Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: AdamKilgoreWP and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Sports and Redskins  |  RSS

Storen's Bonus: $1.6 Million

I have a little more information here about the Drew Storen signing. The Stanford closer, selected tenth overall yesterday by the Nats in the amateur draft, has agreed to a deal that includes a $1.6 million bonus -- well below Major League Baseball's recommended guideline for somebody picked in that spot. In recent years, No. 10 picks have all received just above or exactly $2 million, per guidelines of the slotting system.

Last year, the No. 10 pick, Stanford catcher Jason Castro, signed with Houston for a $2.07 million bonus. In 2007, the No. 10 pick, high school lefty Madison Bumgarner (Giants), received a bonus of $2 million. Then there's the No. 10 pick from 2006, also a selection by the Giants. His bonus? $2.025 million. His name? Tim Lincecum.

By Chico Harlan  |  June 10, 2009; 4:08 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Nats, First-Round Pick Storen, Agree To Terms
Next: Tonight's Lineups

Comments

Fire Manny!

Oops, wait, pulled the wrong one out. Here goes again:

Lerners are cheap!

Posted by: Section506 | June 10, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I strongly suspect this was to clear more room for the Strasburg bonus, which will be above $10M.

Posted by: SavedByZero | June 10, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps it includes a ML call-up guarantee for this year? That could be worth more than an extra $400k, especially if Storen is (then?) guaranteed that $400k next year in ML roster money... Just a thought....

Posted by: TheBorg | June 10, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

So, the Nats signed a prospect for $300K short of his slotting spot. Good for them.

They went over the slot to sign Josh Smoker and Jack McGeary a couple of years ago.

Given how little the Nationals have spent on the major league roster, the action with the draft picks is the only gauge right now about how serious this team is about turning the corner.

Posted by: leopard09 | June 10, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Don't want to spoil anyone's plans but there is a huge amount of rain, about two hours out, heading straight for the city.

Posted by: MKadyman | June 10, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

I saw they took Chad Jenkins in Rnd. 17 - wasn't he supposed to go a lot higher?

Posted by: PattyinSJ | June 10, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

@mkadyman
It wouldn't be a Nats game these days without a rain delay. I still need to exchange my ticket from *last* Wednesday.

Posted by: SavedByZero | June 10, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

so Storen signed for BELOW slot.

Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Didn't the Blue Jays take Chad Jenkins 20th overall?

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps it includes a ML call-up guarantee for this year? That could be worth more than an extra $400k, especially if Storen is (then?) guaranteed that $400k next year in ML roster money... Just a thought....

Posted by: TheBorg | June 10, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

--------------------------

Let's hope for a ML callup later this week!

Posted by: combedge | June 10, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

"Hi, welcome to the world of professional baseball. It's nice to meet you. Now about how I plan to rely on you starting next week to save our team, our fanbase, and my job..."

~Mike Rizzo

Posted by: Section506 | June 10, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Let's hope for a ML callup later this week!

Posted by: combedge | June 10, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse
-------------

I'll take an ML callup tonight!

Posted by: Juan-John | June 10, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Nats drafted a different Chad Jenkins.

Posted by: sec307 | June 10, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

but the details are forthcoming ... it may be a back loaded contract ala Snyder.

Posted by: periculum | June 10, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Nats probably told the kid, listen you're really a 2nd to 3rd rounder. We're taking you 10th cause, well we're the Nats. So we aint gonna pay you 10th pick money but we'll give ya more than 3rd round dough. How's that sound? And they said sure why not.
Nats are bone cheap. Really sad.

Posted by: dovelevine | June 10, 2009 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Ah, different Chad Jenkins; #502 overall, LHP from Cecil CC in Del.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 4:39 PM | Report abuse

This is a WIN-WIN for the owners and the fans. The owners get to continue their tradition of saving money on baseball talent. And the fans get the Best player Available (who by coincidence is also the most affordable player available). We all win!

Posted by: EdDC | June 10, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

And all that talk and back-patting the Nats did over offering Texeira all that supposed money--was just that--a lot of talk.
They coulda offered twice as much and Texiera wasn't coming here and they knew it so it was never gonna cost them a red cent.
Did you see how long it took Dunn to accept and that was because there wasn't one other team that wanted him.
The Lerners and Kasten should be hung out to dry.

