribute significantly.

 

That's why these value expectations are so low. Some first-round picks thrive--but others wash out badly, never reaching MLB. Washing out is much more common than succeeding. The value of the future stars is offset by the washouts until the result is the 2007 JD Drew.

 

Boston probably uses very sophisticated metrics to balance investment in prospects with investment in free agents. Certainly some draft picks are worth their bonuses--but certainly a very large number wash out completely, too. I'm not yet ready to criticize the FO for failing to sign one guy in the fourteenth round when it would've taken a million dollars to do so.

[Mr Crunchy]

rob

you and your 160 posts arent qualified to discuss baseball on the same level as J-Bill.

and for the record

i havent seen him insult anyone,hes been nothing short of polite to each and every member of this panel.

why dont you try and read what the man has to say and perhaps you can learn a thing or to.

im a huge fan and have been since i could say ""Joe foy turd base"" yet i still admire what Bill brings to the table.

or

are you a girl?

if youre a woman that would explain quite a bit

[a700hitter]

Right on JayHawk Bill. You have backed up with statistics what I have always known to be true. Draft choices are like lottery tickets. Very, very few become stars.

[Mr Crunchy]

there is so much luck involved in bringing a guy from high school into the majors.

health issues,head issues,dirty girls,subsatance abuse,homesickness

really

you need a lot of luck along with the natural gifts

[BudLight]

there is so much luck involved in bringing a guy from high school into the majors.

health issues,head issues,dirty girls,subsatance abuse,homesickness

really

you need a lot of luck along with the natural gifts

 

Brien Taylor says hi I hear he's flipping houses for a living now.

[RobZombie]

rob

you and your 160 posts arent qualified to discuss baseball on the same level as J-Bill.

and for the record

i havent seen him insult anyone,hes been nothing short of polite to each and every member of this panel.

why dont you try and read what the man has to say and perhaps you can learn a thing or to.

im a huge fan and have been since i could say ""Joe foy turd base"" yet i still admire what Bill brings to the table.

or

are you a girl?

if youre a woman that would explain quite a bit

 

Its true that I am combative especially when confronted with ignorance.

 

In answer to your question, I am male. There aren't that many girls who are into Rob Zombie.

 

Yet the final part of your post explains a lot about you. You obviously don't have any women in your life. You clearly have no respect for them whatsoever. That maybe why you feel such hostility towards them because you can't get close to one. I'd get that fixed if I were you. Being alone with your right hand doesn't sound like much fun :-)

[RobZombie]

there is so much luck involved in bringing a guy from high school into the majors.

health issues,head issues,dirty girls,subsatance abuse,homesickness

really

you need a lot of luck along with the natural gifts

 

Certainly the future of any human being four years down the road is uncertain. Yet there is a difference between uncertainty and randomness. Just because not all high school players make it doesn't mean that there is no way to separate their talent. Some high school players are more talented than others, and those players are much more likely to be stars in the future. Callis recently did a study on bonuses, basically as it ends up you get what you pay for. If you pay up for players in the draft, there is a huge huge return for doing so.

[CrespoBlows]

Its true that I am combative especially when confronted with ignorance.

 

In answer to your question, I am male. There aren't that many girls who are into Rob Zombie.

 

Yet the final part of your post explains a lot about you. You obviously don't have any women in your life. You clearly have no respect for them whatsoever. That maybe why you feel such hostility towards them because you can't get close to one. I'd get that fixed if I were you. Being alone with your right hand doesn't sound like much fun :-)

 

OHES SNAP!!!

 

U GAUGHT HIM!!! LOL!!!