MLB Draft: Spring Board 1.0

This might be over-thinking it a bit, but since Aiken will not be drafted 'out of high school', does that mean he gets only 3 years before going on the 40-man? Or is the fact that he will still be 18 the important factor?

 

True, but that is only part of it.  The other part is the worry that they won't be as good after TJ.  In the case of the guys mentioned....they are still really good and even after TJ get drafted higher in a re-draft.

 

The other thing is those other teams wasted a year and a half of control in the cheap years on these guys while they rehabbed (Stras, Harvey, and Liriano to name a few). That would not happen in the case of Aiken.

 

There are studies of TJS success rates using larger samples, like this one from THT last month

http://www.hardballtimes.com/tommy-john-surgery-success-rates-in-the-majors/

 

The conclusion, one in five MLB pitchers to get Tommy John won't throw another pitch at the MLB level. The return rate was slightly worse for pitchers who had surgery between age 16-23 (although they logged more innings).

 

It's too big of a risk to take at 6 unless you believe the post TJS upside of Aiken is so great as to dwarf the healthy alternatives, which I find incredulous.

20% likely a good pitcher won't come back. Add another percent that he's never even pitched in the minors, making it, what, another 10-20% likely that he's not even a MLB pitcher?

 

why take that risk?

Edited April 24, 2015 by mike wants wins

 

It's too big of a risk to take at 6 unless you believe the post TJS upside of Aiken is so great as to dwarf the healthy alternatives, which I find incredulous.

 

I do though, especially in this weak draft where Tate will be off the board by 6.

 

This might be over-thinking it a bit, but since Aiken will not be drafted 'out of high school', does that mean he gets only 3 years before going on the 40-man? Or is the fact that he will still be 18 the important factor?

 

It would have been five years had he signed last year; it will be four for him now, regardless of when he signs.

I checked in on the Aiken/Gonsalves angle. Nothing to it. It's going to come down to medicals and money.

 

It would be a neat reunion though.

 

I checked in on the Aiken/Gonsalves angle. Nothing to it. It's going to come down to medicals and money.

 

It would be a neat reunion though.

I assume you mean "checked" with someone in the know in the Twins organization or another journalist who has that connection?  Can we infer that the Twins are looking at/considering Aiken closely then? Or is it just the normal due diligence they do on every top player?

 

I do though, especially in this weak draft where Tate will be off the board by 6.

 

Lot of nuances with this data.  I would suggest that starting with players that were top prospects or really good 1-2 yeas in and then had it, and following them.

 

You have so many guys on the fringe or in AAA with some experience. If they have the surgery and don't return to the big leagues, than I don't think it applies.  Same with guys that are in their mid 30's and have it, then retire because they don't want to go through it.

Edited April 24, 2015 by tobi0040

 

I assume you mean "checked" with someone in the know in the Twins organization or another journalist who has that connection?  Can we infer that the Twins are looking at/considering Aiken closely then? Or is it just the normal due diligence they do on every top player?

 

Your assumption is correct. I think all we can infer is that the Twins will go over his medicals with a fine-toothed comb when they become available. He won't be able to throw, obviously, so it will all come down to what his price tag is going to be... and if anyone is comfortable paying him that after seeing his medicals. 

 

I wouldn't take the Twins out of the mix yet. But don't really put anyone "in" the mix until those questions get answered.

 

I would like to see it become standard practice to include the Lackey clause in multi-year pitcher deals. "If you miss a year due to Tommy John, we tack on a team option for the vet minimum." I honestly can't believe that wasn't a bigger deal when it was included... apparently the MLBPA didn't think it was?

Why on earth would the player's association be ok with that?  Do they get a clause granting FA early if the player out plays his expected return on the contract?  I know, as fans, we tend to root for the team over players but that's pretty extreme.

 

Why on earth would the player's association be ok with that?  Do they get a clause granting FA early if the player out plays his expected return on the contract?  I know, as fans, we tend to root for the team over players but that's pretty extreme.

It was in John Lackey's contract. But he did have a "pre-existing" condition. It should have been in Santana's contract too.

 

Lackey probably got more money over the course of his original deal by giving the Red Sox that insurance. While he bet on himself that he wouldn't miss time.

Why choose Aiken with the arm recovery risk?

 

Potential.

 

Aiken potential = Lester ($150 million)

 

others potential = Nolasco/Santana ($50 million)

 

The Twins can't buy a $150 million ace.

 

Roll the dice.

 

Why on earth would the player's association be ok with that?  Do they get a clause granting FA early if the player out plays his expected return on the contract?  I know, as fans, we tend to root for the team over players but that's pretty extreme.

