Is Good Drafting Enough? World Series Edition, 2
This is the follow-up to (and conclusion of) yesterday’s post using the World Series teams to make a point about the “sufficiency” of the draft. But first things first: congratulations to the San Francisco Giants. I’ll freely admit that at the beginning of the season I didn’t see them as a playoff contender, but they made it in and won the whole thing with a mixture of young players they developed and some veteran castoffs that played better for them than most of us would have imagined. That brings me back to the theme of this two-part discussion: the Giants illustrate that while good drafting is essential for most teams to compete, it is hard to come up with examples of teams that managed to do so solely with players they originally acquired. (I used these two teams as examples because they were in the World Series — the 2010 Rockies would have been perhaps a more interesting case; they have a high proportion of drafted players, but imagine them without Carlos Gonzalez, Jason Hammel, Jorge da la Rosa, and Huston Street.) Having covered the Giants yesterday, I’ll briefly discuss the Rangers before offering some concluding thoughts. The World Series is over, but the point of these posts isn’t about the World Series, but rather using two teams (whose 2010 fate every other team envies) to illustrate a point about team building.
The Rangers are a very young team, so initially, one might think they might make a better argument for the relative sufficiency of the draft. However, this is far from being the case. Indeed, out of all the position players that started for the Rangers in the World Series, only Ian Kinsler and Mitch Moreland were originally drafted and signed by the Rangers. Even seeming Ranger-for-life Michael Young came over in a trade long ago from the Blue Jays.
The improvement of the Rangers’ pitching has been rightly oft-noted, but the final 2010 rotation relied heavily on “outside help.” Cliff Lee came over because the team was willing to trade top first base prospect Justin Smoak (and others) to the Mariners for him. Colby Lewis was actually originally drafted in the first round by the Rangers back in 1999, but as is well-known by now, bounced around both the majors a bit and Japan before the Rangers picked him back up. That’s a display of good scouting of an older player in a different league rather than good drafting. Neftali Feliz is a good young closer (who might still be able to start, according to some), but like shortstop Elvis Andrus, he came to the Rangers in the massive 2007 trade that sent Mark Teixeira to Atlanta.
I realize these two posts have been a bit disjointed, so I’ll summarize in conclusion. This was not primarily about comparing Brian Sabean and Jon Daniels with Dayton Moore or any other general manager or front office, although my introductory remarks from yesterday might have made it seem that way. I used Moore as a starting point because (a) despite all my criticism for his moves on a major league level, I wanted to acknowledge that he’s done a great job of building Kansas City’s farm system into the best in baseball, and I wanted to do so before he starts signing free agents and my goodwill (likely) gets buried; and (b) because the Royals’ front office is an example of a grop who seems to get amateur scouting, but generally struggles (to put it mildly) with making smart major league trades and signings. We all agree that drafting and developing talent is essential for any team (even the Yankees’ two most valuable position players in 2010 — Robinson Cano and Brett Gardner — are from their farm system). Some have pointed to the Rangers as a “homegrown” team, and to the Giants as a team whose drafts have overcome questionable signings. There is some truth to that, but as I hope I’ve pointed out, this isn’t really the case. Both teams had essential contributions from players (who were more than just role and bench players) acquired through free agency or trades without whom they probably wouldn’t even have made the playoffs. This isn’t intended to be a comprehensive study, but rather a reminder that while good drafting is certainly necessary for almost every franchise to compete, it isn’t sufficient to build a contender on its own.
Matt Klaassen reads and writes obituaries in the Greater Toronto Area. If you can't get enough of him, follow him on Twitter.
Perhaps a look at whether one can compete without making free agent signings? You (rightly) point out that Elvis was acquired in a trade but I think a lot of people would associate him as a “draft pick” in part because he wasn’t signed on the open market.
Though I’m sure it’s essentially impossible to win without SOME free agent signings, teams like the Rangers and Rays jump out as clubs winning more through drafting and trading than just signing whomever whenever.
Or on the flip side: how overrated is the draft? The Royals have a stacked farm system yet every fiber of my being says that not a single one of those players will ever develop and be a quality big league player (this is based on, well, it being the Royals). Is it better for a franchise to have a system stocked with B level prospects (yet have a ton of them) or have maybe one or two A level and nothing after that.
(Again, recognizing that every team is different and obviously the Yankees farm can afford to be different than the Pirates.)
This is my take but it seems to me there is no definite answer to your question about being better to have 2 blue chippers or a bunch of bs. Using the Giants as an example they had a relatively thin farm system that was extremely top heavy in recent years with Lincecum, Posey and Bumgarner. All three were A to A+ prospects at some point and they all had huge roles in delivering a world series victory. However sometimes that strategy can crash and burn, see Royals and Alex Gordon, Mets and Milledge, F-Mart, or the like.
However a team full of merely good players but great 5 win players or more also won’t get very far. You might luck and have one blossom out of nowhere into a great player like Granderson for the Tigers but you also might end up with a bunch of mediocre to slightly above average players. I think that prospects are too risky of a proposition for there to be a definitive way to say “this is how to run a farm system.” And I do see your point about all the Royals failing in the majors. Angels 2001 draft is all you need to look at.
Not every Royal prospect has failed, only one of the very most notable ones: Alex Gordon. Zack Greinke and Billy Butler are very good major leaguers. Mike Aviles, when healthy, ain’t all bad. David DeJesus came from their system. I wouldn’t taint the entire system with the Alex Gordon “bust” brush.
