Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Indy 500: Coverage of the 'Greatest Spectacle In Racing'

Kansas City Royals 2012 Draft Position in Flux

Hustle. Fire. Faith. (Photo by Jason Miller/Getty Images)

Depending on how the final two weeks of the season go, the Royals could be drafting anywhere from 4th to 10th overall in the 2012 MLB Draft. If the season ended today, the Royals would pick 6th. However, because of how closely the teams are bunched, that's far from a stable position.

Here are the reverse standings at the moment:

  1. Houston (51-98)
  2. Minnesota (59-89)
  3. Baltimore (60-88)
  4. Seattle (62-87)
  5. Padres (63-87)
  6. KANSAS CITY (64-86)
  7. Chicago (65-84)
  8. Pittsburgh (67-82)
  9. Oakland (67-82)
  10. Florida/Miami (67-81)

Houston is a near lock to be drafting first overall, something that has been in the works since 2009. The Twins have risen/fallen quickly in the last few days and are now all the way up to 2nd overall. That would be so Twins of them, wouldn't it? After over a decade of blah mediocrity, they'd cash in on their one dreadful season mightily. The last time the Twins drafted that high was 2001, when they took Joe Mauer.

Star-divide

There probably won't be much difference between drafting 5-6-7, but things get a little dicier if the Royals go on a hot streak. The Royals are only three wins ahead/behind of the teams sitting at 8-9-10. Frankly, drafting 10th next year doesn't have much appeal to me.

We talk about this every year and there's no right answer. Some people live and die with each Royals loss and don't ever want them to lose. Others gleefully start rooting for draft position. Others look at the circumstances (that's where I tend to be). There isn't a right answer, because this is sports and ultimately meaningless. Do whatever you want.

I just caution to be aware of the circumstances.

Comment 53 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I would never want the Royals to TRY to lose

But it does make the losses easier to stomach when the upside is better prospects in next summer’s draft.

And don’t forget the Rule 5 draft!

by CompmanJX3 on Sep 15, 2011 12:16 PM EDT reply actions  

It's a crapshoot

I don’t see how we go below 7th with a four or 5 loss cushion on the other teams.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Sep 15, 2011 12:43 PM EDT reply actions  

I'll just post here today

Will you stole my weekly contribution to the site under Fanshots.

1. Astros
2. TWINS (2) 8.5 GB
3. Orioles (-1) 9.5 GB
4. Mariners (=) 11.0 GB
5. Padres (=) 11.5 GB
6. Royals (-3) 12.5 GB
7. Cubs (-1) 14.0 GB
8. A’s (=) / Pirates (1) 16.0 GB
9. Marlins (-2) 16.5 GB
10. Rockies (=) 19.5 GB

Thoughts: The Twins may end up catching the Astros! But I really don’t think so. 13 teams have now been officially eliminated. The Royals are playing well right now. At least against the Twins. Go Tampa. And Mike Moustakas is hitting .327 since Will called for his demotion. But not for much power. He also has a 13:7 BB:K ratio in that time span, 8 doubles, and one home run. And the RBI total of 14. I didnt figure up OPS but the OB % is around 37.0% which is okay. And his fielding % is right around 96% from what I can tell. Not bad.

by 306008 on Sep 15, 2011 12:52 PM EDT reply actions  

Hosmer

in that same time frame Hosmer is hitting .319, much more power, fewer walks (by one), and more strikeouts (by one) than Moose. 5 doubles, 1 triple, 7 home runs. 21 RBI, 22 R scored, 14:6 K:BB ratio, 3 SB, and 35.0 OB %. I’ll take both of them.

by 306008 on Sep 15, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

How does the quality of next year's draft class effect this?

If the class sucks (and, supposedly, it’s not great), should we win and not worry about it? Or tank it, with the idea of getting one of the very few good, available players?

by Dadunca on Sep 15, 2011 12:57 PM EDT reply actions  

Talked to a guy fairly recently

Talent across the board isn’t as high. It’s not quite as deep. The draft has lost some very good HS players who enrolled early in college. More than quite a few actually.

