Per Chico Harlan at NJ …
The Stanford closer, selected tenth overall yesterday by the Nats in the amateur draft, has agreed to a deal that includes a $1.6 million bonus — well below Major League Baseball’s recommended guideline for somebody picked in that spot. In recent years, No. 10 picks have all received just above or exactly $2 million, per guidelines of the slotting system.
Not a huge surprise
#1 by Ronny - June 10th, 2009 at 17:08
All this means is we are going to sign Stras. The more money you have the better.
#2 by Pilchard - June 10th, 2009 at 17:19
Not sure the $400K saved here will make any difference in the Strasburg negotiations.
I guess the Nats will use the below slot deal to help quell Selig’s ire when the Nats destroy the slot mark when signing Strasburg. Not that anyone believed Rizzo, this below slot signing, less than 24 hours after Storen was drafted (most negotiations with car dealerships last longer than this) definitively establishes that the Nats had no intention of taking the best player available with the 9B pick. They settled for a player that the Nats knew could be signed quickly with a below slot deal.
Pretty obvious that the Lerners and the entire Nats front office thinks that Nats fans are stupid.
#3 by Mark L - June 10th, 2009 at 17:25
I think you’re completely missing the fact that that with no compensation for not signing this one, they had to prearrange this one. Makes perfect sense to me.
#4 by JayB - June 10th, 2009 at 17:51
Problem Mark is that they end up with lesser talent than Crow who they should have signed last year for just an incremental amount more. The end result is they gave up talent and a year development time. What they should have done is drafted the best player and overpaid him to sign….Not draft a lessor talent and underpay him……oh well the Nats way is already deep in tradition.
#5 by Roberto - June 10th, 2009 at 18:00
This thread gives me an opportunity to try out a theory/argument concerning the drafting and signing of Storen.
I don’t necessarily believe this but here goes: Rizzo and company survey the draft field and conclude that, with the obvious exception of Strasburg, there’s no one else that is worth the really big bonus and the tsuris of a protracted negotiation.
There are some high risk/high reward high school pitchers but the Nats already have two such young pitchers in Willems and Smoker who, as of yet, have not done anything to justify the projections when they were drafted. (I know that the young arms people wanted them to take with #10 were more highly regarded but “more highly regarded” is not the same thing as “a better bet.”) Maybe Rizzo is wary of these kind of players — if so, he’s in good company: Bill James is, at best, skeptical about taking high school pitchers.
Stated differently, in a draft where they already got the king of upside and the best of the rest were high school pitchers, from Rizzo and company’s perspective there really wasn’t that big a difference between Storen and what was available, and Storen fit a definite organizational need.
#6 by Roberto - June 10th, 2009 at 18:10
One more thing: over at BP, Matt Swartz has an interesting piece on top draft picks in which he finds that “fewer and fewer first round draft picks ever end up making the major leagues.” He thinks that part of the reason is “the emergence of international players [that] has grown rapidly during this time frame, resulting in more major league spots being taken up by non-drafted players.” He also notes that the trend doesn’t hold for second-round picks.
He also refutes the notion about high schoolers having greater “upside.”
Reading this I think that the Nats can be raked over the coals for their pathetic efforts in the international market but, again, I’m skeptical about faulting them for going with a college pitcher they are confident can contribute at the MLB level.
#7 by Pilchard - June 10th, 2009 at 18:30
I definitely think that Nats draft philosophy has been impacted by the fact that the HS pitchers drafted by this regime and have been a collective disaster.
Not buying that the Nats had no choice, but to enter into a pre-draft deal. The failure to sign crow was an aberration. IIRC, Crow is the only one of the last 50 players drafted in the top 10 to not sign. The Nats knew or should have known that any player that they draft would sign if the Nats were willing to pony-up. Really tired of people making excuses for an incompetently run franchise.
#8 by Longterm - June 10th, 2009 at 18:48
I think we drafted the two players most readily capable of performing at the major league level. To me it’s simple as that.
Building a bullpen isn’t an overnight process, either. We have two top 10 picks this year. There is no precedent for that. I believe we used the picks wisely with the set goal of supporting the Major League Roster as soon as possible. The remainder of the draft refreshes the minors and hopefully produces more.
