Draft Day One Open Thread: Pirates to Take Tony Sanchez?
by Charlie on Jun 9, 2009 10:54 AM EDT
235 comments
The draft starts at 6:00 EST. This quote is interesting:
"It does not seem likely there will be a Pedro Alvarez-type talent available to us when we select fourth. ... but the 2009 draft class is deeper than the 2008 class, and is especially deep in pitching talent. ... It is important that our draft be reviewed based on the total resources allocated by the August 15 deadline and not only the first few round selections on June 9. Our selections may or may not match-up with the rankings compiled by various publications, but in every case we will select the player who we feel will have the greatest impact on the Pirates' organization."
Normally I'd be pretty angry about something like this, which I read as "We will probably be cheap in the first round," but unless San Diego State pitcher Stephen Strasburg or UNC hitter Dustin Ackley are available with the fourth overall pick, I'm not sure spending lightly in the first round and throwing money around later is a bad strategy. There aren't a lot of players beyond those first two who have really distinguished themselves. If the Pirates do draft someone like Boston College catcher Tony Sanchez first overall, though, they'd better come through with a lot of very interesting picks later.
With Missouri pitcher Kyle Gibson on the shelf with a stress fracture, the most likely picks at this point are probably either indie league pitcher Aaron Crow or Sanchez, who isn't a top talent and sounds like he'll sign quickly:
"I made it clear: You won't have issues like last year," Sanchez, 21, said this past weekend. "I'm not looking for a $6 million contract. I know who I am. I kind of know what I'm worth. You don't have to go to [the wall] for $200,000. I want to go out and start getting my feet wet at the next level"...
"We're talking about a kid who hit .346 with 14 homers ... in [the Atlantic Coast Conference,] arguably the best baseball conference in the country," Aoki said. "We're nitpicking. But I think his plate discipline can still be improved. He's a draftable guy with the bat. What vaults him into the first round is he's an excellent receiver."
If the Pirates pick this guy and don't spend a bunch of money later in the draft, I'll have a problem. But I don't think drafting him should be viewed as an immediate indication that the Pirates don't want to win. This is a thin draft at the top, and there isn't much difference, talent-wise, between the fourth-best player and the twentieth-best player.
UPDATE: Keith Law, for what it's worth, reports (Insider only) that the Pirates have reached a pre-draft agreement with Sanchez. I'm really not sure what I'd do differently, and I think if the Bucs are planning to focus their money and energy on the later rounds that's probably a good idea, but nothing I've read about or seen from Sanchez tells me he's worth this high a pick. I imagine the Pirates just figure they're better off to take someone they can sign cheaply, because there's a glut of players after Strasburg and Ackley who haven't really distinguished themselves, except perhaps in terms of their bonus demands. Another problem is that the strength of the draft is pitching, and taking a pitcher below the Strasburg-David Price tier with the fourth overall pick in the draft is usually a bad idea. The success rate is very low.
One possible alternative is USC shortstop Grant Green, although he's a Scott Boras client, and it may not be worth it to tango with Boras if the Pirates deem Green to be a subpar talent.
Here, from the comments, is some video of Sanchez:
It's just one swing, but it looks very slow to me. If the Pirates take this guy with the fourth overall pick, another shoe needs to drop later in the draft.
0 recs |
235 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
If the Pirates take Sanchez
The uproar will be greater than the McLouth clamor.
But, based on what I’ve read, I believe it will be he…
Going to the draft party at PNC late this afternoon. Was a great time last year and looking forward to it this. I’ll fill in the details if appropriate in the morning.
by God Loves on Jun 9, 2009 11:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
yeah let us know the details of that, i would love to roll down there and going from oakland is an easy trip
by samvescovi on Jun 9, 2009 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tony Sanchez
According the Jim Callis, he is no longer really in the picture at 4. If the Pirates are looking to save he said they are looking towards Borchering. I would be happy with that choice as long as they followed it up in later rounds. I’m still hoping Crow is the pick
by BattlinBucs on Jun 9, 2009 11:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Keith Law on draft
I readily admit that I have no idea what’s going to happen tonight. This is the most ridiculous draft I’ve ever been a part of or covered.
That eases on the fear of Sanchez being picked.
by BattlinBucs on Jun 9, 2009 11:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Excited for the draft
But really bummed that they’ve moved it later in the day and slowed down the pace. I liked the fast pace of it before, and now that I live overseas anything after 6pm EST is too late for me. If I’m lucky I might catch the first pick before I go to bed tonight… have to get nice and rested for my appointment with the Spanish revenue service tomorrow morning.
by Dignan on Jun 9, 2009 11:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Is it safe to be excited about Brad Lincoln yet?