Posted by: dovelevine | June 10, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"Nats drafted a different Chad Jenkins."
========================================
Whoa. It's like a flashback to that Jean-Claude Van Damme cinematic tour de force, DOUBLE IMPACT: "There's two of them!"

Posted by: Ted_Striker | June 10, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Teixeira? Who's he?

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

This is so Kippin' obvious:

Van Wagenen: My boy rooms with McGeary and wants to be on the same team.

Rizzo: Fine. Give us a discount and your word you'll sign quick and we'll draft him #10.

Posted by: NatsNut | June 10, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

BTW if Rizzo just made pretty big decisions that will impact the Nats for years to come, does that mean he is now THE GM? and if so why isn't he called such? And if not, why is he making any decisions. What is wrong with this picture?

Posted by: dovelevine | June 10, 2009 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Take your fancy clothes and your black silk underwear and go back to Disneyland, Ted Striker!!

I'm glad I had to look that up on IMDB to get it right.

Posted by: Section506 | June 10, 2009 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Texiera, the guy who was leading the AL in home runs.

Posted by: periculum | June 10, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps he's like Chipper Jones, in regards that he realizes is a lot of money, he wants to play, and that hes confident enough that he'll throw well enough that a few $100K at the beginning won't matter.

Additionally, perhaps Storen's agent (Van Wagenen) realizes that teams have been good about locking up good young players recently, and the sooner he's in the majors, the sooner he'll reach that payday.

Also, I love this "Moneyball" approach.
I really hate seeing high schoolers being drafted unless the kid is oozing talent and skill (think Lebron not Kwame). (or A-Rod vs. Matt Bush). Otherwise, you might as well wait to see what the kid looks like at 21 and don't pay him until then.


Posted by: cbm92 | June 10, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

A Different Chad Jenkins ... hey, that could even be the movie title. Synopsis: The Washington Natinals, with the 10th pick overall, draft highly touted prospect Chad Jenkins... but the wrong one! When they trade for guy they wanted in the first place, they find out -- unbeknownst to anyone, including the players themselves -- they're twins, separated at birth! Hilarity ensues, on the field, and off the field. Susan Sarandon guest stars.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I believe I have heard that all the slot numbers were down 10% this year. If that's right, and the slot for the 10th pick used to be $2 million, the 2009 slot is now $1.8, right? Storen is still below slot, but only by $200 K.

Posted by: jcj5y | June 10, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

My boss, a director at a nationally famous medical research university. was Acting Director for 2 years, Interim Director for another 2, and just got the Director title this month. I wouldn't worry too much about acting/interim stuff. There's a position, there's a person filling that position, and that's all anyone really needs to know.

Posted by: swang30 | June 10, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Note that most all upper round picks were college kids. As opposed to HS.

At least in that respect they mean business.

Many are almost, or are the same age as some of the prospects in AA/AAA right now.

Posted by: periculum | June 10, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Stale news, dovey. can't you find anything current to windge about?

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

A few days ago, a poster said that there are two camps of NJ posters. One camp claims the Lerners are cheap. The other camp attempts to rationalize and support the Nats' decisions, no matter what. Then the poster made an ostensibly wise comment: the truth lies somewhere in between these two extreme camps. This wisdom bothers me, since it sounds objective and persuasive.

If this middle ground view is true, then why are the Nats not only the worst team in MLB, but by wide margins (look at the W-L percent of the Nats and then the % of the next worst team). Moreover, why has the Nats' minor league organizational ranking fallen so that it is now regarded as among the worst organizations in MLB? If the Lerners occupy some middle ground in their club expenditures, you would expect better performance, at least with the minor league organizational ranking.

Naturally, we don't know how these kids will turn out. They sure look like affordability/budgetary picks, except for Strasburg.

Posted by: EdDC | June 10, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

It's almost 5 p.m. and is getting dark and cloudy in Silver Spring. The Nats must be home tonight.

Posted by: leetee1955 | June 10, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"Moreover, why has the Nats' minor league organizational ranking fallen so that it is now regarded as among the worst organizations in MLB? If the Lerners occupy some middle ground in their club expenditures, you would expect better performance, at least with the minor league organizational ranking."


Well one of their highest touted prospects turns out to be almost eligible for Social Security. And they failed to sign Crow.

Except for Crow, the Nats have gone over slot the last 2 years. In 2007, they went way over slot.

Calling the Lerners cheap for this signing is a bit overblown. Now if they only go $11 million on SS.....

