Wow.  7 triples?  That is crazy.  Cannot recall ever hearing of that happening before.  For the ML team the most triples in a season is 68 (1984) then 58 in 1983 (big drop).  Lowest is 13 in 2009, or less than double what the GCL Jays did yesterday.  FYI: team record for a single player is 72 in a career (Tony Fernandez) Rajai Davis has the most for an active Jay with 10 lifetime as a Jay.

Bluefield have some really interesting arms to watch, some known to us, some less so.

• Jairo Labourt
• Shane Dawson
• Tom Robson
• Chase DeJong
• Alberto Tirado
• Yeyfry Del Rosario

DeJong and Tirado have pitched well, but were on my radar.  Labourt and Dawson have really pitched well, but I don't know much about them.

So, AA just said that the Jays don't expect to Sign Bickford, and its not $ related.  So he must be hurt, or just doesn't want to sign with the Jays period and want'sgo to college.

Is this good or bad news in everyone's opinion?

Depends on who else is signed........still get this pick next year...

It certainly makes the semi-punting of the rest of the draft look like a pretty wasted effort. Basically the best player the Jays get out of the entire draft is 95-ranked Clinton Hollon. Hard not to see this years' draft as a near-complete fail of strategy and execution.

Failure to sign Bickford also has to be seen in light of failure to sign Beede. Only 3 first rounders have failed to sign in last three years. Jays responsible for two of them. Appel was the other, and Appel likely would have signed if he had been drafted where it was anticipated he would be drafted.

Sure we get a pick next year, but: 1) it moves down a slot (and thus becomes subject to forfeiture if we sign a free agent), and 2) next years' pick becomes a "must-sign".

Next years draft is expected to be a better class, but as you mentioned as a 'no-comp' pick you can fiddle around with the pick, have to take a guy who will sign.

I thought the new CBA gave 2 years of protection to a pick, not just one.

If we don't sign Bickford, Brentz, and Tellez, that could be a fireable offense for most GM's to have such a failure of a draft correct?  If we dont sign 2 of those 3, our draft could be worse then the 2007 Houston Astros draft, which BA always jokes as one of the worst draft classes by a team of all time.

AA didn't actually say it wasn't about the money; he said people shouldn't assume it's about the money - "People immediately jump to money, or greed, things like that. But without all of the information I don't think it's fair."

As usual, he could probably prevent people from jumping to conclusions by giving an actual, concrete answer.

Without Bickford, it looks like AA punted this whole draft for next year.

Not signing Bickford isn't really a major fail. A fail would be over-paying him or if he wasn't a protected pick, or over-drafting/signing a player (Jenkins and McGuire are fails at this point).

Beede got us Stroman, right? No timeline seems to be lost there. You can't judge anything about a draft in the first year.

But for the draft to considered a coup, AA will definately have to sign a couple of those late round prep picks.

If it wasn't about money, doesn't that mean there was a scouting failure? If Shipley proves into anything better than the 2014 11th pick, this will be a big mistake.

"I thought the new CBA gave 2 years of protection to a pick, not just one."

That is correct. It would become no. 12 in 2015.

I also think the deal about lost development time is overblown. Most of these guys never make an impact at the ML level and even for those who do make it, the time it takes varies so greatly that the notion of "lost year" seems silly to me.


"If we don't sign Bickford, Brentz, and Tellez, that could be a fireable offense for most GM's to have such a failure of a draft correct? If we dont sign 2 of those 3, our draft could be worse then the 2007 Houston Astros draft, which BA always jokes as one of the worst draft classes by a team of all time."

The Jays draft looks indeed rather weak because they took all these under slot guys for no apparent reason. But the draft in baseball is such a crap shot that one has to trust the front office at least to some degree. And if I were an owner and my GM came to me and said "I think there was no one worth spending money on this year, let's save it for next year or the international market", I'd say "Go for it" and not "You must spend my money so BA (and the fans) don't make fun of us".

I'm much more willing to cut the front office slack over one specific draft than the lack of 2nd baseman on the 25 men roster. When it comes to the draft, one has to look at several drafts at a time and from a distance of at least 3 years. Here AA does not look bad but also no longer like the draft genius he did in 2-3 years ago.

I think Spifficus is right. It's actually very hard to figure out what the draft rules are -- they're not actually available on the internet as far as I can see.

Wilner's responsible for the "not about the money" quote.  AA was just being coy about the reason and that people shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's about the money.

Naturally, Wilner jumps to the opposite conclusion.

Not being able to sign Bickford is not a loss. They get the #11 pick in the 2014 Draft - reportedly a much stronger draft.

With the remaining 9 top 10 draft picks signed, Jays have $1,773,520.00 in under-slot savings. Trying not to exceed the 5% over-budget margin adds $173,839.00 which totals $1,947,359.00 available to sign other picks.

As I mentioned on a prior Post, there are priorities in who to sign from the 11-40 list.
1) Jacob Brentz (HS - LHP), willing to sign, wants 3rd/4th round monies.
2) Rowdy Tellez (HS - 1B), rare big power bat, wants 1st round monies.
The next two are much more difficult signings.
3) Eric Lauer (HS - LHP), is "enamoured?" with a College Coach!
4) Sam Tewes (HS - RHP), wants 4th round monies, but still may not sign.
Of the others, I don't know enough/or know too much but too little.
5) Tanner Cable (J1 - RHP), threw for Blue Jay scouts in the last week-ish.
6) Josh Sawyer (HS - LHP), indicated he didn't want to sign???
7) Edgar Cabral (HS- C), ???
8) Dane Dunning (HS - RHP), indicated he didn't want to sign???
9) Akoni Arriaga (HS - RHP), ???
These last are courtesy picks of Blue Jay family.
10) Jon Nunnally Jr (HS - OF), ???
11) Zachary Levison (HS - SS), ???
12) Antonio Ruis (HS - 1B), ??? Only other big bat 1B drafted.

