2010 Draft Order - Updated Thru August 17
by Andy Seiler on Aug 18, 2009 2:00 PM EDT
7 comments
EDIT: Jim Callis says that the comp picks are reliant on overall number picked, not technical number, so the Rangers do get 14(a) instead of 13(a), and the Rays get 30(a). Draft order is updated to represent this, so I guess MLB interprets their rule differently than the letter of the law.
Now that the unsigned first-round picks are in, here's the raw 2010 draft order as it stands through Monday. The plus and minus signs indicate changes in the order since my last update. This does not include any forthcoming changes due to free agent signings this coming offseason. The compensation picks are bolded, and their number is set in stone.
1. Washington Nationals (43-75)
2. Kansas City Royals (46-72)
3. Pittsburgh Pirates (47-70)
4. Baltimore Orioles (48-70)
5. San Diego Padres (50-70)
6. Cincinnati Reds (50-67)
7. Cleveland Indians (51-66)
8. Oakland Athletics (53-65)
9. Arizona Diamondbacks (54-65)
10. New York Mets (55-63)
11. Toronto Blue Jays (55-61)
12. Minnesota Twins (56-62)
13. Houston Astros (57-61)
14. Milwaukee Brewers (58-60)
15. TEXAS RANGERS (compensation for failing to sign '09 1st-Rounder Matt Purke)
16. Chicago White Sox (61-58)
17. Seattle Mariners (61-57)
18. Chicago Cubs (60-56)
19. Atlanta Braves (62-56)
20. Detroit Tigers (62-55)
21. Florida Marlins (63-55)
22. Tampa Bay Rays (63-54)
23. San Francisco Giants (64-54)
24. Colorado Rockies (65-53)
25. Boston Red Sox (66-51)
26. St. Louis Cardinals (68-52)
27. Texas Rangers (67-50)
28. Philadelphia Phillies (66-49)
29. Los Angeles Dodgers (70-49)
30. Los Angeles Angels (71-45)
31. TAMPA BAY RAYS (for failing to sign '09 1st-Rounder LeVon Washington)
32. New York Yankees (74-45)
0 recs |
7 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
It should be pointed out that if the Royals do not manage to sign Crow by next June, they will get an extra pick between Minnesota (12) and Houston (13).
Not likely, but still possible.
Also, there will be a slew of other compensation picks in rounds two and three for other unsigned early picks.
by R.A. Wagman on Aug 18, 2009 10:35 AM EDT reply actions
Actually, it’d be between Toronto and Minnesota, as Kansas City’s pick was technically pick #11, since Washington’s compensation pick was #9(a). But I don’t see any scenario where Crow doesn’t sign. Same with Tanner Scheppers in the supplemental first.
by andyseiler on Aug 18, 2009 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions
The White Sox’ #16 pick would be protected in this scenario, right? Since they would finish in the bottom half of the league.
by Joshua B. on Aug 18, 2009 11:27 AM EDT reply actions
Wouldn’t the Rangers compensation pick be 15th overall? Correct me if I am wrong but the Rangers picked 14th this year and the compensation pick slots in after the 2010 14th overall pick. Same with Tampa.
by DeJay on Aug 18, 2009 11:50 AM EDT reply actions
Nope. The Rangers’ pick was actually #13 this year. Washington’s pick of Drew Storen was technically #9(a), so the Rangers would get #13(a) in the 2010 draft. That slots in at #14 overall.
by andyseiler on Aug 18, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
And Tampa Bay’s pick was actually #28 this year, because of Storen at #9(a) and Heathcott at 28(a), so it pushed the Rays back a couple spots from their 28 spot.
by andyseiler on Aug 18, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