Storen appears to be able to fill the role we have for him as quick as Crow would have filled the role we would have had for him had he signed. It’s time to move on from the Crow debacle. Who’s to say Storen won’t have the better career anyway?
#9 by Nick - June 10th, 2009 at 19:04
I mentioned it in a previous thread, but Storen reminds me so much of Chad Cordero in terms of stuff, signability and ability to fill a major need at the major league level almost immediately. Not too shabby…..
#10 by JayB - June 10th, 2009 at 19:05
I guess when the Nats stop shooting them selves in the foot with poor front office decisions and win more games (at least not be the very worst team in baseball by 10 loses), I will be able to move on from Crow debacle. Until then it is the defining moment of the Lerner ownership run.
#11 by Roberto - June 10th, 2009 at 19:42
From what I read, Storen appears to have notably better stuff than Cordero but I agree: Storen may help meet a major need on this team.
One of the truisms that confounds me is that relievers are easy to come by. Sure, a quality starter is more valuable but if it’s really that easy why do so many teams struggle with their bullpens?
I know that relievers are a variable bunch but is it possible that this is due, at least in part, to the fact that people treat them as fungible? If the bullpen is where you send your inconsistent starters then inconsistency seems to be built in.
#12 by Sam - June 10th, 2009 at 19:52
I realize this is below slot payments for previous years, but do we know whether mlb dropped the slot reccs this year, what with the global economy melting down and all?
Is the idea that the slot reccs could be dropped nonsenical?
#13 by RD - June 10th, 2009 at 20:22
They need to use some of the saved cash to sign Stroman.
The organization talked about something extraordinary with this draft … and they did nothing of the sort. The organization had a shot at Strasburg, Matzek, and Mychal Givens and we didn’t go after the best players.
I think Storen and Kobernus are going to help the organization but they didn’t go after the talent they said they would.
There are few picks to get excited about. Stroman is one of the few. Kid is a tremendous athlete and great basketball player. Forget his size, the kid can play. He’s got the athleticism, speed, agility, arm and bat to play. So what if he’s 5′9? He’s a middle infielder, not someone you expect to hit 50 bombs a year.
I really hope they get after it and pursue him hard.
#14 by Dick - June 10th, 2009 at 20:51
If Crow doesn’t get double slot (and he wouldn’t appear to have too many options but to sign for what he is offered, what is he going to do, sit out another year), then who looks stupid? The Nats for not giving him $4 million or him, for turning down $3.5 and a year of development for, say $2 million?
Anyone out there think Storen has a chance to have as good a career as Crow? Point is, you can’t evaluate who blundered until you see the final results.
#15 by RD exposfan - June 10th, 2009 at 20:56
If Storen can join the big club sometime this season and help stabilize the bullpen like Cordero did then the Nats made a very good choice with their 10 pick.
#16 by Sam - June 10th, 2009 at 21:03
Why does it really matter if the DC Nationals stabilize their bullpen this season?
#17 by Mark L - June 10th, 2009 at 21:21
It matters because some of us are Nats fans and we want the team to do well.
#18 by RD - June 10th, 2009 at 21:43
Beyond seeing the team put more W’s on the board, it is time this team learns how to win.
Confidence is the biggest factor in sports, and I don’t there is much of it in our locker room. We have four rookies at the moment in the starting rotation and the bullpen has let victories escape them. Who knows whats running through their heads … I do know that it would be nice for them to have confidence in the people behind them. It will help give them more confidence and relax more when they are in the game. The team needs to start turning things around now. Build something going into next year. If we can get Storen up this year and get some experience, along with Clippard and maybe even Zinicola, then things are looking at lot brighter next year. They’ll have some experience and hpefully some success so they’ll just be ready to pitch instead of adjusting to their first taste of a big league bullpen.
Turning things around now can only be a positive for next season.
#19 by Sam - June 10th, 2009 at 22:00
Turning things around is better than not turning things around, but it’s a question of cost. If you’ve passed on a player who would project to contribute more over the next 6 years in order to get a lessser player who could get here quickly, that doesn’t really make sense to me in terms of where the Nationals are organizationally.
Maybe they haven’t done that. I have no way to judge the long term value of Alex White v. Drew Storen. But certainly lots of observers felt that the Nationals left a lot of upside on the board.