I don't know who they'll sign, but there is little time left to get it done.

No Moe, its just the fact that they took so many guys underslot/sign under pick value, so they could spend the money on other players, but it looks like they might not spend any of that "saved money" at all.  Its just a risk going into a draft like this with this strategy, and it looks right now that the Jays strategy back-fired against them.

but it looks like they might not spend any of that "saved money" at all

Why would you say that? They will obviously spend all of that money.  The deadline is tomorrow, not today.  Talk about a ridiculous statement.

"Not signing Bickford isn't a major fail".

I don't know what would constitute a major fail then. We punted (or semi-punted) each of the top ten rounds of that draft at least partially in an effort to sign Bickford -- we failed to accompish this -- the teams' second such failure in three years.

Tellez and Brentz are at best late second and third round talents respectively, who fell because they wanted too much compared to where they stood to be drafted. They may well turn out to be fine players, but signing two guys who happened to be left available in the dregs of the draft wil not turn this draft into a coup.

"No Moe, its just the fact that they took so many guys underslot/sign under pick value, so they could spend the money on other players, but it looks like they might not spend any of that "saved money" at all. Its just a risk going into a draft like this with this strategy, and it looks right now that the Jays strategy back-fired against them."

My point was that AA might have felt that the players weren't worth it so he said "let's save the money for NEXT year/the international market". The type of stuff we fans would never say, because it's not our money. I was basically responding to your point that he should be fired and my point was that an owner could feel very different about that.

Another possibility: maybe he had to save money because the ML teams is so expensive this year? He told Rogers, he'll save a few million at the draft to make up for it.

Pretty sure the rules for the draft are laid out in the CBA, which is on the MLB website. It also goes very in depth on what an international draft would look like.

"We punted (or semi-punted) each of the top ten rounds of that draft at least partially in an effort to sign Bickford"

That is an assumption. If Bickford wanted 3m, that assumption makes little sense. Even if he wanted 4m, it would have been an overkill. There must be more than Bickford in play.

Might be to take several attempts at the 10+ rounds or because AA genuinely needed to save money.

Information about the Draft is found in the MLB / MLBPA most recent agreement, but I don't have a link to it.

Not signing a pick, and it's not about the money means RUN!
1) Decision (not Team's) on compensation packages, like full College/University package.
2) Decision (not Team's) on where player starts Professional career (like A+).
3) Decision (not Team's) on how fast a player moves in the system.
4) Entourage.
5) Personal trainers.
This is just to name a few of the many issue Team's won't/can't compromise on.

I would consider not signing Bickford to be a bit of a mess.  Kids usually don't make medicals available to scouts and front office types so the medical can be like peering behind the stage curtain.  With that being said, it's usually on the area guy to gather as much information as possible and looks bad on the guy when stuff like this comes up.  I guess it all depends upon what the medical issue is.  Things come up in medicals all the time and usually it just means they sign for less.  Dylan Covey a couple years ago found out he had diabetes at his medical and decided he wanted to go to college and figure out how to live with the disease.  Covey had a less than stellar college career and was drafted by the A's in the fourth round this year.  The Brewers then took Jed Bradley the following year, who even at draft time looked a dud, and still does.  The Diamondbacks passed on Barrett Loux when his medical showed serious shoulder damage.  Loux then signed with the Rangers and is now with the Cubs and looks like he'll pitch in the Big Leagues.  On the flip side, the Diamondbacks received the seventh pick in the 2011 draft--a much deeper draft--and drafted Archie Bradley who looks a legitimate front-line type starting pitcher.  So I agree, much like the draft, it's a bit of a crapshoot here.  I just think that given the amount of time that you put into scouting and gathering information, especially on your first pick, and especially when it's your first year on the job (Brian Parker), it's disappointing that something like this happens.  The Jays do get the 11th overall pick next year, which means that it's unprotected from a free agent signing--whether that counts for anything.  I assume that they'll play the money game and draft a college guy close to the Bigs with one pick and go uber projection with other, much like they did last year.   

They are not as far as I know smcs. We have actually been through this. The Rule 4 and Rule 5 draft are called this because there are actually things called rule 4 and rule 5. Getting your hands on these Rules is something I have tried to do intermittently but without success.

Sam. The changes to the draft required the projected top 200 picks to go through mlb-sponsored pre-draft medicals, so I don't know how much of a crap-shoot it really is.

So the Jays knew about the medical issue before hand, yet drafted Bickford?  Well then I could be wrong, but then there appears to be a concerted effort on the part of the Jays to draft injured players with their first two picks to lower their bonuses?

Hey Moe. Whatever Bickford wanted, it was the Jays' job to know this. Every other team managed to get a proper read on their draftee's demands.

And just because the draft is a crapshoot, doesn't mean it shouldn't be executed competently. On paper the Jays had the worst draft of any team in baseball this year.

It is beginning to sound like Wilner jumped to conclusions and maybe it is about the money.  It sounds like this is what happened....When AA said Bickford would not sign, Wilner asked if Bickford was being greedy.  AA said no and Wilner assumed that meant it was a non-cash issue.  AA may not have wanted to hang a greedy label on Bickford but that doesn't mean its not about the money.

If the Jays do not sign Bickford it would be a major negative in my opinion.

Why are you guys speculating that there is a medical issue? There is absolutely no report of any failed medical.

