Is a draft pick THAT important for us?

[Torridd]

I know I'm going to get roasted, but I still think our best bet is Jimenez or Santana and lose the pick. We're not the Marlins. We can afford to lose one pick as long as it's not a regular thing. I know our minor league system is crappy, but I'd rather have the surer arm in one of the two I mentioned than go after Capuano or whatever dregs are left.

[Guest]

Yes. Our farm system is garbage, we need young players. Would you really sacrifice a draft pick for Ubarfo Jimenez?

Edited January 23, 2014 by failos

[Chimi]

Losing a draft pick comes down to what you're getting in return for it.  If you're getting a top tier player then of course, go for it.  But Jimenez and Santana are not that and the draft pick just has more value to it than they do as pitchers.

[Torridd]

I wonder if he's turned a corner...unless he's on PEDs to have such a swing in seasons. I'm just not crazy about who's left on the table and would like a surer thing.

[Docwaukee]

I might agree if Jimenez or Santana were truly more of a sure thing.  Either could just as easily put up an era of 5 as 3.  Coupled with our farm having no real high end guys and draft picks being in the 15 range worth about 10-15mil on average with the real chance to hit a home run. 

 

Capuano isn't either of those guys but he's likely to be somewhere in between the upside and downside of either. 

[Torridd]

Losing a draft pick comes down to what you're getting in return for it.  If you're getting a top tier player then of course, go for it.  But Jimenez and Santana are not that and the draft pick just has more value to it than they do as pitchers.

I see what you're saying, but the draft pick is more of a roll of the dice. And then the pick may not get to the bigs until 4 years or so and take longer to blossom.

[Angel Oracle]

Neither "forearm injury waiting to happen" Jimenez or "every other year" Santana is worth losing the #16 overall pick.  

Consider that the Cards turned the 2012 #19 overall pick into Michael Wacha, I'd rather keep the pick.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Angel Oracle

[gotbeer]

Santana and Jimenez are expensive and barely above average.  

 

If our farm was deep, then we could afford to lose the pick.  But it's about as deep as the puddle around a public urinal.  

[Torridd]

OK, I'll have to bow to you guys' expertise.

[jshep]

I know I'm going to get roasted, but I still think our best bet is Jimenez or Santana and lose the pick. We're not the Marlins. We can afford to lose one pick as long as it's not a regular thing. I know our minor league system is crappy, but I'd rather have the surer arm in one of the two I mentioned than go after Capuano or whatever dregs are left.

 

But it has been a regular thing for this team. That's part of the problem.

 

And ya, it's not like you're talking about losing a pick for a top tier guy right now. It's wildcards like Jimenez or Santana.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

The Angels need a lot of things to go right (rebound seasons, health) out of the players they're currently have to contend for the playoffs.  Adding Jimenez or Santana to me doesn't put them over the hump and as others mentioned neither one of those guys is a sure thing.  Would much rather sign someone who won't cost a pick for depth and keep the pick as the Angels farm system needs all the help it can get.

[stevestevens]

I know I'm going to get roasted, but I still think our best bet is Jimenez or Santana and lose the pick. We're not the Marlins. We can afford to lose one pick as long as it's not a regular thing.

 

the problem is that it has been a regular thing the last two years and 2010 blew complete chunks when we actually had a shot to really bolster the farm system.  Chevy Clarke, Ryan Bolden, Cam Bedrosian lasting one year as a starter......oh boy. 

[nikkachez]

Because Jimenez and Santana are terrifyingly inconsistent and huge question marks. Besides all of that, we need to replenish a barren farm system. Especially with young pitchers so we don't even have to discuss the Garza's, Jimenez's, and Santana's of the world.

[Angel Oracle]

Bedrosian may still end up being a really good back-end of bullpen guy.

But those Clarke and Bolden picks were waaaay beyond head scratchers.  

[floplag]

If the player was actually worth it, perhaps not, but this team isnt built for 5 years from now at this point and i think the win now mentality might trump it if the player was worth losing the pick, but are Jimenez or Santana really worth it?  i dont think so, they aren't significantly better than the guys that can be had without losing it so it doesn't merit giving it away. 