Posted by: hoo93 | June 10, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

>>Stale news, dovey.Posted by: Sec3mysofa

Yea unfortunately you're right. The Nats low-balling their most recent pick just a few minutes ago unfortunately is stale news because it's what they've been doing for the past 3 years. You're right and that's what's so sad.
Why did the cheapskate Lerners even bother to buy this team. They obviously aren't interested in really running a first class baseball team. What was the point?
Does anyone and I mean anyone really think the Lerners are gonna sign Strasberg? Yea right.

Posted by: dovelevine | June 10, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

new post w/lineups

Posted by: leetee1955 | June 10, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

and all GMs are interim.
_______________________________
My boss, a director at a nationally famous medical research university. was Acting
Director for 2 years, Interim Director for another 2, and just got the Director title this month. I wouldn't worry too much about acting/interim stuff. There's a position, there's a person filling that position, and that's all anyone really needs to know.

Posted by: swang30 | June 10, 2009 4:49 PM

Posted by: lowcountry | June 10, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Ok - so much for the idea that this was anything other than a "signability" pick. I'm quite certain he was the Best-Player-Available-who-would-agree-on-the-first-day-of-negotiations-to-sign-for-20%-below-slot.

Still, regardless of their PR approach (or complete lack thereof), good for them for capitalizing on the principal asset of taking Storen at 10 - they signed him early, and cheap, and maximized his chances to help the team early, maybe even in a late-season callup. If you're taking overdrafted signability guys, it's the least you can do.

Posted by: Highway295Revisited | June 10, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Hi hoo93,

In 2007 they got their #1 rounder for slot. They went "way over" for a couple other kids, maybe totaling 2-3 million (which is less than Lo Diuca or Filipe Lopez money). But that's only way over by Nats' standards, not MLB standards. The O's bonus money for Matt Wieters is an example of going way over by MLB standards. Same for the Tigers, going way over for Rick Porcello.

In 2008, they went a little over (was it another 2-3 million?) for a couple kids, and they did so, using their own words, with the money saved by not signing their top pick. Going way over means spending toward the top of clubs in all of MLB on their draftees, but overall the Nats were pretty far below middle as I recall.

Despite the spin they impart, the Nats have small budgets for all phases of their operations, in the majors and minors. However, I would like to add that the Nats need true fans and defenders. It is great to see that they have many dozens of these!


Posted by: EdDC | June 10, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

IMO, any attempt to pigeonhole a diverse group of individuals into one of two camps is anything but wise. But, then, I would think that.

---

A few days ago, a poster said that there are two camps of NJ posters. One camp claims the Lerners are cheap. The other camp attempts to rationalize and support the Nats' decisions, no matter what. Then the poster made an ostensibly wise comment: the truth lies somewhere in between these two extreme camps. This wisdom bothers me, since it sounds objective and persuasive.

If this middle ground view is true, then why are the Nats not only the worst team in MLB, but by wide margins (look at the W-L percent of the Nats and then the % of the next worst team). Moreover, why has the Nats' minor league organizational ranking fallen so that it is now regarded as among the worst organizations in MLB? If the Lerners occupy some middle ground in their club expenditures, you would expect better performance, at least with the minor league organizational ranking.

Naturally, we don't know how these kids will turn out. They sure look like affordability/budgetary picks, except for Strasburg.

Posted by: EdDC | June 10, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 10, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Into either of two camps, rather.

Anyway, new post up.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 10, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Reading the Q&A with Boras and his client, I wonder why anyone would do business with that duo. Boras is full of it, and Strasburg seems to think he will walk on water in the big leagues.("I always rise to the occasion." Give me a break.) He is riding for a fall. I'd let the two go elsewhere, with no regrets.

Posted by: JohnRDC | June 10, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

"Nats are bone cheap. Really sad"

Let me see if I am getting this. You think the Lerners are cheap because they sign a guy on the first day they are able to to a lower amount than had been slotted? Some people are apparently looking for reasons to be upset. The Lerners can be criticized for many things but this is not one of them. Now if it had come out that this is what they had offered and he had rejected it I could expect this type of response but the man signed for goodness sakes.

Posted by: ouvan59 | June 10, 2009 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Weren't the slot figures recommended by MLB supposed to go down this year because of the recession?

Posted by: 08Cubs | June 10, 2009 6:05 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company