Its money related.  I'm willing to bet that the Jays drafted him with the hope that his "demands" were bogus.  They offered slot or close to it.  Bickford/company wanted more.  The Jays, showing to be hard-asses once again, simply said: "Nope, cya".

metafour, I wouldn't jump on us for speculating it's medical.  The reports we were going off explicitly said not about money, which would leave us with medical issues.  As Gerry just pointed out, Mike Wilner made a typical hash of reporting this. 

Tellez and Brentz are at best late second and third round talents respectively, who fell because they wanted too much compared to where they stood to be drafted. They may well turn out to be fine players, but signing two guys who happened to be left available in the dregs of the draft wil not turn this draft into a coup.

So you wouldn't trade Bickford for next year's 11th pick, plus an extra 2nd and 3rd round picks? I think most people would take the latter, if it works out that way.

Tellez and Brentz have nothing to do with Bickford.  We have $1.7m or so for Tellez and Brentz.  Heyman is reporting we offered Bickford slot and he wants to go to college now.

The fact that we're offering slot, means no additional money from the Bickford slot was aimed at Tellez and Brentz.

Tellez and Brentz can be signed now with the surplus acquired by overdrafting throughout the remaining rounds. No one is suggesting that Bickford would have signed under slot, so his signing should have nothing to do with the Tellez/Brentz decision.

And there is a big difference between having a 2nd and 3rd round pick that you use to pick the best player available, and being stuck with two guys ID'd as 2nd and 3rd round "talents" that have been passed over by other teams and happen to be available to you.

"And there is a big difference between having a 2nd and 3rd round pick that you use to pick the best player available, and being stuck with two guys ID'd as 2nd and 3rd round "talents" that have been passed over by other teams and happen to be available to you."

That doesn't make sense...the guys dropped because teams didn't think they were going to sign if they didn't get drafted in the first few rounds. Teams chose to select guys they knew they could sign.

And Bickford not signing does have an effect, if the choice was giving Bickford $1-2MM over slot and losing that extra slot money.

Impossibles. Ask yourself this: would you rather be given a million dollars to buy a house of your own choosing, or given a house that has been passed over by other buyers that you have been assured is a "million dollar value". I think the answer is pretty obvious.

The failure is not failing to sign Bickford -- it is for failing to properly assess what his demands were. The failure is not having drafted the next best player available, like Shipley or Crawford or like that.

Wonder how people reacted to the 2000 draft - so far it has produced 4 ML players.  Dustin McGowan (1.6 WAR), Vinnie Chulk (1.4), Mike Smith (-0.5) and Rich Thompson (-0.5) for a total of 2 WAR.  Or howsabout the 1980 draft which produced 0 ML games out of the guys drafted despite the Jays having the #2 overall pick (it was a weak draft though).  A lot worse has happened than not signing the first round pick (1982...Augie Schmidt over Dwight Gooden for example). 

What matters is - do the Jays sign anyone else with the $2 million saved by signing cheaply.

I don't think it's necessarily a problem, although I would have liked to see Bickford added to the system. We don't know all the facts. If I had to decide right now between Beede and Stroman, I might well go with Stroman. Next year's draft class may well be better than this year's. Time will tell how all this plays out.

In the big picture, though, I hope the Jays improve their drafting overall. With a handful of exceptions, the organization hasn't drafted all that well for quite some time.

When this Draft was occurring A.A. had his "must picks", but all of them went earlier. Phillip Bickford was fairly equal with the next best available, but he was a 10 - 40 pick reach depending on which site was evaluating.

A.A. had slot $2,921,400.00 plus 5% overage for approximately $2.997 MM to sign Bickford. Paying more than $3.0 MM for Bickford is unwise and sets a precedence A.A. won't set.

However, if you haven't spoken personally with Bickfohrd, don't rag on A.A.'s motive for not signing him, it's not your right.

Telluz wanted to be picked 1st round or not picked. No one else has his power and is as good as he is. Why not try to sign him. Brentz would have been picked earlier if Draft Pick Savings weren't necessary. Those pick were usually signed for overslot back then.

B.A. ranked Brentz #80 and Tellez #59. Hollon was ranked #95, Murphy and Smith were not ranked, while Lietz was ranked #254.

Impossibles. Ask yourself this: would you rather be given a million dollars to buy a house of your own choosing, or given a house that has been passed over by other buyers that you have been assured is a "million dollar value". I think the answer is pretty obvious. The failure is not failing to sign Bickford -- it is for failing to properly assess what his demands were. The failure is not having drafted the next best player available, like Shipley or Crawford or like that."

If my choice is to be given $1MM to buy one house at list price, or given $1MM to buy as many houses as possible at any deals I can negotiate, I'd take the latter. I do agree if Shipley or Crawford turns out better than whoever the Jays get next year, that would be a failure, as much as any draft pick can be. Bickford not being signed can't be called a failure without looking at the big picture. You can't isolate one thing. I think its safe to say Bickford wasn't going to sign at slot value.

Back on the original post though...how much of a prospect is Bibens-Dirkx?

Bibens-Dirkx - not. That's what I've seen mentioned on this site.

This is obviously a ploy to select Tyler Beede again next year.

I would guess there is a money difference between Bickford and the Jays.  Todays comment by AA is his way of saying to Bickford's camp, I have already spread the bad news, I am not going to cave, so if you want to take the $2.9M you can but don't expect me to move too much.

Also the delay in signing or not-signing Bickford could have an impact on the Jays ability to sign one of their other picks.  The Jays might be willing to go up a couple of hundred thousand to get Bickford but they can't spend that money in case Bickford agrees at the last minute.  That's another negative with these last minute deals.

I agree that the issue is likely money. But if the Jays were only offering slot to Bickford and had no intention to go over, I expect they would already have announced the signing of at least one of the other two before now. I think the only reason to hold back on those announcements is if you haven't made the offers to them yet, and if you are still hopeful of getting a deal done with Bickford.

