Comments on: How Are the Stars Acquired: Outfield & Summary

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:13:06 +0000

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.

By: Nats fan

Nats fan — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:08:40 +0000

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.

By: WY

WY — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:04:19 +0000

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.

By: neuter_your_dogma

neuter_your_dogma — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:25:00 +0000

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.

By: AMusingFool

AMusingFool — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:40:44 +0000

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

-Dave

By: Joe R

Joe R — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:24:47 +0000

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.

By: Kevin S.

Kevin S. — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:16:13 +0000

If you ask Steve Phillips, they do.

By: walkoffblast

walkoffblast — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:03:59 +0000

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.

By: Xavier

Xavier — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:56:17 +0000

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

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

By: Joe R

Joe R — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:37:44 +0000

Needed room to bring in Juan Pierre, obviously.