What’s his ETA?
by hisjazziness on Jun 9, 2009 11:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I've been excited for a while
I think he’ll finish the rest on the season in AAA. At earliest I would guess 2010 around this time
by BattlinBucs on Jun 9, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, me too
But I’m trying to keep a handle on it.
I’ve been trying to come up with what a possible 2012 Bucs lineup would look like…
by hisjazziness on Jun 9, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends...
What’s it look like?
Alvarez seems like the only infielder who looks like he’ll be a part of it. Hard to distinguish the SS from each other but Friday will either be ready or not a ML player by then. Other SS’s like D’Arnaud and Mercer would be ready right about this time?
OF seems “set” (so to speak) with McCutch flanked by Tabata and Gorkys.
by hisjazziness on Jun 9, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sleeper scenario: I think if he doesn’t develop power Andy could be moved to second when Freddy’s gone. Not saying Alvarez is at 3rd instead of first, but a lot can happen between now and 2012 including Walker becoming a poor man’s Mark Reynolds with a plus glove, or someone else coming in a trade or draft. Or D’arnaud/ mercer/ Friday moving to 3rd
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 9, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which guys currently on the 40 man are reasonable bets for a 2012 rotation?
by hisjazziness on Jun 9, 2009 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lincoln, Duke, Morris, Ohlendorf, Morton
by BattlinBucs on Jun 9, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was about to throw Crow in there til I saw ‘on the 40 man’.
I really want his name called
by BattlinBucs on Jun 9, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
I don’t know if we can really count on Morris with his injury history. If he pans out, awesome, but right now I think we’re looking at
Lincoln, Duke, Morton, McCutchen, Ohlendorf
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on Jun 9, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes I know that Walker bit is wishful thinking on my part, but I wanted to throw it out there. I like him more after reading that interview with him and Cutch.
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 9, 2009 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve been advocating Andy at second for a long time now. Even if he never develops power, his numbers are great for a second baseman, and he obviously has the range to play second. At worst, he’d be Freddy with a glove and plate patience.
The only issue is that as of now, there’s absolutely NO 3B talent in the system beyond Walker (who sucks offensively) and Alvarez (who will move).
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on Jun 9, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about one of the 3 SS moving? Friday/ Mercer/ D’Arneaud? Could Grant green play 3B if he doesnt stick at SS?
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 9, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Green is more of a 2B.
But you never say never until you try, I guess.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget Farrell.
They could also potentially move Hague back, or use Craig Parry there if he doesn’t work out as a catcher.
But yes, in general it’s pretty skinny at 3B.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Farrell
Is really rough defensively
something like 12 errors in 32 games
and Wilbur says “…does not have good bat speed…”
Have you seen him in the field, Vlad?
Hague will move back to 3B when Pedro moves up, no?
by dirtyfrank on Jun 9, 2009 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I saw some video when we drafted him.
Didn’t look like a butcher at the time. Bear in mind that minor league fields are often really rough – it’s common for guys who grow up to be good defensive shortstops to have 40-50 errors in A-ball.
I think Hague is at 3B for keeps, from what I’ve read, but they could always change their minds. It sounded like they moved him primarily so he could focus on the bat, rather than out of any hard-and-fast limitation on his glove skills.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I say we fabricate some high school transcripts for Hague at Pine-Richland or some other local high school. Makes him more endearing to the fans. I the next time I see Neil Walker in the press without the standard “Pine-Richland’s” or “local product” in front of it will be the first
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 9, 2009 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would rather see an OF of Cutch, Tabata, and Robbie Grossman
So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded!? Yea, totally. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets do a sample. There are 4 of us and you're retarded. Thats 25 percent. -South Park; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce.
by gorillakilla34 on Jun 9, 2009 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They'll probably want to do the same thing with Lincloln that they did with (to?) Cutch
which will bring him to Pittsburgh this time next year.
by WestCoastBuc on Jun 9, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
do you think he might be apart of the september call ups?
by samvescovi on Jun 9, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keith Law
Now says:
“Pittsburgh’s mix is now Tony Sanchez, Zack Wheeler, Matt Hobgood and Grant Green. There’s some thought they could take Aaron Crow and offer him slot, given his lack of leverage.”
by God Loves on Jun 9, 2009 11:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
do you know what the slot number is at 4?
by BattlinBucs on Jun 9, 2009 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Grant Green will be acceptable. Still holding out for crow though
by samvescovi on Jun 9, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I say draft the guy witht he highest ceiling..