If I was doing the signings, I would do my darndest to keep every deal under wraps until the last day. You loose a lot of leverage when the prospect knows exactly how much cash you have saved up.

If the jays feel Bickford, is not likely to accept what's offered, then write him off and go all in on the other possibles. That way the jays are not left holding the bag, The deadline is tomorrow but for Bickford it should be tonight. Inform him that if not signed tonight, the money will be spent elsewhere and then do it.

Agreed on that PeterG.  Basically Bickford has the option (up to the last minute) of signing for cap, but the Jays should use the extra cash elsewhere now.  Especially if they feel next year #11 will be worth more than Bickford.

The Jays only get the slot money associated with Bickford if they sign him, correct? IF they don't sign him, they lose that money and can't use it on other players.

Correct.

Now Jim Callis is tweeting the Brentz is not signing either.

Draft is looking more and more like a write-off. What a disaster for the new guy.

My feelings about this are the same as when it happened with Tyler Beede. I really and truly hope that Bickford does not come to regret passing on nearly $3MM (or whatever it is that the Jays offered).

It reflects poorly on the Jays, especially because it looks like they planned the draft around making sure they had more than $4MM to give to Bickford, which is what was rumored to be his pre-draft price tag, but the strategy the Jays have adopted for the draft basically says that this would have happened at some point. I'd expect the strategy will be the same next year, especially considering the Jays are on track to get 2 high draft picks.

Total maximum $$$, including 5% overage, Toronto had left to spend would be $4,829,749.00. That is enough to sign Bickford and have $579,749 left to sign someone else.

Now anyone, without an axe to grind, who says "it's about the money" is totally wrong. It's all about setting a precedent with a draft pick/prospect who was a big reach at the time (20th-60th). That A.A. WILL NOT DO.

Without Bickford, Toronto has $1,947,359.00. That averages out to $973,679.00 for two Picks (or whatever split); or $649,119.66 for three.

Agreed smcs. Even if you are convinced the punting strategy provides value (I am not), it's an incredibly tough strategy to execute. Every player is a moving part, and even a single miscalculation can throw the entire plan off. Where, as in this case, the miscalculation happens early on, the effect on a draft is catastrophic. For those of us who are in favour of doing whatever possible to sign as much premium talent as possible, this draft represents an entire lost cohort of talent.

For the draft now I'd say Tewes and Tellez are the keys.  Get either of them and it could be a solid one (produce one ML regular and it is a good draft, two and it is a great one).  Brentz was one I thought the Jays were counting on and losing him is a problem, but we'll see what happens as the deadline hits tomorrow.  If the Jays have most of that $2 million extra still left over once all is said and done then it is a lost opportunity.

Still, looking back you can see how the Jays basically punted nearly every last draft pre-1990 with many having horrid selections in the first round yet still were able to make a WS winner and perpetual contender, but in the 90's produced great results from the first round and failed to win anything.  So no need to jump off any roof tops yet.

So, this year already Austin Bibens-Dirkx has personally shown up Brandon Morrow and Sergio Santos by dominating opposing hitters, after those pitchers pitched ahead if him and did not.

Not bad for a non-prospect. And I think he remains the best starter in AA this year, even though they demoted him.

Yeesh, disaster zone.  Jays draft 10th overall and have almost $7 million to spend and end up spending $2 million and their top guy is a six foot righty with elbow issues?

Agreed smcs. Even if you are convinced the punting strategy provides value (I am not), it's an incredibly tough strategy to execute. Every player is a moving part, and even a single miscalculation can throw the entire plan off.

Agreed with above.

Where, as in this case, the miscalculation happens early on, the effect on a draft is catastrophic. For those of us who are in favour of doing whatever possible to sign as much premium talent as possible, this draft represents an entire lost cohort of talent.

Disagreed with all of this. When the miscalculation happens at the front of the draft (first round), you get a compensation pick, so damage is minimized. This draft represents an entire lost cohort of talent if the near $2m of saved cash from rounds 2-10 goes to waste because the four high ceiling picks taken after round ten can't be signed.

The miscalculation that happened early on was not related to a punting strategy. The miscalculation was that Bickford would sign for slot.  That is not a punting strategy.  The money from round 2-10 was not (apparently) earmarked for Bickford as an overslot sign either. 

I'd much rather have the 11th pick in a supposed good draft year than the 10th pick in a below average year, especially when the 10th pick comes around and the guy i was really wanting was gone.

I'm guessing the Jays wanted to take one of the high ceiling HS bats and when they were gone had Bickford on the top of their board. They probably weren't in love with taking Bickford with a top 10 pick but did so knowing they were going to get next years 11th pick or else force him down to take slot or below money. Bickford not signing doesn't really change my grading of this draft, if anything i makes me like it better.

The problem will be if they fail to sign at least one/two of the over slot post round 10 guys. Then that has to be looked at as a failure. And this has nothing to do with Bickford

I think there could be benefit to getting a pick one slot later in a strong draft year, but there would have to be more than a minimal difference in talent between the two drafts, particularly related to where the team losing the pick is selecting. I think it's easy to underrate the downside of that lost year of development.

Where as I think it's easy to overestimate the "lost year of development". Stroman over Beede sure wasn't a loss of a year.

