The Astros’ Enviable Draft Position
For me, there’s been something about seeing the first fruits of the Houston Astros’ years-long rebuilding project that really gets the imagination going. This is a team that is unquestionably built for the vague future that is even more unquestionably winning a lot in the concrete now. Let’s forget, for the length of this article, that the 2015 major-league team — alternately composed of beefy sluggers and finesse worm-burner-inducers — is favored by our projections to win the American League West and is tied for the seventh-best odds to win this year’s World Series. Let’s focus, for now, on the Astros’ draft picks in next week’s draft.
And I don’t mean the specific prospects that the Astros may or may not pick, a subject that has already been discussed in impressive depth by Kiley McDaniel. I mean the team’s early draft slots: 2, 5, 37, 46. The Astros are rich, and they stand to get much richer.
Of course, the Astros only have the #2 overall pick because of the whole Brady Aiken kerfuffle, that piece of drama which no doubt weakened Houston’s 2014 draft class. I don’t think the resulting public brouhaha is what the Astros wanted out of their 2014 draft, though, so instead of docking them credit for failing to sign the first-overall pick, I will credit the team for staying disciplined and not losing early-round picks by trading them away or signing expensive free agents.
Going back to the 2009 draft (that was the first year when teams received first-round compensation for failing to sign a first-rounder, instead of in the post-first-round compensation round), only two teams have had a draft with two top-10 picks. Both of those drafts went pretty swimmingly: in 2009, the Washington Nationals selected Stephen Strasburg (#1) and Drew Storen (#10). In 2011, the Arizona Diamondbacks selected Trevor Bauer (#3) and Archie Bradley (#7) — a haul that looks significantly better, of course, if the Diamondbacks do not trade Bauer for Didi Gregorius, whom they then traded for Robbie Ray.
Three other teams also had two picks in the top 15, although the recency makes it harder to evaluate the success of these classes. The 2011 Milwaukee Brewers did not, apparently, do super-duper in selecting Taylor Jungmann (#12) and Jed Bradley (#15). In more recent drafts, the 2013 Pittsburgh Pirates selected Austin Meadows (#9) and Reese Mcguire (#14) and the 2014 Toronto Blue Jays drafted Jeff Hoffman (#9) and Max Pentecost (#11).
Given General Manager Jeff Luhnow’s extensive history of gem-spotting in the deep rounds — the 219th pick of the 2012 draft is presently batting third for the Astros — perhaps even more interesting is that the Astros have four of the first fifty selections. Houston netted the 37th pick, which is in the first Competitive Balance round, in last summer’s trade deadline move that also brought Jake Marisnick and Colin Moran to the organization. The 46th-overall pick is the Astros’ regular ol’ second round pick.
Having at least four of the first fifty picks isn’t rare like having two top-five picks is rare — in the last ten drafts (2005-2014), I count 14 teams that qualify. There isn’t insignificant amount of randomness to this achievement — no individual team has influence over how many picks will be distributed in the Compensation and Competitive Balance rounds — but I think only methodical, future-oriented teams reach this threshold. No teams qualified in 2014, 2013, or 2012, but I will count in the 2012 St. Louis Cardinals as a 15th team both because they were very close (their fourth pick was #52) and because Luhnow himself was a member of the front office that led the Cardinals to those draft slots.
In looking at the highest WAR-producers from these top-heavy drafts, a trend emerges: give a major-league team this many darts to throw in the early rounds, and they tend to score at least one hit. (Some of the more recent drafts, understandably, do not yet have more than one player who has reached the majors.)
| Year | Team | Avg. Pick # | 1st WAR | 2nd WAR | 3rd WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | STL | 32.5 | Michael Wacha | – | – |
| 2011 | TBA** | 34.7 | Mikie Mahtook | – | – |
| 2011 | BOS | 30.3 | Blake Swihart | Matt Barnes | Jackie Bradley Jr. |
| 2010 | TEX | 32.8 | Mike Olt | – | – |
| 2010 | LAA | 34.0 | Cam Bedrosian | – | – |
| 2010 | TOR | 31.0 | Noah Syndergaard | Aaron Sanchez | Asher Wojciechowski |
| 2009 | ARI* | 30.8 | A.J. Pollock | Chris Owings | Matt Davidson |
| 2009 | LAA* | 35.8 | Mike Trout | Garrett Richards | Tyler Skaggs |
| 2007 | TOR | 30.0 | Brett Cecil | J.P. Arencibia | – |
| 2007 | SFG* | 31.5 | Madison Bumgarner | Jackson Williams | Nick Noonan |
| 2007 | TEX* | 30.0 | Julio Borbon | Blake Beavan | Neil Ramirez |
| 2006 | BOS | 34.8 | Daniel Bard | Kris Johnson | – |
| 2005 | BOS* | 36.6 | Jacoby Ellsbury | Clay Buchholz | Jed Lowrie |
| 2005 | MIA* | 29.0 | Chris Volstad | Sean West | Aaron Thompson |
| 2005 | STL | 36.8 | Colby Rasmus | Tyler Greene |
* Team had five of first fifty overall picks.