And to me, puting a few extra wins on the board this dismal season is not a good reason to have do that.
#20 by Sam - June 10th, 2009 at 22:12
Mark L — up above you wrote: “I think you’re completely missing the fact that that with no compensation for not signing this one, they had to prearrange this one. Makes perfect sense to me.”
This makes perfect sense, but why does Mike Rizzo keep denying it? He came out today saying it was purely a coincidence that the the top guy on their board at 10 was willing to sign under slot on draft night.
Do you think he is being honest?
#21 by GR - June 10th, 2009 at 22:27
And why should Rizzo not deny it? Let’s say that he came out and said “Yeah we know that the guy we just drafted wasnt the best choice but we only did it for money concerns” out in the media? What would that do for Storen? It must be an awesome confidence booster to hear your new boss say that the moment you were drafted(or before you were drafted). Sure Storen probably knows the truth, fans know the truth but knowing it and having it announced to the world is a different matter.
Why are the NBA coaches never(well rarely) “honest” when say it wansnt the player’s fault when it obviously was? Would you say the coach was being dishonest?
#22 by GR - June 10th, 2009 at 22:28
And why should Rizzo not deny it? Let’s say that he came out and said “Yeah we know that the guy we just drafted wasnt the best choice but we only did it for money concerns” out in the media? What would that do for Storen? It must be an awesome confidence booster to hear your new boss say that the moment you were drafted(or before you were drafted). Sure Storen probably knows the truth, fans know the truth but knowing it and having it announced to the world is a different matter.
Why are the NBA coaches never(well rarely) “honest” when say it wansnt the player’s fault when it obviously was? Would you say the coach was being dishonest?
Rizzo has nothing to gain by being “honest”
#23 by Sam - June 10th, 2009 at 22:34
You can talk about these things in a basically honest way without tossing players under the bus or saying it just all came down to money. It isn’t hard. Teams do it all the time. As you say, Soren probably fully understands that part of his getting picked where he did was the team’s understanding of his demands.
To me, Rizzo comes off quite badly by denying that the player’s demands and the team’s confidence it can get him into the system were part of why he was the best pick.
I think Rizzo and the organization do have something to gain by earning a reputation for honesty.
#24 by Sam - June 10th, 2009 at 22:38
Sorry posted before I was finished. For folks who are constantly engaged in negotiations, it is valuable if people believe you are being straight with them.
Stan Kasten, for example, talks around issues and yaabbers without saying anything quite expertly, but he seems to take great pride in being (and being perceived as) honest. (Admittedly, you have to be listening carefully to understand exactly how he is being honest . . .)
#25 by Pilchard - June 10th, 2009 at 22:50
Rizzo does not need to throw Storen under the bus to tell the truth. As acknowledged, Storen was well aware that he took less than slot money to sign. Rizzo could have and should have said that the the likliehood of reaching an immediate agreement will be factor when selecting the 9B pick, and that given the Nats are in the unprecedented position of having 2 top ten picks economcs will be factor. Have no clue how that would come close to throwing Storen under the bus.
Also, in the unlikely event that Storen climbs from Hagerstown to the MLB club by mid-September, such a move will provide no boost to the team’s confidence or and will not teach the team how to win. At the end of the day, the pick will only justify itself if Storen becomes a solid MLB player. Taking him when by all accounts more talented prospects were on the board, reduces the chances that the Nats picked a future solid MLBer.
#26 by Egrib - June 11th, 2009 at 06:55
Reading Moneyball and it’s clear that Bowden was the antithesis of Billy Beane – Bowden went for the toolsey high school talent all the time – with high upside. He went after toolsey talent with questionable character. To Bowden it was all about potential and raw skill. Beane likes mature college talent and baseball players – guys like Nick Swisher. Rizzo is obviously a lot closer to Billy Beane than he is to Bowden – this year’s draft is a stark contrast to our earler philosophy. We should have a higher percentage of guys who make it to the bigs… we won’t have to baby sit as much. The overall character of the franchise will improve. Fewer problem children. It’s a far better philosophy in my view.
#27 by Scott in Shaw - June 11th, 2009 at 11:32
Sam: per Chico’s notebook in today’s Post, the slot recommendations went down 10% this year due to the economy.
#28 by Sam - June 11th, 2009 at 14:45
Thx Scott.