There seems to be a general tenor here that Stroman has been and will be a slam dunk over Beede.  I could be wrong here, but I think most scouts would say it's probably the other way around.  Stroman has a drug rap, has pitched well, but certainly hasn't been dominant and doesn't project to be a front line guy.  I mean, you prorate his AA numbers over 200 AA innings and he gives up 30+ homeruns.  (Insert statistical backlash here).  Then you look at the season Beede had.  14-1, 100 innings, a 100 K's, 60 hits, but an ugly BB:K ratio.  The scouting reports all suggest he throws his fastball now in the mid-90s (not touches like Stroman) and has multiple plus pitches.  Scouts now would probably point to his command as a high schooler and his clean mechanics to suggest that will come around.  Beede has a very real chance to go in the top three picks of next year's draft.  Marcus Stroman is still a 5'9 pitcher who is going to struggle to keep the ball in the park.  I mean, I just don't think it's what people are making it out to be?

If Beede wants to be a top ten pick, he's going to have to improve his control. It will be interesting to compare Beede and Stroman in five or ten years. No idea who will come out ahead.

One thing that makes the relatively poor drafts stand out is the lost opportunities on the IFA market. During the free-for-all before the new CBA, teams competed for the likes of Chapman, Cespedes, Puig, Iglesias and Soler (and Darvish, although the CBA limits don't apply to Japanese players). Other teams were aggressive; the Jays seemed to be looking those gift horses in the mouth. Note where many of the successful bidders are in the standings.

The Jays are apparently gaining more traction in Latin America of late (Osuna, Barreto and others) but overall they've missed a lot of opportunities when it comes to amateur talent / IFAs.

I was simply pointing out that just because you take the comp pick for not signing a draftee, doesn't necessarily lose you any development time. I have no idea who will be the better pitcher between Stroman vs Beede  or Paxton vs Syndergaard  Im just saying its looking like Stroman will make it to the big leagues before Beede. And Syndergaard was a HS pick vs Paxton the college guy and they may debut about a year apart. It all comes down to picking the right guy, and nobody knows anything until it all plays out

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130611&content_id=50293726&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

1. Carlos Rodon, LHP, North Carolina State: The Wolfpack are headed to the College World Series, and Rodon is a big reason why. Even after starting slowly, the big lefty has gone 9-2 with a 3.19 ERA and 170 strikeouts in 118 1/3 innings. There is almost universal consensus that Rodon is the early choice to be No. 1 in 2014.

2. Tyler Beede, RHP, Vanderbilt: Beede, who didn't sign as a first-rounder in 2011, is a Golden Spikes Award finalist thanks to a 14-1 record, a 2.32 ERA and a .187 batting average against.

3. Alex Jackson, C, Rancho Bernardo HS, Calif.: A two-time participant in the Under Armour game, Jackson has some serious raw power from the right side and is a good leader with an accurate arm.

4. Touki Toussaint, RHP, Coral Springs Christian HS, Fla.: This Florida prepster is very athletic with a ton of arm strength, using a clean delivery to fire fastballs that can touch the mid-90s to go along with a hard downer curve.

5. Aaron Nola, RHP, Louisiana State: What's a Draft class without a top LSU arm? Nola was LSU's Friday starter this year, going 12-0 with a 1.68 ERA, striking out nearly a batter per inning while holding hitters to a .187 BAA.

6. Trea Turner, SS, N.C. State: He's a shortstop who can stay there, a leadoff hitter extraordinaire with plus-plus speed that allowed him to steal 84 bases in his first two seasons of college ball.

7. Nick Gordon, RHP/SS, Olympia HS, Fla.: The son of Tom and brother of Dee, Gordon is a legitimate two-way guy who can play shortstop and hit from the left side. He's athletic on the mound, too, with a low-90s fastball and a big curve.

8. Michael Cederoth, RHP, San Diego State: The 6-foot-6 right-hander's numbers this year weren't outstanding, thanks largely to some command issues, but he did strike out 109 in 95 1/3 innings and sported an upper-90s fastball at times.

9. Nick Burdi, RHP, Louisville: It's not often a college closer gets ranked this highly, but Burdi reportedly hit triple digits during the 2013 season, striking out 61 in 34 2/3 innings.

10. Dylan Cease, RHP, Milton HS, Ga.: This year's Draft was partly about the outfielders in Georgia. Cease will make 2014 about pitching, as the right-hander has a loose, electric arm that touched 97 mph this past spring to go along with a good breaking ball and a feel for a changeup.

The rest of the top 20:

11. Jacob Gatewood, SS, Clovis HS, Calif.
12. Brady Aiken, LHP, Cathedral Catholic HS, Calif.
13. Michael Gettys, OF/RHP, Gainesville HS, Ga.
14. Derek Fisher, OF, Virginia
15. Kel Johnson, OF, Home schooled, Ga.
16. Michael Kopech, RHP, Mt. Pleasant HS, Texas
17. Justus Sheffield, LHP, Tullahoma HS, Tenn.
18. Jack Flaherty, RHP/3B, Harvard Westlake HS, Calif.
19. Mike Conforto, OF, Oregon St.
20. Luke Weaver, RHP, Florida State

Jonathan Mayo is a reporter for MLB.com and writes a blog, B3. Follow @JonathanMayoB3 on Twitter. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

"If Beede wants to be a top ten pick, he's going to have to improve his control. It will be interesting to compare Beede and Stroman in five or ten years. No idea who will come out ahead."

Beede was drafted 21st overall in 2011. Since then, he has massively improved his stock. If he's not a top ten pick already he doesn't have far to go.

Ayjackson. If it were just the failure to sign Bickford then I would agree with you, that is to some extent offset by the comp pick (although it is no longer protected if we sign a FA, which seems likely) in a potentially stronger draft. But the remaining nine picks that round were all made with a view to saving up cash. I remember many people on this board stepping up to defend last years' punting of rounds four through ten to sign Matt Smoral on the ground that a single high upside talent is worth giving up all of those picks. Well, if high end talent is what you're looking for, this entire draft is a wash. Best player signed so far is at best a third round talent. Rowdy Tellez will not make up for ten rounds of low budget picks.

