I didn't really know how to state this question, but, does the School You Commit to Matter when it comes to MLB leverage, draft slot, bonus, etc. I ask, because my son has recently been told that if his friend had accepted offers from major D-1 Universities (And he had them.), instead of his commitment to a team that was at the bottom of the PAC 12, he would have had more leverage. Is this the case?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Just a guess, but I would say it's only one factor, and not one of the most important ones. MLB scouts trust their own instincts. If a scout likes a kid who's committed to a lower Pac-12 school, he's probably just concerned about other MLB teams liking the kid too. I have "3rd hand" knowledge of a kid who was committed to a Top-10 DI program and his family now thinks that his commit status actually hurt him in the draft. Teams were more concerned about him choosing the great college program over the MLB bonus, when in fact the kid had very little interest in going the college route. They think that misperception probably cost him at least one round of picks.
Thanks for the info. You hear so much, it is hard to know what is real and what is not. I guess every situation is unique to itself.
The answer is yes and no. There are certain colleges that never seem to lose many kids to the draft. Stanford, Vanderbilt, Virginia, to name a few. So if the kid is a Stanford recruit it is generally thought that kid is going to school.
However, more important is the signability scouts do on each prospect they are interested in. They don't just forget about a kid because he happened to commit to a certain college. They go through with signability and determine the players interest in signing a pro contract rather than attending college.
The major reason for all the interest is the players ability and projection. They (the scout) understand the history with certain schools, but they still have to find out.
So bottom line... The history tells us Stanford, Vanderbilt, Virginia, etc., commits tend to end up going to college, more so than many other colleges. But first round ability is first round ability and it is never ignored because of someone's college choice.
It is when scouts sit down with the player and his family and start asking signability questions that the college choice might come into play. If that doesn't happen, the player that thinks he would have been drafted had he committed to a different college is just fooling himself. It just means they never considered that player as a potential good draft pick. They want to know what the top players want to do. They want to have an idea of what it will take to sign them. It is a big part of the scouts job! He can't just assume that the college choice tells him that the player is likely to sign or go to school.
Thanks PG. The player that I am speaking of was a 4th Round Draft Pick in last June's Draft. He just feels that he may have hurt his stock a little by committing too early to a lesser PAC 12 School, than if he would have waited and committed to a Top D-1 who were inquiring about him later.
Great post, PG.
The school of commitment does matter at the other end of the spectrum, as well. That is, a bubble draft guy who is committed to a JC or a lower D1 might get drafted in the later rounds, whereas the same kid who was committed to a top conference school, or a high academic school, might not.
