I wasn't really planning on spending much in either, but I will likely have five 1st/supp picks, and thought maybe I should up one of them and drop the other.  Right now I have 12/12 as I was on my way down to 0/0 for a couple years (relatively young team without any superstars who will leave in FA).  Anyway, I was thinking about going 16/8. 

I'm sure it's probably a crapshoot, but is there any wisdom whether it's more likely that major league-caliber college or major league-caliber HS guys will be available in the later first/sandwich rounds.

Thanks.

If your comfortable drafting either, you may want to check what everyone else is doing, and do the opposite. If 20 of the 30 teams spend money on college, then go high school, and you'll probably see at least slightly better picks.

That's actually a really good idea.  Didn't think about that.  Thanks!

0/0 is kinda dumb. If you're picking 29th or higher each year, maybe. But your talent pipeline could dry up really quick

Posted by a_ersberg on 6/13/2012 7:03:00 PM (view original):
0/0 is kinda dumb. If you're picking 29th or higher each year, maybe. But your talent pipeline could dry up really quick

I go 0/0. I think it's a legitimate strategy if you are in the playoffs every year. 

I'm not going to be picking in the top 20 anytime soon, and I have a better chance of getting good players using that $40M on international.  

I figure it will take me 3 seasons to get to 0/0 and then another 3 or 4 to get back up to 12/12 or 16/16, if that's what I decide to do.  In the meantime, I free up some cash for a FA or internationals and, without adding anyone, I have enough minor league depth and young talent to keep me at 85-100 wins for the next 6-7 seasons.

I try to pick one (that the majority of the league isn't picking) and keep it at about 15M.  When my team is really talented and my payroll has to rise, I use from that.

10/10 is significantly worse than going 0/20 or 20/0  Go heavily in both, or go heavily in one area and ignore the other, or ignore both.  Never go half *** in both college & HS draft scouting.

The process is a bit f'd up. 

In MG, crump had 0 College yet took the best college pitcher I saw(with 20m) at #2.     I had 0 HS and took what I've been told was the best HS pitcher at #8.   I took a gamble because he had very similar currents to a guy I took at #3 in Coop with 20m in HS.

It's a fairly marginal gain, but is there a slight long-term advantage to drafting HS? In that if you draft, develop, arb and sign to a 5 year deal - a high-schooler will be around 32-33yrs old when he hits FA; whereas the equivalent college player will be 33-36yrs old. The college player will be further into his decline phase, and therefore less likely to qualify for a compensation pick.

Posted by jtrinsey on 6/13/2012 7:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_ersberg on 6/13/2012 7:03:00 PM (view original):
0/0 is kinda dumb. If you're picking 29th or higher each year, maybe. But your talent pipeline could dry up really quick

I go 0/0. I think it's a legitimate strategy if you are in the playoffs every year. 

agreed. mostly likely you'll need that extra cash for ml salary

Posted by sneekes on 6/15/2012 9:41:00 AM (view original):
It's a fairly marginal gain, but is there a slight long-term advantage to drafting HS? In that if you draft, develop, arb and sign to a 5 year deal - a high-schooler will be around 32-33yrs old when he hits FA; whereas the equivalent college player will be 33-36yrs old. The college player will be further into his decline phase, and therefore less likely to qualify for a compensation pick.

College guys are usually further developed when they are drafted and can be ready for the majors in fewer seasons than HS kids.  So the difference in terms when they hit FA is not all that great.

Agreed.  You might bring up the HS guy when he's 22 and the college guy when he's 24.   You determine when he becomes a FA so he doesn't have to be on the downside.

But if - post arb years - you're offering a shorter contract to a college guy in order not to edge into his decline years, than you would the equivalent high-schooler...then isn't that an advantage to drafting high-schoolers - you get more years out of them (not withstanding Tec's point around HSers needing more development time).
Like I said - it's marginal - but I think there's something there.

I'll give you that, it's marginal.  But one can argue that it's offset by the fact that since the college guy is more developed at draft time, there's a shorter waiting time before you start to get payback for drafting him.