I really don't understand how anyone can defend this draft. When Keith Law does his analysis I expect he will describe this draft as the worst in all of baseball by a considerable margin.

Conceded - it sounds as though Beede may already be in the top ten or top five. But I'm not sure he has "massively" improved his stock - his walk rate actually deteriorated significantly this year (63 BB in 101 IP versus 32 in 71.2 IP the year before), while his K rate was about the same. And his 14-1 record doesn't mean much of anything; I'm not sure why it's being touted as a reason for his high ranking.

They probably weren't in love with taking Bickford with a top 10 pick but did so knowing they were going to get next years 11th pick or else force him down to take slot or below money. Bickford not signing doesn't really change my grading of this draft, if anything i makes me like it better.

If that is true, that they held their nose and picked Bickford, already assuming they couldn't sign him, that is an awful, awful terrible strategy. I'm fine with punting a few late slotted picks, but opting not to add talent to your organization with a top 10 pick because next year you might get a better player? That's a job-losing decision, in my mind.

5. Aaron Nola, RHP, Louisiana State; 20. Luke Weaver, RHP, Florida State;

Jays drafted both of these guys in 2011, as well. They tried to lure Nola by drafting his older brother a few rounds later.

Thanks for pointing this out smcs. The Toronto Blue Jays: We draft your best players.

Marcus Stroman haters should find somewhere else to vent.

For only 5'9", he weighs on at 185. Everyone who commented on his Draft had Stroman as the first of his draft class to reach the Majors. As bad as this team was in 2012, that would have happened, because he was a dominant Reliever. Then came the Suspension. Whether carelessness, stupidity or deliberately was responsible doesn't matter, he's paid the penalty/suspension.

Being a Starter occurred this year and he's made tremendous strides. If you google him you can access a link to a Baseball Central interview he did (9th item down).

A major thing to remember about Beede though is he is at the college level still.  That means his arm could and likely will be abused next year to a degree it wouldn't be in a ML organization (based on how pitchers have historically been treated by NCAA coaches).  One injury and suddenly that multi-million dollar payday is gone.  He was drafted in 2011.  If he signed early then and had a season in short season, then 2012 could've been full season A, 2013 A+, 2014 AA with a shot at the majors if he did well with 2015 being a full shot in spring at the big club.  Of course, with the Jays it might be 2011/2012 short season, 2013 A, 2014 A+, 2015 AA/ML callup if doing great, 2016 real shot at majors.  Instead 2014 will likely be short season 'get feet wet' followed by 2015 in A+, 2016 in AA, and maybe a shot in late 2016 or 2017 if the organization that drafts him pushes him.  So at least one year later than otherwise would've been likely, maybe two years.  Of course, he could be drafted by a team that pushes super hard and gets him to the majors in 2014 ... who knows.

To me though the risk of staying in college rather than signing in 2011 was immense and while the risk seems low now it wouldn't take much to shift it the other way.  Of course, a bad injury and he suddenly gets on the Jays radar again I guess :P

The Toronto Blue Jays: We draft your best players.

The hipster method? We liked your favorite players before they were cool.

When Keith Law does his analysis I expect he will describe this draft as the worst in all of baseball by a considerable margin.

Someone who judges this draft, at this point in time, may also try visiting a hospital delivery room and telling us which of the new parents will do the best job of raising their kids.

Before fretting too much about Stroman's HR rate, note that it has been improving as the season has progressed. In his first five starts (20 IP), he allowed 5 HR. In his last five starts (29.2 IP), he's allowed 3 HR. Over the latter five starts, his K:BB ratio is 34:5. That's outstanding. The kid has pitched 69 pro innings, with this year his first as a SP, and looks to be close to the majors. He was held in very high regard in last year's draft, with some observers like Callis and Law raving about the Jays' selection of him at 22.

I don't see much to complain about here. Beede might turn out to be great, but he's a long way off and the high walk rate suggests to me that he's no slam dunk.

Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Seattle, Cleveland and St. Louis liked Bautista, EE, Delabar, Rogers and Rasmus before they were cool.

I was simply pointing out that just because you take the comp pick for not signing a draftee, doesn't necessarily lose you any development time. I have no idea who will be the better pitcher between Stroman vs Beede or Paxton vs Syndergaard Im just saying its looking like Stroman will make it to the big leagues before Beede. And Syndergaard was a HS pick vs Paxton the college guy and they may debut about a year apart.

It doesn't necessarily mean that, but it's just saying if everything else holds equal it does. And in your examples I think you're making a mistake by comparing Syndergaard to Paxton. Paxton also lost a year (or some amount) of development time by not signing in 2009, as I don't think it was optimal for his growth to be pitching in the American Association for a year. Syndergaard should be compared against a hypothetical Paxton that signed in 2009, who may well have debuted by now considering Paxton is pitching in Tacoma. (Or may not have.)

Of course, everything else isn't equal, including the development paths that the pitchers may have taken if they had chosen different routes. Tyler Beede may look like a very different pitcher if he had signed professionally, although I do agree that Beede against Stroman is one case where the profile of the players suggests that no development time was lost.

To this point in the Draft, Toronto has signed 7 of the 19 High School picks; 1 of the 2 J1 picks; 1 for 1 of the J2 picks; 4 of the 5 JR picks; 11 of the 11 SR picks and 2 of the 2 5S picks. That sucks ss a Draft, and a lot of scouts would be losing their jobs.

Paxton had Scott Boras as his advisor. As s result, Paxton lost his College/University Baseball Scholarship, couldn'th get it reversed and played semi-Professional Baseball. Not that well from all that was written at the time. He signed for less than Toronto offered and missed a full year.