Through Zunino could go #1. He’s the Catcher from Florida. Also thought HS OF Nick Williams from Galveston will go #1 as he’s one of the best HS hitters in 30 years. Then you have Lance McCullers and Lucas Giolito as the top HS arms. And Mark Appel as the top NCAA arm from the look of things. So if we pick 6 we’ll get to pick JUST outside the top tier of talent. But we should get a guy who is a major league regular for ten years or so. Gausman will probably be there when we pick. Maybe a kid like Rio Ruiz from CA or a Victor Roache from Georgia Southern. Michael Wacha might be there.

There will be a very good player for us at 6… just the Twins are going to be picking above us. :(

by 306008 on Sep 15, 2011 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

And from writing that out and then thinking about it.

Astros will take Nick Williams from their backyard. Twins will take Zunino to replace Mauer at catcher in one to two years.

by 306008 on Sep 15, 2011 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Prospects are so iffy

Who cares if you have the #3 pick or the #10 pick. The likelihood of that prospect to become an MLB star or even a regular are pretty slim. In a few years the Royals are going to be in the same boat the Rays were in last draft. With 13 picks between the Royals 1st and 2nd picks. That is the way to build a farm system.

by royal_in_cincinnati on Sep 15, 2011 1:00 PM EDT reply actions  

2 years is a couple

3 or more is a few, right? the royals better be in the playoffs a couple of times over the next few years, and should win a world series in a few years.

by royal_in_cincinnati on Sep 15, 2011 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Splitting hairs

I always think of 2 as a couple, a few as three-four, and then beyond that it’s several. It’s all good.

by OnixConcepcion on Sep 15, 2011 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

that's the way I would interpret it
2 as a couple, a few as three-four, and then beyond that it’s several

Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448

by SagehenMacGyver47 on Sep 15, 2011 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

Me too

Six isn’t “a few”.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 15, 2011 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

When we're talkin years - yes

When we’re talkin beers – then 6 could be “a couple” or “a few” depending on the person.

Tension is the enemy. - Charlie Lau

by aHorseWithNoName on Sep 15, 2011 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

For purposes of the DUI docket...

…everyone in the history of time drank “a couple” beers. Sometimes that means a case. But it’s still “a couple,” somehow.

by kcemigre on Sep 16, 2011 8:16 AM EDT up reply actions  

Many is more than few

Several probably overlaps both of them.

by KSinDC on Sep 15, 2011 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

The likelihood that a #3 pick will succeed in the majors is higher than a #10 pick. Studies have been done. While the draft is something of a crapshoot, it’s not completely random. On average players drafted earlier are more talented than players drafted later.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 15, 2011 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

No reason to not subtlely go for draft position when you are mathematically out of the playoff

1. Especially when you have a fanbase that is so tuned and used to being in last place, that, they won’t really react differently if you do it subtlely.
2. And when everyone know it’s the tryout year, so it’s even more reasonable to spin.
2. And that Royals seems to be good at scouting, so the draft order magnify that advantage.

..etcetc

I am probably the only Royals fan in Hong Kong?

by Yamfun Cheng Kamfun on Sep 15, 2011 1:19 PM EDT reply actions  

As the defining coach of our generation once said...

You play to win the game!!!

Of course he no longer coaches and instead spends his time burning his last timeout before the 2nd commercial break of SportsCenter.

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Sep 15, 2011 1:43 PM EDT reply actions  

It normally would be disconcerning if the Royals went on a winning streak at the end

But this year is different. I think that, after so many years of losing, we Royals fans overemphasize the draft/young talent (for instance, by virtue of being young and promising, player x is always better than player y) over winning games.

If Hosmer, Moose, and the others are winning games now, that is promising for the future. I’d rather have them win and get #9 in the draft than get #5 or better in the draft and have Hos hitting .250/.300/.350 or something.

by Yodazilla on Sep 15, 2011 2:31 PM EDT reply actions  

Just asking..

