One of the interesting things in the Baseball America Prospect Handbook is they have some brief writeups about each teams drafts including the total budget and the top 5 signing bonuses. The whole book is a great resource and a good read but I’m always drawn to numbers so these types of things stood out to me as I initially paged through it.
In 2003, the Cardinals had a budget of 2.8 million for their draft. From 2004 to 2005 that number rose to 3.2 and 5.6, respectively. There may be a knee-jerk reaction to associate the increased spending with an improved 2005 draft class but I’d be very hesitant to do that; it didn’t seem to help the infamous 2004 draft. In 2006 that number dipped to 4.2M.
Perhaps more interesting is the top 5 signing bonuses issued.
| Player | Year | $$$ (in millions) |
| JD Drew | 1998 | 3.00 |
| Rick Ankiel | 1997 | 2.50 |
| Chad Hutchinson | 1998 | 2.30 |
| Shaun Boyd | 2000 | 1.75 |
| Braden Looper | 1996 | 1.675 |
That’s 3 players who appear to be mainstays in the bigs. Not a bad record although the Shaun Boyd draft stands out as quite the black eye. That wasn’t what jumped out at me though. It’s been 7 drafts since we’ve handed out a top 5 bonus. That seemed like a long time to me. Indeed, turns out it’s the longest in the majors. Here’s a list of the number of top 5 draft bonuses each team has handed out since 2000.
| Team | Top 5 since 2000 |
| Arizona Diamondbacks | 3 |
| Atlanta Braves | 3 |
| Baltimore Orioles | 4 |
| Boston Red Sox | 3 |
| Chicago Cubs | 3 |
| Chicago White Sox | 3 |
| Cincinnati Reds | 4 |
| Cleveland Indians | 4 |
| Colorado Rockies | 3 |
| Detroit Tigers | 4 |
| Florida Marlins | 1 |
| Houston Astros | 4 |
| Kansas City Royals | 3 |
| Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim | 3 |
| Los Angeles Dodgers | 3 |
| Milwaukee Brewers | 4 |
| Minnesota Twins | 1 |
| New York Mets | 4 |
| New York Yankees | 3 |
| Oakland Athletics | 3 |
| Philadelphia Phillies | 2 |
| Pittsburgh Pirates | 4 |
| San Deigo Padres | 3 |
| San Francisco Giants | 4 |
| Seattle Mariners | 3 |
| Tampa Bay Rays | 3 |
| Texas Rangers | 5 |
| Toronto Blue Jays | 4 |
| Washinton Nationals | 4 |
So there’s two teams (teams that are notoriously thrifty) that have only one top 5 bonus since 2000: the Marlins and the Twins. Now that’s not to say that everyone’s top 5 bonuses are on the same level. The Arizona Diamondbacks #5 draft bonus is the same as the Cardinals #1. The Houston Astros #1 would be our #4 overall. So obviously when some teams are spending big on the draft it’s less than the Cardinals. When others are spending big on the draft, it’s more than the Cardinals.
The point is that the Cardinals haven’t handed out a large draft bonus (relative to their own budgeting) in 7 years. I find that astonishing. If I were to speculate, and of course I will, as to the confluence of factors that brought the team to this result it would include the following reasons:
- The Cardinals have backed off of large signing bonuses after getting burned by a couple top picks.
- The Cardinals were largely committed to building via free agency and trades during Walt Jocketty’s latter years as GM.
- The Cardinals have, on balance and especially in the early rounds, adhered to MLB’s slotting program.
- The Cardinals were very good throughout the 2000s resulting in lower draft picks and lesser signing demands.
This isn’t as simple as calling the Cardinals cheap and that’s not my intention nor my opinion of the situation. They will be drafting at a relatively high position this year and, as we saw last year with Porcello, some top talent could very well filter down to pick 13 because of signing demands. It will be interesting to see if the Cardinals are willing to open the DeWitt bank and sign someone to a large signing bonus in order to acquire the top talent available. They haven’t done it in 7 years, but they’re in the perfect position to reverse that trend with a high pick and a renewed commitment to the farm system.
Filed under: Uncategorized
erik
azruavatar
fewgoodcards
roarke49
theredbaaron
we could only hope they would step it up if one of the top talents falls due to signability.
Reason #4 was the one I was thinking of as I read the post. With the inflation on signing bonuses at the top of the draft, any team picking in the top 10 will almost certainly be giving one of their top five bonuses ever. That isn’t necessarily as true when you consistently pick in the upper 20’s.
Of course, that doesn’t explain why the Yankees, Braves and Red Sox each have had three…
Sorry for the double comment, but I just realized that the numbers don’t exactly fit my argument when applied to other teams.