Within reason, when drafting #4 over all (as I posted below). Based upon this latest news and what I’ve heard/read over the past few weeks, my preference of those guys is in the following order:
Wheeler, Hobgood, Crow, Green/Sanchez.
Anybody who pretends to know more about this care to chime in as to where these guys rank in terms of upside?
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Jun 9, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Happy Draft Day
It’s not quite like the NFL draft – although I think the NFL messed it all up this year – I like how MLB is making the draft a bigger “event.”
As for Lincoln, with the arrival of Morton from Atlanta, there is no need to rush him to the majors. I think he probably doesn’t hit Pittsburgh until mid season next year at the earliest.
I do tend to agree with Charlie and the more I think about it, the more I like the apparent plan of attack the Buccos have for the draft. Getting signable – yet still talanted guys – early and then paying over slot for guys later in the draft. However, with that being said, I think if Crow is available at #4, I think you have to take him. If he ops not to sign (again) you come back with two very high draft picks next year in what is expected to be a more top heavy draft.
The more I learn about Tony Sanchez, the more I like him, but I do think that getting him at #4 is a reach, but I also think there is no way he lasts until our next pick. If that is who neil and company thinks is the best player for us, then I’m OK with it.
by Brakeman8 on Jun 9, 2009 11:22 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What do you like about him (asked in an inquiring, not skeptical, tone)?
by hisjazziness on Jun 9, 2009 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand this guy is not the guy we could have drafted two years ago….but from everything I have read he has all the tools to develop into a very solid major league catcher. Everyone says his defense is very good and that he is a solid hitter that could still use some polishing. The more stuff I read, the more I picture a Mike Scioscia, Tony Pena, Jason Kendall (in his early days) kinda guy. Solid defense, good with the bat, a benefit to his pitchers, etc. Let’s face it, there are not many elite catchers anymore, so getting a good solid catcher (who hopefully can stay healthier than Ryan Doumit) that plays good D, won’t hurt you at the plate and is not going to cause you to overpay….ain’t really all that bad.
by Brakeman8 on Jun 9, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've convinced myself Sanchez would be ok....
I’m no draft or prospects expert like some on here but, like a few already have said, from picks 3 to 20 the talent is pretty much even. If that is the guy they really want and don’t feel he will be around for their supp. pick then they should go for it. I trust Neil and Frank are planning to get the best picks possible talent wise.
So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded!? Yea, totally. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets do a sample. There are 4 of us and you're retarded. Thats 25 percent. -South Park; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce.
by gorillakilla34 on Jun 9, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I trust them...
…but I also trust my eyes. And the latter are telling me he’d be a mistake.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The thing keeping the MLB draft from being bigger, and this will always be the case, is that the kids drafted may never make the majors since it is such a crapshoot. There is almost no way, outside of major tragedy or complete failure in talent evaluation, that an NFL first-round draft pick is not playing in the league within 4 months, while baseball draftees, especially high-schoolers, may take 4-6 years to reach the pros; they are out of sight, out of mind for too long unless they are an absolute stud, and even then, they are usually only known in the MLB city that has the team that drafted them.
by Bishop1973 on Jun 9, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is true, but today’s draft is much better and you see more accurate selections than you did even just 5 years ago. More and more of the first and second round players (barring injuries) are making it to the big leagues. They may not all become stars, but they are getting there with greater frequency….especially the top 5 to 10 picks each year.
by Brakeman8 on Jun 9, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point was, it’s more a delayed reaction type of thing, not if they ever make it. Why watch a draft with guys that you’re not going to see again for half a decade?
by Bishop1973 on Jun 9, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I suppose so.
Plenty of NFL Draft busts though like Huey Richardson and Ryan Leaf who’s biggest days in the NFL were draft days and did little to make themselves real NFL players.
by IAPiratesFan on Jun 9, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree to an extent,
but that’s a slippery slope. How long until it becomes “but if they think Moskos is the best player for us, then I’m OK with it.” I think if Crow or especially Ackley are available, they need to be drafted. Crow would even fit the bill of signable yet talented, purely based on the fact that he has no leverage at all.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on Jun 9, 2009 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They didn’t draft Moskos and they already said if Ackley is there they would draft him no questions asked. I want them to draft Crow myself but then again, I doubt they give a damn what I want them to do.
So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded!? Yea, totally. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets do a sample. There are 4 of us and you're retarded. Thats 25 percent. -South Park; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce.
by gorillakilla34 on Jun 9, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know they didn’t draft Moskos. I like this front office. I just want them to keep up the good work and draft the best player available instead of the most signable player available.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on Jun 9, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Picking a pitcher that high is always a scarry thing but I think Crow is as safe a bet as any. I hope this year’s draft will be as impressive as last year.