I actually like that tradeoff. On a 5-year deal, the pitcher gets an early opt-out clause if he avoids TJ surgery during the first 4 years. Team gets a veteran minimum 6th year option if he does get TJ during the 5 years. Seems fairly reasonable to both sides.

 

Your assumption is correct. I think all we can infer is that the Twins will go over his medicals with a fine-toothed comb when they become available. He won't be able to throw, obviously, so it will all come down to what his price tag is going to be... and if anyone is comfortable paying him that after seeing his medicals. 

 

I wouldn't take the Twins out of the mix yet. But don't really put anyone "in" the mix until those questions get answered.

 

I would also say the Twins are more risk averse than other teams.  Personally, I don't know that we will pay a guy $4M that may need surgery.

 

Why choose Aiken with the arm recovery risk?

 

Potential.

 

Aiken potential = Lester ($150 million)

 

others potential = Nolasco/Santana ($50 million)

 

The Twins can't buy a $150 million ace.

 

Roll the dice.

 

If the odds are 80% likely to get a Santana, and 10% likely to get Lester....who do you take? To take your analogy.....

 

If one time you are rolling a six sided die, and need a 1-3, or a 100 sided die, and need a 1-10....which bet are you taking?

 

It isn't just about upside, but the likelihood of achieving that upside that needs to be taken into account. Oh, and that there are almost no hitters at the lower level in the minors, and lots of pitchers.....

 

If the odds are 80% likely to get a Santana, and 10% likely to get Lester....who do you take? To take your analogy.....

 

If one time you are rolling a six sided die, and need a 1-3, or a 100 sided die, and need a 1-10....which bet are you taking?

 

It isn't just about upside, but the likelihood of achieving that upside that needs to be taken into account. Oh, and that there are almost no hitters at the lower level in the minors, and lots of pitchers.....

 

I get the overall point.  But the 6th pick has much less of an 80% shot of having the career of Ervin.  You can go back and look at past drafts and sometimes not even remember the names of guys in the top 10.

I could be wrong, but I suspect there might be some familiarity bias creeping into the discussion. Most of us remember Aiken lapping what was deemed to be a strong pitching class last year. The experts tell us this year's class is weaker, and the names are unknown to a lot of us still (me for sure). Just a thought. I doubt we'll look back in 10 years and not find a dozen or so really good players taken in the first couple rounds, like we can for most classes.

There are studies of TJS success rates using larger samples, like this one from THT last month

http://www.hardballtimes.com/tommy-john-surgery-success-rates-in-the-majors/

 

The conclusion, one in five MLB pitchers to get Tommy John won't throw another pitch at the MLB level. The return rate was slightly worse for pitchers who had surgery between age 16-23 (although they logged more innings).

 

It's too big of a risk to take at 6 unless you believe the post TJS upside of Aiken is so great as to dwarf the healthy alternatives, which I find incredulous.

Without looking at this too close, the first thought that comes to mind is that it's not a good idea to use pitchers nearing the end of their careers or minor league guys who haven't hit the majors for the simple reason that these guys could have plenty of non TJS reasons as to why they are no longer in the majors. Plenty of prospects (even highly thought of ones) never get there for various reasons, and plenty of vets fall off a cliff in their 30s. I would think you'd need to normalize those numbers based on success/failure of non TJS players in the same categories... that isn't easy to do.

 

As for Aiken at 6, it's all risk reward. If there's reason to think the risk is a bit higher for Aiken due to some medical reason, I probably let him slide. If this is a standard TJS type deal, I'd have a hard time not taking him, especially in a weaker class.

 

As for Aiken at 6, it's all risk reward. If there's reason to think the risk is a bit higher for Aiken due to some medical reason, I probably let him slide. If this is a standard TJS type deal, I'd have a hard time not taking him, especially in a weaker class.

 

Agreed.  Most had him head and shoulders above Rodon, Kolek, Jackson, Gordon, Schwarber.  A $4M investment here for a potential stud pitcher with six years of control seems like a good gamble. 

 

If the medicals are terrible and/or we think someone there has similar upside, then no obviously.

 

Without looking at this too close, the first thought that comes to mind is that it's not a good idea to use pitchers nearing the end of their careers or minor league guys who haven't hit the majors for the simple reason that these guys could have plenty of non TJS reasons as to why they are no longer in the majors. Plenty of prospects (even highly thought of ones) never get there for various reasons, and plenty of vets fall off a cliff in their 30s. I would think you'd need to normalize those numbers based on success/failure of non TJS players in the same categories... that isn't easy to do.

As for Aiken at 6, it's all risk reward. If there's reason to think the risk is a bit higher for Aiken due to some medical reason, I probably let him slide. If this is a standard TJS type deal, I'd have a hard time not taking him, especially in a weaker class.