If we draft 10th, instead of drafting 5th, does that make it easier for GMDM draft a significantly cheaper pick?

I don’t think it would have been justifiable if GMDM had gone cheap in the 2011 draft, especially after the chips fell the way they did. But in 2012, if the Royals can draft cheaper players, and save $5-10MM on draft signings, couldn’t GMDM reinvest that $5-10MM into another average FA signing, or maybe sweeten the deal on their offers to big FA signings? If we’re going all in for 2013-015, shouldn’t our draft strategy incorporate that?

Then, again, if there is a major-league-ready player in the 2012 draft, it’d be a much tougher decision.

by Loose Seal on Sep 15, 2011 2:50 PM EDT reply actions  

That was re-building the system mode

Now we’re in win-now mode. Is a year or two of cheap drafts worth it?

by Loose Seal on Sep 15, 2011 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

absolutely not

dayton should have plenty of money to spend…and im pretty sure dayton’s looking to build a long term winner…not just a winner in a small window. he’s talked about waves…we’re seeing the first one…now its time to continue building the 2nd one

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Sep 15, 2011 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

here's praying for a tsunami

If strikeouts are indeed fascist - then find me some starters that believe in fascism

by loyal2sdad on Sep 15, 2011 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

This is a very intriguing idea

I’m inclined to agree with going cheap on the draft if we aren’t drafting in the top 5.

by KSinDC on Sep 15, 2011 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

I believe it is still fair to say that money spent in the draft

is likely to generate a better return than money spend elsewhere by a significant margin, no matter how low or high you are drafting. I suspect that it just doesn’t matter when you are on the success curve… you need to spend on the draft to stay competitive.

by kcemigre on Sep 16, 2011 8:21 AM EDT up reply actions  

And a team like the Royals can't afford to go cheap on the draft...ever

The Royals need to continually re-stock their farm system. With regard to the draft, the Royals can’t ever act as if they have “arrived” and don’t need to work hard to maximize the talent they bring into their minor league system anymore.

Now, if you aren’t drafting in the top 5, then your draft is going to end up being less expensive, whether you are trying to make that happen or not.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 16, 2011 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

Let's not say "ever"

Here’s an incredibly wild hypothetical to illustrate: Next year, lets say the Royals have $30MM designated for FAs and $15MM for the draft. However, hypothetically, there is one $35MM player (call him CC Sabathia if you want this to be less hypothetical) that will be the difference between the Royals making the World Series or the Royals finishing in 4th place. Alternatively, we could sign any other player or combination of players for $30MM, but none of them will improve the club past 3rd place. So, in this admittedly unrealistic case, shouldn’t the Royals dip into $5MM of the draft money to get the player that gets them to the World series? Hypothetically, isn’t spending $5MM less on the draft worth it, if it means we get the FA to get us to the World Series in 2012?

To expand (at length) on my earlier posts, I’m thinking of this from a theoretical/economic perspective, and looking at the opportunity costs of prospects vs. free agents. My basic assumption is that signing prospects is a better investment but you won’t see the pay-off until 3-5 years later. FAs are a worse investment, but you see the pay-off immediately. IF our goal is “making the playoffs”, then, when we don’t have a chance to make the playoffs, the opportunity cost of spending money on FAs is very high, because every dollar we spend on FAs is a dollar we can’t spend on prospects and because the difference between 70 wins and 75 wins is relatively inconsequential. Conversely, when we do have a chance of making the playoffs, we see that the opportunity cost of spending on prospects increases, because every dollar we spend on prospects is a dollar we can’t spend on FAs who might be the very consequential difference between a .500 season and a .550 season.

In other words, should the Royals try to combine the returns from the 2006 -2011 drafts (i.e. the current wave of prospects) with the returns from a wave of FA signing to get to the playoffs?

Disclaimers: I realize that WAR $ values suggest that we need at least $25MM – $35MM to get the players we need for 8 more victories, but I’m looking at this more hypothetically. I would also hope that Glass doesn’t have a specific ceiling on $, and that he’d be willing to go over-budget on FA $, without having to deduct from the draft $, if the right opportunity presented itself.

by Loose Seal on Sep 16, 2011 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

I follow your hypothetical...