So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded!? Yea, totally. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets do a sample. There are 4 of us and you're retarded. Thats 25 percent. -South Park; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce.
by gorillakilla34 on Jun 9, 2009 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Using money wisely to build a contender
It would be rational to pick a player like Sanchez if the alternatives available at the fourth pick are not worth the money it would take to sign them. When the money involved for this pick is strongly determined by the slot used to select the player, and it would be in this case, then over-drafting a player willing to give the team an over-draft, sign early discount makes economic and baseball sense if — and this is a big "if" — the team then uses the money elsewhere to acquire talent it would not have acquired had it not overpaid its first round draft pick. But the team — that is, the Pirates — must spend the money later in the draft or in the international free agent market. A failure to aggressively acquire talent would be unacceptable at this point.
Steve Z
by steve_z on Jun 9, 2009 11:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Dream for Draft
My entire year would be made if I heard the following tonight:
“With the fourth pick, the Pittsburgh Pirates select, you know what, it doesn’t matter who we selected, because we’d like to take this opportunity to announce the signing of Miguel Angel Sano. That’s it, we’re done, and by the way, our draft pick is some kid you’ve never heard of that we signed for a dollar. Suck it.”
by Bishop1973 on Jun 9, 2009 11:27 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
MAS hysteria would erupt. see what I did there?
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 9, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pat's nickname for Cutch
ATM Automatic Triple Machine. I like it but I think he’s just going to be “Cutch” ATM is more like something that would flash on the jumbotron after a triple
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 9, 2009 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The best McCutchen nickname
Is clearly McClutchen.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on Jun 9, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah!
I think that was one of the many ways to misspell his name. Also popular are McCutcheon, McCutchuen, McCrutchen and of course Greg Brown’s favorite from last night: Nyjer Morgan.
by IAPiratesFan on Jun 9, 2009 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know one thing about today
and that’s Neal H ain’t scared of any Pirate fan
by BadAndy on Jun 9, 2009 11:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It’s a poorly-constructed sentence. He is saying the NH is the rising star, not JR.
by Bishop1973 on Jun 9, 2009 11:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If you look in the comments below the story, Perotto says:
“Russell is becoming very highly regarded within the industry by other executives. "
by Brakeman8 on Jun 9, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would assume he’s referring to the men’s eye wear industry. Those glasses make him seem so smart.
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 9, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Other executives like Russell because he is a poor in-game manager and he helps their teams win games against the Pirates.
by Bishop1973 on Jun 9, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wondered that too, as it seems does other people. I think he may be referring to Huntington as the “rising star” and just worded it in a confusing way.
Also, Shapiro goes out of his way to defend and applaud his boy Neal and the Nate trade.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09160/976033-63.stm?cmpid=pirates.xml
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 9, 2009 11:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Any chance of them going for Tyler Matzek if Crow does not fall? I really don’t like the idea of picking Mike Minor or Scheppers again if that is what they are thinking. I know they want a college arm, but you can’t reach that much with 4th overall pick.
by ddff22 on Jun 9, 2009 11:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Leake?
Ive read a lot of mixed things about him, particularly his size. Can you argue with the stuff/ results? Is there another problem besides him being a lil’ guy?
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 9, 2009 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently his stuff is not particularly great either. This isn’t a Lincecum-type situation.
by shayborg on Jun 9, 2009 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stuff is decent.
But nothing exceptional. Which is why teams see him topping out as a mid-rotation type.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Matzek supposedly wants $7M+
Whether he gets it is, of course, another question.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought Scheppers refused to sign the form to allow Pittsburgh to draft him again. I thought I had read that somewhere.
by Brakeman8 on Jun 9, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perrotto said tht he refused...
…but other sources said that he didn’t, so it’s kind of an unknown.
They reportedly aren’t high on him, so it’s probably a moot point anyway.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Baseball America’s Jim Callis said this morning that Sanchez is no longer high on the list of named the Pirates are looking at anymore at 4 if the save money route. Hopefully he has some great sources.
by BattlinBucs on Jun 9, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could live with...
…the guys in Callis’s post.
He says Crow, Green, and Zach Wheeler are under consideration, as well as Borchering, Hobgood, or Tim Wheeler if we go cheap at 1 with the intent of reinvesting later.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Karstens defeated by Papelbon in Minor league cow milking race.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/06/theos_favorite_1.html
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 9, 2009 12:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Man, Karsten sucks.
charity standing orders
by BadMaafala on Jun 9, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, I think this is a horrible, horrible idea
Let me get this straight. The Pirates want to select someone at #5 who everyone else views as a #30 pick with the promise that we’ll draft better players later.