Seems like those total budget numbers for each draft should be neutralized for the number of draft picks. In 2005 the Cards may have spent $5.6 million and the 2006 number may have fallen back to $4.2 million, but the Cards had a lot more top 50 picks in 2005 than 2006.
If by some chance Pedro falls to #13 and the Cards pass…its going to be hard for me to come to any other conclusion that they are cheap.
picklefork-i could very well see a scenario where alvarez does drop to #13, looking at some of the teams who pick ahead of us. if they do pass on him, there is no other conclusion. period.
I’m really hesitant to pass judgment on how the Cards choose to spend their money.
They took some genuine risks in the late ’90s and early ’00s, going over slot to sign guys like Chad Hutchinson, Nick Stocks, and Tyler Adamczyk. And they got burned.
That’s in addition to expensive guys they signed for slot money — Shaun Boyd and Chance Caple come to mind — who didn’t pan out.
I suspect DeWitt lost faith in the people he had running the draft, and who can blame him?
Since 2005, the drafts have been much better, as we all agree, and I have to think he’s putting more faith in Luhnow and company. We’ve seen that he’s letting them give out bigger bonuses in Latin America, and I have to think he’ll let them a risk in the June draft, depending on the risk they’re considering.
Maybe I empathize too much with the owner, but I don’t really blame him for passing on Porcello. The talent was undeniable, but we’re still talking about a high school pitcher. If it had been a polished college position player, I’d be a lot less empathetic.
i don’t see alvarez falling to 13. the orioles showed last year they are willing to give a big bonus, and i think the rangers would be more than happy to drop a ton of cash on him.
I think reason number 4 is the main reason. You look at Texas, all 5 of their top 5 signing bonus were handed out following 2000. Well the Rangers were a very good ballclub in the late 1990s. They had first round picks that were consistently in the 20-30 range thus they had to give a smaller bonus for a slot signee. They did have one bad year, but they’ve had worse years since that 1997 season/1998 draft where they were given a higher draft pick leading to a higher minimum bonus. Plus the recommended slot bonuses were a lot smaller in 1998 than they were in 2001-2006(Rangers had 5, top 12 picks in that span).
You look at the difference between the 2003 and 2004 Cardinal drafts, thats the 30th pick(Barton-975K) to the 19th pick(Lambert-1.525 mil). Nothing else really changed. Some guys in the 2004 draft weren’t signed(Buck Cody IIRC), but the extra difference between the bonuses for Pomeranz and Ferris and Dove and Haberer, etc. make up for that loss.
The difference between 2004 and 2005/2006 was obviously the extra picks. 2005 featured 4 picks in the 1st/ supplemental 1st rounds thus why it had the biggest allotment of spending money of any recent draft.
I don’t think the Cardinals have backed off large signing bonuses because they’ve been burned by them. Chad Hutchinson did burn the Birds.
But JD Drew’s 3 mil bonus was about 500K over slot(Jeff Austin-4th overall that year-recieved 2.7 million). When you look at those taken right after him(not 10-15 spots after him), Drew was the best pick so I wouldn’t say he burned the Birds.
Shaun Boyd and Braden Looper were slot signees, not over slot bonus babies. I wouldn’t say they really burned the Birds either because they had to give them that money(plus Looper paid off).
Rick Ankiel didn’t really burn the Birds either because he’s a stud. He helped the team make the playoffs in 2000 and might be doing so again in 2008.
UncleBuck44 - The Braves have been an excellent team during that same time frame as well yet they gave out top draft bonuses in 2007, 2006 and 2002. Other teams are in much the same boat — the Angels, the Mets, etc.
I agree that #4 is a contributing factor but it’s hard for me to ignore that the Cardinals are the ONLY team in all of baseball that haven’t handed out a heft signing bonus this decade. There’s something more to this than just having low draft picks.
Also, just to clarify, I was only implicating the Boyd and Hutchinson picks as picks that burned the birds.
even though boyd and the like were at slot doesnt mean that they didnt get burned. any top draft choice that doesnt pan out burns a club. the fact that those guys bombed means that the draft guys arent doing a great job so why give them more money if they cant get the safe picks right.
Maybe I’m connecting dots that don’t connect, but I see a parallel with the way the big club has spent, at least since 2005. They seem to focus solely on signing players at or below market value and take virtually no risk.
I’m thinking of the constant rotation of scrap heap pitchers, the parade of stop-gap solutions at second base, etc. And in the draft, the strong preference for college boys and other “projectable” players. They should be commended for not throwing away money the way many teams have on free agents and signing bonuses, but isn’t this also the reason we’ve got a system full of guys who project in utility roles? At some point, you’ve got to take some risk and go after a guy like Porcello who could be an impact player.