** Team had six of first fifty overall picks.
The Astros’ average draft slot for their first four picks is 22.5 — like nothing else any of these teams have experienced. This is an organization with an exceptionally rated farm system, a first-place major league club, and greater opportunity to add talent via the draft than any team has in a decade. It’s times like these that make a fella proud to be an Astro.
Draft slot information via Pro Sports Transactions.
Miles Wray contributes sports commentary to McSweeney's Internet Tendency, Ploughshares, The Classical and Hardwood Paroxysm. Follow him on Twitter @mileswray or email him here.
Woof. Those TB and MIA selections look terrible.
That 2005 Red Sox draft, on the other hand…
2005 was a glorious draft class.
Indeed! The Mariners picked me ahead of Ryan Zimmerman, two ahead of Ryan Braun, four ahead of Troy Tulowitzki, eight ahead of Andrew McCutchen, nine ahead of Jay Bruce, and twenty ahead of Jacoby Ellsbury. Total bWAR so far of the top 10 that year is 187, the average is almost 21 (307 for the entire first round, almost 12 average).
And I contributed -1.2!
That ’05 class for the BoSox has nothing on the ’09 Halos.
How did that happen, anyway? The Red Sox won the WS in ’04, how the hell did they have such a great ’05 draft?
They lost several free agents, and back then, you could get two compensatory picks for losing a Type 1 free agent–the one from the team who signed him, plus a sandwich pick. And then they picked the right people with the picks.
Not for Astros fans, it wasn’t. Brian Bogusevic with the 24th pick, followed by Eli Iorg, Ralph Hernandez, Tommy Manzella, three more guys I haven’t heard of, Brandon Barnes, another guy, Koby Clemens, and it goes downhill from there.
As a baseball fan, it’s a shame to see how Tampa’s 2011 draft has shaped out thus far. Everyone was clamoring to see the small-market Rays take advantage of a rare opportunity.
As an Astros fan, I hope Luhnow and Elias see more talent in this draft than the prospect hounds do. Otherwise, this article isn’t as intriguing as it would be for the 2016 draft.
From what I understand, the lack of talent this year really only applies to the middle-end of the first round. There are still a couple elite prospects like other drafts, and after the first round it’s basically a crapshoot anyways, so I think the Stros will be fine.
As a Dbacks fan I wanna trade our pick
Well you can’t!
Brewers taking Jungmann and Bradley over Sonny Gray (who pitched in the city their AAA affiliate was based in) is just all kinds of hilarious. Yeah people doubted his ability to stick as a starter but those people didn’t watch him pitch week in and week out like the Brewers were. Just WOOF at that draft.
The Astros’ management was very smart–they took advantage of the rules, drove hard bargains to sign more players, collected a great deal of money from MLB while deliberately fielding a replacement level team, and have selected wisely. It’s the mark of a sharp front office using every tool at its disposal. I would imagine that certain big market teams that pay in a lot might find it frustrating that they got to subsidize this approach.
And yet who are those big market teams? The Yankees, who right now lead the AL East? The Red Sox, who won a couple of World Series while the Astros were rebuilding? The Dodgers, who seem not to care if they actually set their own money on fire?
Realistically, if my revenue sharing and luxury tax payments are headed to Houston (or Miami) I expect them to spend to be competitive, not to pocket the cash, tank, and pick up extra and higher draft picks. I said Houston played by the rules. But who might be unhappy about that is irrelevant.
Luxury tax payments don’t go into revenue sharing.
The money that is generated through this luxury tax is not distributed among the other teams in the league (which is what happens in the NBA). The first $5 million is kept for potential refunds. If there are no refunds, then that amount is contributed to the Fund. The rest of the money is used as follows:
50% is used to fund player benefits
25% is used to fund baseball development in countries that don’t have high school baseball
25% goes to the Industry Growth Fund
You should post less about things you really know nothing about.
What hard bargains did the drive to sign more players? This is just an absurd to retarded statement.
You should learn some manners. Arguing is one thing, insults are another.
Agreed, Mr. Leake, and I would like to add that I am a fan of your hitting prowess.