But why can’t you credit good drafting for the acquisition of Cliff Lee, Elvis Andrus, and Neftali Feliz? The Rangers has the good foresight to draft Texiera and Smoak, which turned them into trade bonanzas. Without good drafting, those trades never get made at all.
They couldn’t have made the trades, but that’s not his point. The Rangers didn’t draft the team they fielded. General Managers and front offices need more than just drafting skills to build a contender. You need to be able to make smart free agent signings and smart trades as well (or at least one of the two).
Exactly – this is the distinction between necessary and sufficient.
Minor correction: I assume you mean “imagine them (the Rockies) WITHOUT Carlos Gonzalez, Jason Hammel..”, not “with” them, since those players were all drafted or signed by other organizations.
Keep up the good work.
Ugh… indeed… fixing…
I wonder what is the ideal mix for developed versus signed players. I am sure some teams in the past have won it all mostly one way or the other, but my bet is those are more likely outliers. Having a 60/40 split of developed versus signed is more likely closer to the answer, but I would love to know. Somebody do this paper please!
My casual observation says that teams that develop stars and sign roll players tend to be more successful than teams that develop roll players and try to sign stars. Is this wrong?
PhD Brian, there is no right and wrong when it comes to this. It all depends on the organization and their financial means. The Yankees probably could not win if they didn’t go out and sign most of their players. Likewise, the Rays DEFINITELY could not win if they hadn’t drafted well (and in the top half of the draft several years in a row).
I believe only about 10% of players drafted ever make the majors, even if for a cup of coffee. If 1 of your 50 players drafted in a given year becomes a better than league average player, you had a good draft. If you grab 1 future star every 2-3 years, you are doing well.
A MLB team can expect to add 5 WAR per year from their farm system. Over a 6 year period, you may expect to accumulate 30 WAR from your farm. Not enough to break 500. After 6 years, you keep your guys by paying close to FA money, or you let them go. These are all averages, and teams can have bumper crop years and do better, or worse, but consistently this is what most teams expect to get year in and year out.
Perpetual good teams have it harder since they tend to draft lower consistently. An example of an exception is the Red Sox. They have made a living in recent years by letting good players leave via FA and getting compensation and supplementary picks. This has yielded talent like Bard, Ellsbury, Buchholz and Lowrie, while they also had some good drafts from 2002-2005 with their own picks getting Lester, Papelbon and Pedroia. They parted with Duquette era draft picks/int’ FA to get Beckett and Lowell for Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez which paid dividends in 2007 but costly in 2010.
In the pipeline are 4 top picks from letting Wagner and Bay leave, and maybe another 4 picks next year from losing Beltre and Martinez (less what they lose from any Type A FA they sign). Their only big FA signings in recent years have been JD Drew and John Lackey, and even with their farm system, that’s not sustainable. They will either need to be more active in the FA market or part with some prospects (like with Ramirez and Sanchez) to get established players nearing FA and extend them with FA money or face hard times.
So that’s it, you need your farm system to bring up talent every year or to trade it off for established players, and supplement that with FA. Unless you are content being a 500 or lower team that is. You can’t rely entirely on FA or your farm system.
If you sign only affordable and middling FA, and never sign any impact FA, you likely will not see the playoffs too often, and you certainly will not be in the playoffs 7 out of 10 years.
Now, one comment pointed out the Rangers and Rays. Neither team is free of direct or indirect FA and both will may lose impact players to FA reducing playoff hopes in future years unless they sign impact FA.
Rangers. Made playoffs for 1st time in 10 years. Vlad was a FA. Andrus and Feliz were acquired in a trade using Teixiera (soon to be FA) and Mahay (signed as a FA). Darren Oliver-FA, Darren O’Day, waiver pickup. Rich Harden -FA. Cliff Lee (trade, FA to be), Benjie Molina (trade, signed by SFG as FA) . David Murphy (trade, used FA Eric Gagne). Hunter was drafted as supplemental pick for losing signed FA Mark Derosa as a FA
Rays. Made playoffs 2 times in 3 years, but only 2 times in history, and will start losing some young players to FA this year. 2010 team- Carlos Pena-FA, Dan Johnson-FA, Matt Joyce (via trade using Edwin Jackson who in turn was acquired via trade using FA Baez and FA Lance Carter), Gape Kapler-FA, Dan Wheeler acquired in trade using FA Ty Wigginton), Joaquin Benoit-FA, Lance Cormier-FA, Randy Choate-FA
If you don’t draft well, you’d better have the Yankees’ or Mets’ payroll to compete. (draft and develop, which is what I assume we mean here)
If you do draft well, that puts you in the position where above average years from Aubrey Huff and Juan Uribe can get you in the playoffs, and then above average weeks from Cody Ross and Edgar Renteria can get you the title.
But you’ll never be in the position to have your “lucky” NRIs, free agents, trade acquisitions, etc. take you from 75 to 90 wins in a season if you don’t have a base to build from or a top-5 payroll.
I love the draft and develop point – I’ve always associated home grown players with minor leaguers acquired in trades too because some degree of their skill development occurred under the tutelage of your farm system Therefore, guys like young, feliz and andrus are ones that i would call rangers despite the fact that someone else drafted them. while i realize this doesn’t fit the technical definition, i think it does fit the goal of analyzing the effectiveness of a farm system as a developmental tool for building a team.
fabulosa a citantes si eitilismo vades con tista. lóisa chistis se aluza son tantem mi adensiono elado y hilinhos inhos centatel.