Its broken into age groups. If I'm reading their chart correctly, MLB pitchers in the 16-23 age group return to pitch again at the MLB level at a rate of about 75%.

 

edit: Re-reading your post, I understand what you mean about other reasons (eg. ineffectiveness). Maybe a better grouping to look at is the 24-27 group who return at about 85%.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Willihammer

Twins signed Sano at 16 years old for 3 million (risk = 16 years old).

 

At this point everyone is happy with that investment.

 

If Aiken lasts until the Cubs at 9, they will take him before the commissioner finishes "the cubs are on the clock".

 

Don't worry about position is in the first few rounds - get the best player.

 

It's not a bad thing to have too much pitching - ask the Rays for the past six years.

Sano was a FA, you were not using a draft slot. Not comparable at all.

 

Draft slots are a finite resource....they guy had what odds to be a number 1-2 starter BEFORE surgery? 10%? 20%? Now, he has had surgery on his throwing arm. What are the odds now? Lower, I'd bet.

 

And, they have no 2nd round pick this year. With all the comp picks and whatnot, their next pick will be the equivalent of a late thirdish......

 

this is the one likely chance to get a MLB player this draft.......

 

Draft slots are a finite resource....they guy had what odds to be a number 1-2 starter BEFORE surgery? 10%? 20%? Now, he has had surgery on his throwing arm. What are the odds now? Lower, I'd bet.

Looking at 2000-2009, there were 20 HS pitchers taken in the top-10 picks:

3 top-of-the-rotation starters (Kershaw, Bumgarner, Greinke)

6 mid-to-back-of-rotation starters (Gavin Floyd, John Danks, Homer Bailey, Jarrod Parker, Zack Wheeler, Justin Turner).

11 did make the majors as a starter

 

I'd say that your 10%-20% guess is pretty accurate.

 

I'm pretty risk-adverse in general, so I'm not enthralled by the thought of drafting Aiken. As many have already pointed out, that TJ article doesn't address the specific recovery rates of pitchers of Aiken's age and caliber. However, the risk isn't zero. And for me, the biggest risk isn't that he will never pitch again. I'm more concerned that his stuff won't come all the way back. Is Aiken worth it if he only tops out at 93 instead of the 95+ pre-surgery? Or what if his control is shakier after surgery? There are several examples of really great pitchers who didn't completely recover. Liriano was never quite the same after surgery. Dylan Bundy is 2+ years removed from his surgery and his velocity still isn't back. Even Strasburg's velocity didn't come all the way back to what he showed his rookie year.

 

 

If you want a Aiken comparison - Lucas Gioito.

 

He's the #6 overall prospect by MLB.com - he fell in the draft because he needed TJ surgery.

 

I believe the Nats are happy with that selection.

 

Last Year Jeff Hoffman from East Carolina went 9th because he needed TJ surgery.

 

Obviously taking a TJ pitcher is risky but the upside of an ace is worth the risk.

 

 

Looking at 2000-2009, there were 20 HS pitchers taken in the top-10 picks:

3 top-of-the-rotation starters (Kershaw, Bumgarner, Greinke)

6 mid-to-back-of-rotation starters (Gavin Floyd, John Danks, Homer Bailey, Jarrod Parker, Zack Wheeler, Justin Turner).

11 did make the majors as a starter

 

I'd say that your 10%-20% guess is pretty accurate.

 

I'm pretty risk-adverse in general, so I'm not enthralled by the thought of drafting Aiken. As many have already pointed out, that TJ article doesn't address the specific recovery rates of pitchers of Aiken's age and caliber. However, the risk isn't zero. And for me, the biggest risk isn't that he will never pitch again. I'm more concerned that his stuff won't come all the way back. Is Aiken worth it if he only tops out at 93 instead of the 95+ pre-surgery? Or what if his control is shakier after surgery? There are several examples of really great pitchers who didn't completely recover. Liriano was never quite the same after surgery. Dylan Bundy is 2+ years removed from his surgery and his velocity still isn't back. Even Strasburg's velocity didn't come all the way back to what he showed his rookie year.

 

I get your logic and the pick would have a ton of risk associated with it.  But the upside IMO is likely better than anything left at #6.  We need to keep him mind, he is a 6'5 lefty that some scouts said had four legit pitches as an 18 year old. Including a 95 mph fastball, and really good breaking balls and a good change.

 

So even if he backs off that he was starting from a really, really good spot. 

 

In my opinion, you gamble a bit and take high upside starters in the draft.  Because you need good pitching to win and the draft is the best avenue we have to acquire it.  We are never going to sign an ace on the free agent market. 

 

^{BA's top 50 from 10 days ago. Aiken is 14th!}

 

^{http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/top-50-draft-prospects/}

Edited April 27, 2015 by tobi0040