[HaloMilliVanilli]

So this seems to be the prevailing opinion regarding Jiminez and Santana.  Because they have the draft pick compensation, their market seems to be diminishing.  At what point does their availability and contract demands decrease to a point that the draft pick becomes a non-sticking point?  I'm talking league wide, not necessarily just for the Angels.  I mean...these guys will sign a contract at some point.  Does this drive them back to their existing teams on friendlier deals since they lose all leverage?  Is there ever a point where the potential deal becomes doable for any other team?

[Angel Oracle]

Teams with deep farm systems and a non-top 15 pick will eventually negotiate with them, as the expected contract decreases. 

[floplag]

So this seems to be the prevailing opinion regarding Jiminez and Santana.  Because they have the draft pick compensation, their market seems to be diminishing.  At what point does their availability and contract demands decrease to a point that the draft pick becomes a non-sticking point?  I'm talking league wide, not necessarily just for the Angels.  I mean...these guys will sign a contract at some point.  Does this drive them back to their existing teams on friendlier deals since they lose all leverage?  Is there ever a point where the potential deal becomes doable for any other team?

 

or May when the draft pick requirement drops.. i think doesnt it eventually go away if they dont sign?  i dont recall on that one and could be wrong

[tdawg87]

We can afford to lose one pick as long as it's not a regular thing.

 

Unfortunately it is becoming a regular thing. Losing the draft pick this year would be a third straight year of that happening.

[Blarg]

OK, I'll have to bow to you guys' expertise.

 

They are experts without any basis other than assumption that the 15th pick in the draft is assuredly going to improve the Angels minor league system and guarantee a MLB worthy player.

 

But historically the 15th pick is not any sure bet for even a league average player. None of the last 4 drafts have produced a player that has risen to the majors and only Stephen Drew selected 10 years ago has risen to any notoriety in baseball.

 

Before Drew was Kazmir, Gross & Utley, all in a row then roll back to 1993 and you get Chris Carpenter. So that is 5 players in 20 years that have made a respectable career in the majors.

 

Yes, you can let go of a 15th round pick for a proven veteran that will make an impact on the club without flinching. You may lose out on a Drew, maybe a Carpenter. Or maybe you let go Jason Stumm, Clint Johnson or Matt Halloran that never made it out of the minors. The point is you can put in place that player you need now or wait another year or more to compete.

 

Of course you could just find a Mike Trout passed over 14 times and nab him... naw, those players always go in the 25th pick.

[avejoe1]

It is THAT important to change the culture of the Angels.  This team has had a bad habit of signing many older, past their prime major league free agents with draft pick compensation attached.  As such, these "solutions" quickly become liabilities producing nothing, placing a drag on the roster and soaking up tens of millions every year.  With so few top draft picks year after year, there is no one to step up and replace them from the minors.  Then add to this a poor draft/scouting staff in the past and you get poor draft picks with the ones that are exercised.  When there was a top pick, this team's tendency was to choose a high school player assuring many years in the minors even if the player picked was good.  If by some miracle a few these picks actually turn out to have some ability after numerous years in the minors, these were normally traded away in another of the many misguided (ie. stupid) short-term solutions for the big league roster (Skaggs, Corbin, Segura).  Add to that the refusal of the Angels to buy high side amateur draft players with big demands (when they were available a few years ago) because that actually cost money.  Add to that refusal to sign high side international free agents for many years because that cost money as well.  Add to that the total collapse of the Dominican team/international scouting due to fraud and incompetence. This is been a complete mess for a long time.  It is about time it changed. 

Edited January 23, 2014 by avejoe1

[Brent Maguire]

We absolutely need the pick. 

 

The team needs to start replenishing the system and giving up your first round pick for a big time wild card pitcher isn't a good choice. 

[Scott34]

Yes.

[Angels]

A first round pick doesn't guarantee you will get a major league talent... but prospects can also be used in trades to acquire major league talent. It's not just about what they may or may not do at the major league level. Most prospects don't pan out... but teams do give up major league talent for potential major league talent. That's another way they're valuable and why having a farm system is important.

[Tyler]

Keeping the pick means more draft pool money to spend. Nobody is worth losing that this offseason.