FanGraphs Baseball


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. This might have been asked and answered in one of the previous posts on this topic – but what percentage of players in MLB are signed to FA contracts by teams that aren’t their original teams (I noticed that players like Jorge Posada who were FA’s at some point are still considered to have been developed by their original team)?

    Comment by Rob Moore — September 30, 2009 @ 7:40 am

  2. Jayson Werth was a Rule 5 FA to the Phillies. He was traded from the Toronto to the Dodgers however.

    Comment by neuter_your_dogma — September 30, 2009 @ 8:14 am

  3. Oops, maybe Jayson wasn’t a Rule 5, but free agent still.

    Comment by neuter_your_dogma — September 30, 2009 @ 8:18 am

  4. IIRC, he was DFA’d by the Dodgers one year due to roster crunch.

    Comment by Aaron/YYZ — September 30, 2009 @ 8:35 am

  5. To be fair, in a typical year you would also have someone like Carlos Beltran heading the CF group and in MVP contention. I’m pretty sure the Mets don’t regret that deal.

    Comment by Aaron/YYZ — September 30, 2009 @ 8:36 am

  6. Werth was signed as a free agent by the Phillies.

    Comment by GrandSlamSingle — September 30, 2009 @ 8:46 am

  7. Needed room to bring in Juan Pierre, obviously.

    Comment by Joe R — September 30, 2009 @ 9:37 am

  8. “47% of 2009’s best players were “just prospects” at one point or another.”

    Aren’t essentially all players “just prospects” at some point?

    Comment by Xavier — September 30, 2009 @ 9:56 am

  9. This series has been often panned with good reason. Its an interesting idea but the conclusions leave a lot to be desired logically. If teams are getting about half their good players from the draft why should they focus heavier there than in the areas contributing the other 50 percent (especially when prospects are less predictable albeit cheaper)? The way you are counting trades ignores that to get these talented players you have to actually give up top prospects often, which create less net gain than you might insinuate. I think its borderline general knowledge that you cannot simple buy a team and there is significant value in draft picks and there are better ways to remind people of it than this. You just cannot take the money out of the equation, its not really how the teams got them that separates its how much they are paying them to contribute at this high level.

    Comment by walkoffblast — September 30, 2009 @ 10:03 am

  10. If you ask Steve Phillips, they do.

    Comment by Kevin S. — September 30, 2009 @ 10:16 am

  11. And obviously paying the price in money is more beneficial to a team than paying it in talent.

    Example: would the Red Sox be better if they acquired Josh Beckett was a Free Agent and acquired that way? The answer is obviously yes, because they would still have Hanley Ramirez.

    Comment by Joe R — September 30, 2009 @ 10:24 am

  12. The only player I saw mentioned who wasn’t “just a prospect” at some point was Ichirou.


    Comment by AMusingFool — September 30, 2009 @ 10:40 am

  13. Paraphrasing from Stephen Wright, “If you could keep all of your prospects, where would you put them?” Also, scouting and drafting are part of the farm system equation. Equally critical is the proper development of prospects.

    Comment by neuter_your_dogma — September 30, 2009 @ 1:25 pm

  14. There are also several uncorrected errors in terms of how players were acquired, which skews the conclusions a little bit (though how significantly, I can’t say). There’s also the likelihood that these numbers vary from year to year given the volatility of WAR, so it is hard to draw a lot of conclusions based on this evidence. R.J. has done some fine analysis for this site, but this series isn’t the best example of it.

    Comment by WY — September 30, 2009 @ 5:04 pm

  15. I think the point is that most great teams are built by trading for stars from teams that can’t afford them. Most teams fair somewhat equally in the draft over the long term with some short term swings for luck, but the smaller market teams are forced to trade guys right as they are starting to peak rather than retain them while the Yankees and Red Sox can keep their stars and trade for other stars with the young talent they recently drafted. Trading is more effective because guys you draft may or may develop at a spot where your team has a need. Trades always fill a gap.

    Comment by Nats fan — September 30, 2009 @ 6:08 pm

  16. It may also be worth mentioning that there were 1,521 players drafted in the 2009 draft, while there are about 270 potential free agents this year. So, we’re looking at a “draft” pool almost 6 times larger than the free agent pool. Even taking your analysis that the draft pool has about 3-4 times as many ‘stars’ this year, it’s a little less impressive.

    Now, most of these free agents will sign with their current teams or disappear from the map. So, it’s even worse…

    I get the point that FAs are often overvalued, but free agents that get deals are generally pretty good bets to play good ball.

    Comment by Dan — October 1, 2009 @ 11:13 am

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current day month ye@r *

Close this window.

0.139 Powered by WordPress