What I've done is translate the signing bonus of everyone in the system (minimum $150K) or who was drafted or signed since '03 into the equivalent draft slot based on MLB's recommended slot figures. I have then ranked the player by whichever was higher, his actual or equivalent slot.

In translating slot to equivalent draft rounds, I've used the average number of picks in each round 2002-2008 (30 + 16, 31, 31). Last year, the first with new rules, it was 30 + 16, 31, and 35.

To my knowledge, there are only two DFA's in this list, Exposito and Kottaras.

Hansen's ranking is based on the difference between the total value of the contract and a guess at what his expected MLB salary in his first four years would have been (had he not signed an MLB contract).

Note that the equivalent slot is usually an overstatement of value, because guys signing for over-slot or as international FA have leverage that guys who sign at slot do not. So I have also noted where BA had the player ranked in their top 200. However, note that when a team signs a player for over slot, almost by definition they like the player better than the BA scouting consensus (and in the case of Westmoreland, BA has already admitted they ranked him too low).

So this is useful and very interesting, I think, but still requires some intelligent interpretation.

If I've missed anyone, let me know.



Edit: finally fixed the '05 BA rankings per Philly's info

I've kicked around doing some stuff like that, so it is definitely (to me) an interesting way of classifying players.

Just a few random observations:

- Hansen's BA rank of 10 should actually be 8. He was ranked behind Drew and Weaver since they had not signed when BA made thier list, but they were not part of that draft pool. Technically all of the 2005 rankings should be 2 spots higher then.

- While you noted that BA has said that they were too low on Westmorland, one thing that is evident is that the Sox have not done well when they've paid a lot more than the BA rank. Players the Sox have "overpaid" for:

Hansen paid #2, instead of 8 (small in terms of ranking, but pretty big in terms of dollars)

Kelly paid as 3, not 19

Westmorland 11 vs 113

Murphy paid as 17 vs 38

Rozier paid as 17 vs 174

Place paid as 27 vs 47 (that's a steep part of the talent curve too)

HIssey as 36 vs 135

Caleb Clay as 44 vs 90

Britton as 44 vs unranked

Alvarez as 49 vs 71

Egan 57 vs 143

Exposito 57 vs unranked

Mailman 58 vs 171

Gibson 68 vs 199

Weeden 91 vs 196

And a few others, but past 100 there's such diversity of opinion anyway.

A lot of those guys are too soon to say - a few 2008 guys - but a whole lot of disappointments too.

The top Sox prospects - Anderson, Buccholz, Lowrie, Bowden, Pedroia (but scouts hated him!) and Masteron (was he really #24?) - were generally drafted and paid right around thier BA rankings.

One of the concerns about the 2008 draft to me was that in terms of relative value (but not absolute value) it was hard to argue that the Sox weren't overpaying quite a bit so that their draft spending wasn't really all that impressive. My general feeling was that the Sox haven't been all that good diverging from consensus and this more systematic look seems to confirm it, no?

- oh and the other thing, is I haven't been comfortable translating international dollaries into draft dollars. Is it really true that a dollar spent internationally is equivalent to one spent domestically? Like I said, I'm not sure and see the argument both ways. If it's not, then what's the exchange rate? Is Almanzar at 1.5M internatioanally really equivalent to 1M domesitically? Maybe.

Cool, didn't know that, and will update the table to reflect it.


How to accurately translate international bonuses into an equivalent draft slot is indeed a separate question than translating over-slot bonuses. So the list really mixes three different economic scales, without adjustment.

Perhaps a stupid question, but does this really accomplish anything? WIll this data enable us to analyze anything and arrive at some kind of conclusion? Are we talking just about money with no attempt to categorize how well or poorly it was spent, just where it was spent? Or is this just an exercise for its own sake because you thought it was interesting? (not that there's anything wrong with that).

I have a rare gift for missing the whole point but this seems a little bit like an exercise conducted for its own sake.

Once a guy's drafted and you get a look at him for a couple years in the minors I don't see how draft slot factors into things. All it really tells you is what the team thought of the player at the time of the draft, which as we see just from that chart can be wildly off of what a real whole-picture view of his abilities are once you've seen them in action.

And I really don't get trying to assign equivalent draft slots to international players. I think that's the part that's got me confused, since it seems to me that you're trying to rank the WHOLE farm system, and not just the drafted section, in which case wouldn't there be better ways to do that than draft slot?

It's just information. Information that not everyone might know, collected in one handy place. You are right in thinking there is no specific point to it.

Converting international signing bonuses into the equivalent draft slot is just a way of comparing Delicious apples with Granny Smith apples. Although significantly different, they are still similar enough to be considered simultaneously.

And for players below AA, yes, I think the original assessment / investment is absolutely a factor in making a proper current assessment.

For instance -- Luis Exposito was unheralded before this season and is ranked just 11th in the system by SoxProspects. From the table, you can see that he got mid-2nd round money as a draft and follow. If he had actually been a higher profile draft pick that Dustin Pedroia, do you think he'd be ranked that low, given the season he's had (2nd in the system to Lars Anderson in BP's translated and projected Peak EqA, after positional adjustment)? The table is just a convenient reminder of facts like that one.

Sure I do, bearing in mind how a lot of people saw Jed Lowrie, who was drafted in the first round of the same draft. The Soxprospects.com fans are taken in by the hype fairly frequently, but if you're not one of those guys, you really have to work to get their attention.

You're throwing some alphabet soup at me that I'm not used to (just a 'boxer, remember). This does make a certain amount of sense but the sense comes mostly in retrospect. Expo was drafted out of junior college at the age of 19 A lot of the development he's made, he's made after his draft.

The difference here is that Pedroia did a lot of his learning before he was a minor league Red Sox and was considered pretty close to MLB ready, certainly much closer than Exposito at time of draft. You pay more for that and it gets more attention because these guys tend to come right out of college and kill the baseball..

I think you've got it, Dojji. I see this table as a window into how the Sox initially thought of their draft picks. (Although it would be nice to have a similar window for a year after the draft, or something, but that's impossible) Your comments about Exposito are right- but that's really what EV is pointing out. Exposito was unheralded for a reason, but now we know what type of expectations the Sox had for him in the beginning.

It's much easier than looking up each player on SoxProspects and guesstimating based on their bonus money.


As for the alphabet soup, it's another way of saying that Exposito hit 301 / .331 / .509 in an immensely hitters park in A+ ball. Since Luis is a catcher, if that in fact translates, of course we'll be happy (and this is why he's second to Lars, since Lars is a 1B and Exposito is a catcher, which is about as different as you get). I'm assuming BP's translated EQA has a park factor (i couldn't find this in a quick search), but I'm just not sure it can really handle Lancaster.

I'm not sure anyone can really handle Lancaster. It was a nice crucible to separate the sheep from the goats among our pitchers (the only pitcher to debut without passing through Lancaster in the Lancaster Era is Clay Buchholz and... well...) but I'll be so glad when that ballpark is someone else's problem.