Jake Eliopoulos was drafted 3 times and turned down $530K for Toronto first time and everyone else after. He wasn't that good to start with.

Jake Barrett turned down Toronto and when signing 3 years later didn't make much more with Arizona.

Tyler Beede turned down $2.5MM and fell three years behind his Draft Class. So far, 8 picks have reached the Majors, while Beede is 1 year away from being re-drafted and st least another 2 or more years away from the Majors.

Even the best draft picks (making the Majors) take 2-6 years to get there; with 6 years to free agency (age 28-30) for Beede. That occurs 1-3 years earlier if signing out of HS.

The Draft picks who turned down $$$ offered were in for a shock starting last year with the new Slotting System. Some HS picks never want to play ball (not realizing the value in signing, with post-secondary education added) prefering a Job.

Beede is in for a shock.

Before fretting too much about Stroman's HR rate, note that it has been improving as the season has progressed. In his first five starts (20 IP), he allowed 5 HR. In his last five starts (29.2 IP), he's allowed 3 HR. Over the latter five starts, his K:BB ratio is 34:5. That's outstanding

Continuing in this vein, those first five starts included one, one-inning outing in which he was sheled and gave up two homers, his only bad outing this year. Take away that one abberation, and his HR rate over the first 5 games go from 2.25 per 9, to less than 1.5 per 9

In fact, without that one inning of work, his season line looks like this:

2.03 ERA, 48.2 IP, 36 H, 6 HR, 11 BB, 56 K

Who wants to wager Beede would have a line that nice in AA right now?

Beede is in for a shock.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Unless something changes, Beede seems very likely to sign for noticeably more than Toronto ever offered.

I believe the deadline is 5:00 P.M. Eastern ( and even then there may be a time lag on making announcements). It's probably best to wait to the smoke clears until getting all hot and bothered and yes , Magpie wins comment of the day.

I'm actually not sure what point Magpie was making, which is why I didn't respond to it. But it is perfectly fair game for us (or Keith Law) to evaluate (and criticize where appropriate) a drafting team's choice of strategy and execution on that strategy. You don't have to wait fifteen years so that you can speak with the benefit of hindsight.

In fact, I would say that the opposite is true. You don't evaluate a draft with the benefit of hindsight, but rather on the basis of the information you have at hand. The Jays may get lucky and have each of their top nine picks this year reach and contribute in the majors -- this won't change the fact that they gambled and lost, and ultimately appear to have squandered an entire years' picks.

And yes, this is all contingent on the Bickford news being correct.

this won't change the fact that they gambled and lost

They gambled and lost? This isn't the casino.  They "lost" on signing a player this year, and will get another opportunity to do so next year...free of charge!

Your Black/White mortifying view of this draft is absurd.

It is fair to be critical of choices made in a draft, but also one has to remember that we have even less knowledge of 'behind the scene' stuff than we do with the Jays bullpen.  We have little knowledge of injuries, and projecting from where they are today is a major crapshoot unless you are a high end scout and even then it is extremely hard.  Plus we have no knowledge of guys who said one thing pre-draft to the Jays and then did another post-draft.  A quick evaluation of a draft is interesting, but a real evaluation I think has to be at least 3-5 years later when you can see if the 'projectable' players really were or not.

I recall many drafts in the 90's being viewed as 'bargain drafts' then producing tons of talent.  In the 80's Gillick was certain Augie Schmidt was a future superstar (weird he was only in the Jays system for 3 seasons - was part of the trade to get Gary Lavelle who was a big help in 1985 but Jim Gott would've been the key to that deal I suspect). 

I think the Jays will need to re-evaluate their strategy if no one else big gets signed today, as you want to get 2 or 3 guys who have a real shot at being a ML regular each draft (might be dreaming, but you want to feel that way).  Just remember though, in the many years the Jays have been around just 8 first round picks (out of 64) became 20+ WAR guys, one more cracked 10 and 12 more cracked 0.  So 21 of 64 had any real value to the club so far.  Another 14 reached (from Russ Adams [286 games] to Alex Sanchez [4 games]) getting us up to 35 of 64.  Not fantastic odds of stardom.

This is primarily a forum for the discussion of prospects. If this isn't the place to get "hot and bothered" about a botched draft, I don't know where is. I don't feel like I have a mortifying view of the draft, but I do think this was a terrible effort, and I believe in calling a spade a spade.

My view is that the Jays strategy was always too cute by half -- even when it works the payoff for punting picks is at best minimal, and executing it properly poses a very high degree of difficulty. If you disagree with what I've said, perhaps explain why? Absurd (besides being uncharitable) is a pretty easy word to toss around, but it doesn't tell me anything about why you disagree with me -- and I'm very happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

I have already answered the point about the comp pick. Replacement picks are fine, but: 1) as with any asset, a dollar today is better than a dollar tomorrow, and 2) the pick is pushed out of the top ten, and thus will be unprotected. So it is not at all a wash.

More important, focussing on the pick itself ignores that the Bickford signing appears to have been the reason for the overdrafting that followed in rounds 2 through 10. The best player we signed in those rounds was the 95th ranked player by baseball america. The next best player was ranked 178. It should be pretty clear to everyone that we passed over a lot of talent in order to create excess slot room.

Finally, even the fallback plan of signing the high-end leftovers in rounds 10+ seems to be failing. Brentz, Lauer, and Tewes are not signing.