Should we really applaud the Astros for their strategy? I mean I know it is all in the rules so I guess give them credit for having the patience and foresight, but in my mind the rules need to be changed. Just like in the NBA and now a little in the NHL teams are going out of their way to be miserable for 2-4 years at a time and ineptness is paying off. Should we really be encouraging 4-6 teams a year to put out a AAA team and say good job here’s a reward for this Bryce Harper for 6 cost controlled years.
Is this really what we want? I mean I know this is a little askew of the article but it irks me that the Nats are now stacked because they just sucked for the right years and I live in DC. The whole system needs to be overhauled. Teams like the Cardinals & Giants should be applauded for continually producing competitive teams and get more credit then they do.
Give every team an allotted amount with more money for the worst 4-6 teams and a less for the top 5 or so. Let there be a few weeks in which teams negotiate different deals and let the draftees determine where they want to sign, whether they are enticed by the money, team history/status, progression plan, whatever. Would this really be that complicated? Give me a reason this wouldn’t work.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/worldseries/history/winners
You don’t win the World Series by winning the draft.
Apparently you win the World Series by being the Cardinals or Giants
I hear this a lot. So my question to you and others who pose this question would be,
What should they have done?
I doubt many if any fans outside of Houston remember what the team looked like 5 years ago. Nor would anyone remember the team being sold, moving to the AL, etc. But there is a very good comp in the MLB today, and that’s the Phillies. Well, actually, imagine the Phillies but with less money and less fanbase, and you have the Astros pre-Ludnow era.
So if the Phillies were to be sold today, fans stop watching games, and you become the team’s GM, would you try to take a path that differs greatly from the Astros?
I know what you’re saying. Losing on purpose kind of disgraces the game and wastes time for the good players trying to compete. I think we would hope the fanbases would boycott their resoective teams for losing on purpose but it just doesn’t happen. Look no further than the cubs: they just straight up lost on purpose for 5 years. Their fans didn’t care one iota. That team, due to its huge nationwide fanbase and large market, could have afforded FAs the last five years but chose to suck on purpose to land high draft picks.
Personally I think that is despicable considering the amount of money they make. Cheating though? I dunno. Close as it gets.
I don’t see the issue. If they want to go rebuild for 5 years and get picks, that’s their choice.
They’re not losing on purpose, I would be willing to bet they try to win every single game.
But if you know your team isn’t going to be competing for the championship this year, why go waste 20+ mill a year on somebody who isn’t going to move your team from terrible to playoffs?
The “losing on purpose” narrative is compelling and clean. However, it leaves out an important step.
The Astros, when Luhnow took over, had no minor-league talent, and very little major league talent. So they traded / claimed off waivers / claimed in the rule 5 draft guys that they thought were interesting. They gave them a chance to play in the majors to see what they had. Many of those guys – like Marc Krauss, Alex Presley, Matt Dominguez, Brandon Barnes and so forth – didn’t perform much. Guys like Josh Fields and Carlos Corporan did a little better. But, as a result, they lost.
So the story narrative should read: “They had no talent, they acquired what they could by a variety of other means while avoiding overpriced free agents that they would have had to outbid other teams to get. They couldn’t get a competitive team this way, and as a result, they lost.”
Rebuilding in baseball isn’t a quick process, it can take a decade at times. Astros have been cellar dwellars for about a decade until this year? Good for them for losing so many games, I hope they enjoyed their 10 year rebuild. Same with the Mets.
I really don’t understand these complaints. Would you seriously have rather them spend loads more money to get a team that wins 75 games instead?
In the NBA (and NHL to an extent) I understand it, tanking shouldn’t be done there, as in the NBA buying one good player can instantly make you a contender, not to mention teams with losing records make the playoffs every year.
But in baseball? You need at least 85 wins if you want to be near the wildcard chase, and that’s not even the real playoffs. It’s just much harder to continually be competitive, and it’s the most difficult sport to buy championships in, so just throwing money at a team isn’t even a guarantee of winning.
I guess my gripe is that these teams have the means to compete but willingly choose not to. Seems like a slap in the face to the current players on the team who try their hardest to win, but their management doesn’t back them up. The cubs basically print money yet they chose to lose on purpose & chose to sign guys to 1 yr contracts just to flip them for prospects. Yea it’s within the rules but something about it just feels really dishonest to me. Sure they have a bunch of potentially good players now but they didn’t earn them the honest, right way. They cheated the smaller-market teams by playing their game with a stacked deck & the dealer on their side. So yea it sucks that a team can do that without any accountability.