And while signing bonuses have grown, they still seem relatively cheap compared to the salaries of free agent journeymen like Cesar Izturis.
“even though boyd and the like were at slot doesnt mean that they didnt get burned. any top draft choice that doesnt pan out burns a club”
——
But we are talking about the top 5 bonuses handed out by the Cardinals. No matter who was selected there, the Cardinals were going to be handing out one of their biggest bonuses. The Cardinals were burned more by bad scouting than by poor spending.
Hutchinson is really the only one of the five that has been a case of poor spending. They didn’t have to give him THAT much money. But the Cardinals did have to give Shaun Boyd his money or else they lost a first round pick.
The point azruavatar was making was that poor spending has altered the clubs ways of spending in the draft. I don’t think Boyd backs up that claim. You’ll see in June that the Cardinals are probably going to be handing out a top 5 bonus to sign the 13th pick. Its slot money and the Cards have spent slot money on almost all of their recent 1st round picks.
“The Braves have been an excellent team during that same time frame as well yet they gave out top draft bonuses in 2007, 2006 and 2002.”
—–
Well the Braves have been an excellent team for the past 15 years. 2007 gave them the highest draft pick they’ve had since 1991. From 1994 to 2001, the highest draft pick the Braves had was the 26th pick in 1995 and slot money wasn’t as great then as it is now. I would expect the Braves to have given out 3 or 4 of their top 5 bonuses in the 2000s.
BTW, just looking at their top 5 bonuses, their #3 bonus was handed out to an international signee in 1997(Jung Bong).
“I agree that #4 is a contributing factor but it’s hard for me to ignore that the Cardinals are the ONLY team in all of baseball that haven’t handed out a heft signing bonus this decade. There’s something more to this than just having low draft picks.”
——-
I think a lot of it has to do with what the Cardinals top 5 signees have gotten. 1.675 million is a lot to match, even for a late first round pick. To give that kind of money to a pick after the first round is a big risk.
A good study might be to look at how many teams in the 2000s haven’t had a top 15 pick in the draft. Exclude 2008 because the draft hasn’t happend. A top 15 pick greatly increases the chances a team will hand out a top 5 bonus. I know right now the highest pick the Cardinals have had in the 2000s is the 18th pick and they gave Kozma slot money and it still wasn’t top 5.
Your #3 reason goes well with what I’m saying too and it goes hand in hand with #4.
I think there’s a bit of a parallel here between the draft bonuses and the way the Cardinals have constructed the rotation at the major league level in recent years. How many times have we said ourselves, as fans, about a given pitcher, “he’s been pretty mediocre in his career so far, but working with Duncan, we should see him really take off.”. And of course sometimes that’s true, and sometimes not.
I think that, the past couple of years at least, that ownership is looking at the draft and Jeff Luhnow the same way. They think that their guy is smart enough to find talent that’s underappreciated, and, thus, less expensive. Some of the ‘raw’ college pitchers with poor track records we’ve seen picked fall into this thought pattern, I believe.
Please note I’m not trying to call the Cards cheap here; only trying to make a point about the way they seem to look at things. I think they believe that if they bring in the right people to coach or draft or whatever, that they can essentially beat the system.
As far as the early part of the decade goes, I agree with Lou. With the abysmal quality of the Cards’ drafts for most of the early 2000s, (with the 13th round of the 99 draft excluded) I think DeWitt and co simply didn’t have faith their people would make the correct draft choices, regardless of the money spent.
Overall, I think this is indicative of a more systemic situation, in that the Cardinals, for awhile now, have been stuck in an overly conservative, risk averse mindset. The draft is a perfect example. The team, I believe, has sought too many ’safe’ picks, both in terms of a players’ likelihood of reaching his (most often) modest ceiling, and also in the potential financial loss of the player not panning out. They have failed to properly apply an across the board dollar standard and realise that even the highest draft bonuses are comparable to very middling MLB talent contracts. The difference, of course, being the rate of return. The savings a team can bank during a player’s cost conntrolled years causes the possible return value of even a large signing to shoot far out of proportion to ML contract money.
The Cardinals have been in this sort of hidebound, not even near the boundaries of the box much less outside it mindset for awhile now. There are seemingly some changes, though, in the thinking recently, with people like Brent Strom being brought innot in spite of, but because of their unorthodox thought processes. This, combined with the success that Luhnow has already had in replenishing the farm system, gives me hope that we may see a bit more creativity, and a bit more willingness to take on risk, in the very near future. Hopefully, beginning with the 13th pick in this year’s draft.