Plus we have no knowledge of guys who said one thing pre-draft to the Jays and then did another post-draft

 

I think the idea that the players were deceiving Anthopolous is being charitable to the Jays front office. Most high-school pitchers would prefer to sign professionally (quicker start to their development, won't suffer risk of injury or overuse in college, guaranteed money) and have no incentive to massively deceive a team as to their signing demands. Sure, some gamemanship goes on, but if you're suggesting Beede said $2 million and then raised it to $3.5 million, I find that hard to believe. All the evidence suggests the Jays knew the price, thought he could be bargained down to about $2.5 and he couldn't and they wouldn't pay his pre-draft demands.

Plus, AA has been in charge for four drafts. Six first-round selections haven't signed during those four drafts (assuming Bickford is the only one not to sign this year). No other team has had multiple picks not sign and, of those six, two of them didn't sign at least in part due to medical reasons. This suggests that the Jays front office is likely misestimating their ability or their draft pick's willigness to be negotiated down to a lower asking price or misreading the market, unless we assume AA selected Bickford (and/or Beede) with the intent of probably not signing him.

"More important, focussing on the pick itself ignores that the Bickford signing appears to have been the reason for the overdrafting that followed in rounds 2 through 10."

Appears to who? Bickford was going to go for slot. Maybe a bit more or less. He would have little effect on how savings on later picks would be spent.

"The best player we signed in those rounds was the 95th ranked player by baseball america. The next best player was ranked 178"

You seem to consider BA as some sort of bible. Basing opinions on 2nd, third or fourth hand info (and old info at that) is questionable at best. In 2010, BA did not rank Syndergaard in their Top 200, but the Jays were not the only club that differed from that view. They saw the improvement, as did Seattle with another "overdrafted" prospect - Taijuan Walker.

"a dollar today is better than a dollar tomorrow"

Since next year is viewed as a stronger draft class, the dollar today may well be one fifty tomorrow.

Plus, AA has been in charge for four drafts. Six first-round selections haven't signed during those four drafts (assuming Bickford is the only one not to sign this year). No other team has had multiple picks not sign and, of those six, two of them didn't sign at least in part due to medical reasons. This suggests that the Jays front office is likely misestimating their ability or their draft pick's willigness to be negotiated down to a lower asking price or misreading the market, unless we assume AA selected Bickford (and/or Beede) with the intent of probably not signing him.

My very subjective impression is that a variant of the last possibility is at work.  My impression is that AA was perfectly comfortable with not signing Bickford or Beede if either did not move significantly from their demands.  The reasons may have differed somewhat- in the case of Bickford, the feeling may be that the #11 player next year is likely to be better than any of the #10 options this year; in the case of Beede, the feeling may have been at least in part that the Jays did not want him to fall to the Red Sox.

I am not crazy about the draft approach in general.  I still feel that it is too pitcher-heavy.

"More important, focussing on the pick itself ignores that the Bickford signing appears to have been the reason for the overdrafting that followed in rounds 2 through 10."


I don't buy this. Bickford's demands were reported as low as 3m and as high as 4.25m. The lower bound is the slot value and the upper bound the Jays can afford based on the savings you mentioned. So why are they not signing him? Did his demand go up? Did something else happen?

I think there are are two unrelated events.

1. The Jays drafted Bickford assuming that 3m would be enough. After all, this is a negotiation and most prospects (even Boras clients) end up settling for less. Considering that he was thought of as a reach, is unlikely to do much better next time, and is committed to a school not known for academics, I think assuming that 3m would do the trick was reasonable. More reasonable than for Beede who went to Vanderbilt and was more highly thought of in the first place.

2. But if the Jays assumed that 3m were enough, they did not save money on the 2-10 rounds for Bickford but for other reasons (again, if it was for him, why are they not giving it to him? It would satisfy his 4.25m and then some).
Two other reasons
(i) To take a shot at hard to sign guys that they did not want to draft in 2-5 because the slot money would be lost. This way, they get multiple kicks at the can.
(ii) AA was told that he needs to save money. We know the Jays are maxed out for salary and next year's roster will cost even more. And without the team having reached the playoffs this year, that is hard to swallow for the bean-counters.
As an aside, for this reason, I also don't think the protection matters. The Jays are not going to sign one of the FA that costs a pick.

If it is option (i), then there were two separate failures and if it's (ii), then we Jays fans are due for some more disappointment going forward.

Hyperbole. I cited the BA rankings as a guideline. Name another ranking service, and I think you'll find the same answer. None of the players the Jays signed are on anyone's top 75. I happen to think the BA rankings are the best source available, but I don't see them as a bible.

We are just surmising, but I expect the Jays knew upon signing Bickford that he was going to require an over-slot bonus. In his second to last mock draft, Keith Law had Bickford around ten. Then in his last draft he pushed Bickford out of the first round altogether. When I pointed out to him that he left Bickford out he replied: "Yes. Asking for a very large bonus." So it was out there that his demands were high.

Bickford's high demands would explain why the Jays punted (or semi-punted) their second round pick in selecting Hollon, as well as their decision to go for value guys (i.e. bargain selections) in rounds 3 through 10. While having some selections in rounds 10+ can be a nice fall back, I doubt the Jays would have made value choices throughout the draft without a specific target for the proceeds.

The reasons may have differed somewhat- in the case of Bickford, the feeling may be that the #11 player next year is likely to be better than any of the #10 options this year; in the case of Beede, the feeling may have been at least in part that the Jays did not want him to fall to the Red Sox.

As you point out, the reasons for not signing Bickford and Beede may be different and don't necessarily preclude both comfort with not signing the player and another factor, whether it be misreading the player's demands or willingness to move from their demands or blocking another team from selecting a player. I agree that the Jays have been a little too pitching-heavy recently, but regardless, I'm certainly not on board with a draft strategy that includes selecting players to prevent other teams from selecting them. If that was the case.