…and it makes sense, so long as it is merely hypothetical. But as Billybeingbilly points out, the math will never work out, and for that reason, the reasoning you employ works only in a hypothetical universe that does not actually exist.

Basically, the return on money spent in the draft is currently outpacing money spent in free agency so much that you can’t reasonably take the $6MM you would have spent to sign Hosmer and put it anyplace else as valuable… This could change someday, of course, because it is a market, but as things stand, skimping on the draft just isn’t a wise choice.

Also, if you want that “extra push” to get you into the playoffs at some point, you’re probably better off maintaining an aggressive draft strategy, and then trading prospects for additional MLB talent (again, based upon the market as it currently exists).

by kcemigre on Sep 18, 2011 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

I believe that teams like the Royals need to concentrate their resources into windows for contending

That means spending on the draft and international to build up a quality minor league system, then spending on MLB players once that wave arrives. As team control and contracts start to expire, trade everyone away for prospects, switch back to draft spending, and repeat.

Only by concentrating resources in smaller time frames can the Royals hope to compete in the playoffs.

by KSinDC on Sep 16, 2011 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

There's too much uncertainty in baseball generally to make that kind of play

you always draft the best pool of talent you can afford. Maybe you can win, maybe you can’t. But consistently drafting talent is really the only “proven” strategy for team-building that doesn’t involve having twice as much money as everyone else.

Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Sep 15, 2011 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

If they go on a real tear here at the end, it's just going to make us all more stupidly optimistic

And instead of hoping for them to get 78-85 wins, we’ll all be thinking they’ll win 90, and then we’ll all be pissed off again next year, even if they are decent.

by OnixConcepcion on Sep 15, 2011 4:16 PM EDT reply actions  

I'm fairly ambivalent on draft position this season (not true in recent past)

Here’s my reasoning:

1) Draft class is sorta weak, according to some analysts

2) Bonuses don’t seem to factor in the relative strength/weakness of a particular class

3) A #10 pick costs substantially less than a #3

4) Royals draft “budget” is fairly linear/predictable

5) Moore has been allowed to spend money on signings from areas outside the draft boundaries

6) Moore might be able to produce more from that method than he might from a weak draft class (he is arguably very competent at evaluating amatuer talent, right?)

If strikeouts are indeed fascist - then find me some starters that believe in fascism

by loyal2sdad on Sep 15, 2011 4:31 PM EDT reply actions  

The Draft is not the only source of minor league talent

DM should draft the best player available and pay them the amount needed to sign. If DM is still under his budget, simply sign the best international minor league talent available. The Royals should never skimp on the minor league draft budget (IMO). This could lead to the situation Milwaukee is in, very good major league team, with few minor league players available for trade or to replace major league players leaving via free agency.

by Rebel Royal on Sep 16, 2011 1:46 PM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Kansas City Royals.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Royalsretro_small
Would Royals Review Make Better Decisions Than Dayton Moore?
Funny-tattoos-hey-look-they-found-a-royals-fan_small
Mitch On the Bench

Recent FanPosts

Dignan_small
Friday Game 43 Open Thread
Funny-tattoos-hey-look-they-found-a-royals-fan_small
MORE Mitch on the Bench
Sexy-beast-original_small
OT Friday: The generic boilerplate template desert island gambit
Tumblr_lwfiy4qkgv1r204zxo1_500_small
RR Poetry Contest
Small
Extrapolating the First 43 Games over the Full Season
Small
Is Dave Eiland doing ... anything?
Small
Alcides Escobar's Bat
Download_small
Was Dayton Moore Right on Bruce Chen?
Chalmers2_small
2012 Royals vs 2012 Ex-Royals

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Cimg0036_small Freneau

Editors

Dayton_small Jeff Zimmerman

Authors

Royalsretro_small RoyalsRetro

Headshot_small Old Man Duggan