Tow bits of information came out this evening about the status of the two highest remaining unsigned picks from the 2007 draft. First, GM Jim Bowden reported on his weekly WTEM appearance that #31 pick HS LHP Josh Smoker had fired his representative, Jay Fee, and that the Nationals would begin negotiations with Smoker’s new representation (update: Barry Svrluga reports in the Washington Post this morning that Smoker’s new representation is Octagon from McLean, VA whose baseball client list includes Cleveland’s Grady Sizemore). This could be positive news as it appears that Smoker was unsatisfied with the progress of the negotiations and hopes a new representative will help expedite the signing process. The Nationals have until August 15 to sign Smoker or will have to settle for the #31A selection in the 2008 draft.
Additionally, Bill Ladson had the following item in his daily notes section:
PGCrosschecker.com reported that the Nationals were prepared to pay first-round money to pitcher Jack McGeary, their sixth-round pick in the 2007 First-Year Player Draft. Bowden said the report was false. “That is an inaccurate report,” Bowden said. “We saw the report and we asked them to correct it because there is no truth to it. Someone lied or someone was trying to position themselves.”
It could be gamesmanship on the part of McGeary and his representatives, Casey Close and Brodie Van Wagenen (the same representatives as Ryan Zimmerman). Or, it could be gamesmanship on the part of the Nationals. Either way, if this deal is going to happen, I’d imagine it will be a last minute agreement on August 15.
Benji | 17-Jul-07 at 10:33 pm | Permalink
So who’s a better propsect, Smoker or McGeary. Mine vote would go to smoker, yet McGeary will be getting more money than Smoker(If reports are true that they have agreed on 2.5-7 bonus)
Andrew S | 18-Jul-07 at 12:44 am | Permalink
You can thank me for bringing this to the attention of certain people ;)
Marc | 18-Jul-07 at 1:00 am | Permalink
Why draft him if you are NOT going to pay him first round money?
Ric | 18-Jul-07 at 2:24 am | Permalink
Hopefully, that’s a good sign about the odds of signing Smoker.
On McGeary, I suspect that the inaccuracy was that the Nationals would pay first round money as high as 2.5 million. I’d guess their offer is low first round money or high supplemental round money (where McGeary generally was projected to be drafted).
They should finalize a deal with Smoker and offer the same money to McGeary, take or leave (PG reported that they also were offering to allow McGeary to attend Stanford for the first two quarters — i.e., September through March — at least for a year or two). If he decides to go to college, so be it. The McGeary pick was high risk, high reward. It’s a nice add if they sign him, but not a backbreaker if not.
Kevin (Fairfax) | 18-Jul-07 at 7:14 am | Permalink
They need to sign Smoker quickly to start his progress this year, and not next. As for McGeary, they should make sure to sign him, whether August 15 or earlier. He is a recognized prospect who is available only to the Nats for another month. The Bosox and Yankees are happy to pay above slot with no more guarantee of sucess than the Nats have with McGeary, but overall they have success because they are willing tospend the money.
This is The Plan- put money into the minor leagues, and “Pitching, Pitching, Pitching.” There are no good excuses if McGeary is not signed. None.
Kevin (Fairfax) | 18-Jul-07 at 7:26 am | Permalink
All right, that last note felt good, but of course there is one very good excuse that is possible. If the kid means to play for Stanford no matter what, not much can be done. My point really is that this is a matter of will. They need to have the will to spend to improve the team, and to stand up to MLB, which put this team in dire straits in the first place.
Mjames | 18-Jul-07 at 9:30 am | Permalink
If the Plan is to spend the money on developing prospects then they should sign these guys. If they let them go, especially Smoker, then I question how serious they are. I do not want to hear that they will retain the draft choice if they do not sign Smoker. A draft choice is not going to pitch or hit a home run. A draft choice serves no purpose unless it translates into a player.
Ed | 18-Jul-07 at 10:13 am | Permalink
On whether to spend above slot money for McGeary:
The way I look at it, the Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, Bosox and others spend stupid money regularly for aging superstars, busting up the FA market altogether for non-first-tier franchises. So the only way midmarket teams can compete is to sign and develop the young guys. Teams from above-average markets can supplement their developing youth brigade when the time comes with some well-timed FA additions and trades from their surplus of young players.
Anyway, I don’t see the Nats playing a Good Boy role by staying within their signing slot for McGeary and Smoker when an extra couple million here and there is such small change compared to the wreckage caused by the $100 million FA signings by the big dogs.
JayB | 18-Jul-07 at 12:42 pm | Permalink
Brian,
It seems these comments make a well reasoned case for spending the relatively small about of money needed to sign both these players.
Back in the spring you were very pro slot and not moving more that just a few 100 K above to sign players less the sky might fall on the whole Plan. It seems like for these two guys you have moved you off this opinion some?
I think agree that $100 Million FA signings are more of the problem than the Nats acting like many other successful clubs in signing draft picks based on their talent not their draft slot is. The cost is relatively low and the approach clearly gets you better players quicker.
Brian Oliver | 18-Jul-07 at 2:29 pm | Permalink
JayB - I am not pro-slot per se. I see value in going above slot in the later rounds with signability picks when it is advantageous to the team. My thoughts about the slot bonuses are not to go insane with them. You can use around $1-1.5 million as a rough baseline. Most of the time the guys that slide are the players that are projected to be in the late 20s-to late-30s (pick-wise). The Yankees, Angels, and Red Sox do this regularly.
Since he was selected, my stance on McGeary has been to offer him a Colton Willems-esque early 20s $1.4 million and see if he’ll take it. If not move on. If the Nationals are pushing it to $2 million (or top 5 money), I’m a bit more skeptical because McGeary was not considered a top 10 pick (signability aside). It’s not my money and if the Nationals see the value in doing, so be it. I’d just not necessarily break the bank with top 5 money for him.
JayB | 18-Jul-07 at 3:59 pm | Permalink
Thanks Brian,
I agree it is easy to spend Nats yet the amounts seem small when I see the millions spent at the MLB level for players that really have no chance to help their teams (Fick makes about a Million)….spending that money on high draft picks seems smart.
SC | 20-Jul-07 at 12:36 pm | Permalink
Paying draft picks millions of dollars (cumulatively) may seem like a good idea, but consider the high attrition rate of prospects, particularly pitching prospects. Spending $3 - $6 million/year signing draft picks is a great idea if they pan out, but with free agents, you at least know you are getting a major-league caliber player, if not a star (at that rate, anyway).
As important as developing their own players is, it is equally valuable to choose wisely in the second and third tier of free agents. It’s the difference between marginal starters (Guzman until this season) and Dmitri.
Ultimately success is still most dependent on talent evaluation.