Sorry, I don’t believe it. And I’m one of the people who has liked the moves of NH and FC over the past year.
Instead, draft someone unsignable and take these great selections later. Then draft a better player next year.
But overdrafting a catcher with weight problems and a questionable bat is idiotic.
If the Pirates don’t want to be viewed as cheap, then don’t act like it. This is a pathetic move.
by Bernie6666 on Jun 9, 2009 12:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
I’d much prefer for us to be in a position where we get a legit first-round talent or another first-round pick next year. With the way the draft is structured now, there’s no reason to overdraft in the first round.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on Jun 9, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Draft--Call now
I think every Pirate fan should call both the front office and Mr. Nutting and let them know of our displeasure over this move. This is Danny Moskos all over again.
Cheap over quality.
by Bernie6666 on Jun 9, 2009 12:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
They haven’t even drafted yet. All this is speculation.
by BattlinBucs on Jun 9, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No harm in getting ready early.
“Crow? He’s not Nate McLouth!”
rabble, rabble, rabble
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Jun 9, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
While we're at it
Let’s let them know of our displeasure over the rumors that they might not select the best player in the 2013 draft.
Are you serious?
by Dignan on Jun 9, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes...
I am very serious. It’s an idiotic choice. Moreover, nearly every outlet is now reporting it as likely.
The Pirates may overdraft their “signable” player. But at least the fans weigh in before this idiocy happens. Maybe that would have made a difference with Wieters. I doubt it.
But it’s a horrible idea. I haven’t seen one team, I haven’t one scouting service, that even ranks him as a top ten pick.
If the Pirates want to make a stupid pick in 2013, I think the fans should call then as well.
by Bernie6666 on Jun 9, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
CNNSI has the pirates no. 12 in past decade in draft rankings
If we are 12, then there are some awful drafting teams out there
by BattlinBucs on Jun 9, 2009 12:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
12th in the NL maybe?
charity standing orders
by BadMaafala on Jun 9, 2009 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only team I thought was worse than us was the Astros. They are ranked 30
by BattlinBucs on Jun 9, 2009 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
too early perhaps
But CNNSI with the Dodgers at 5 label Bryan Morris a BUST.
Uh Oh
by BadAndy on Jun 9, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who wrote this article? CNNSI usually isn’t the first place I’d go for… well, anything.
by Charlie on Jun 9, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
David Sabino
never heard of him either
by BadAndy on Jun 9, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you
I think every Pirate fan should call and express their displeasure if it happens.
Maybe this could have prevented the Moskos fiasco. Unlikely. But the Nutting family at least listens to criticism.
by Bernie6666 on Jun 9, 2009 12:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Tony Sanchez
It amazes me how fast everyone has gone from “If we draft another pitcher in the first round I’ll never cheer for this team again” to we should take one of about a dozens young arms.
Although there is very little depth at any position in our system, we certainly have added a number of good arms in the past year.
Name me the catchers in the Pirate organization after Doumit, JJ, Diaz and Lerud???? Anyone, Bueller? Adam Melhuse doesn’t count and neil Walker is never going back to being a C. Keep in mind that although signed to a new deal, it is very possible that Doumit could be traded as early as this year. C is certainly one area where we could use some quality depth.
by Brakeman8 on Jun 9, 2009 12:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There should be some quality options for our supplemental and 2nd round picks for C
We have added good arms, showing the talent evaluators are starting to get it right. We still need a lot more arms though.
by BattlinBucs on Jun 9, 2009 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, you can always use more pitchers, but there is a large void at catcher. I’d rather not see us draft a “signable arm” in the first. We should draft the best pitcher and make it clear that we’re willing to take our pick next year if he doesn’t want what he’s worth, or take Sanchez, helping fill probably our biggest need while saving money for over-slot pitchers later. Either option could work out pretty well.
charity standing orders
by BadMaafala on Jun 9, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is that there isn't a whole lot of consensus...
…as to exactly who the best pitcher is. You can make a reasonable case for any one of a dozen guys. And even if you have Matzek a hair ahead of Wheeler, for example, is that worth an extra $4M?
Among the guys mentioned specifically as signability options, I’d lean toward either Borchering or Hobgood over Sanchez. I think that even in the absolute best-case scenario, he’s only an average starter, and we should be aiming for more upside with that pick (even if it means taking on additional risk as well).
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BP mentioned ...
That his absolute ceiling would be someone with Yadier Molina-like defense and good power. The thing is, no one thinks Sanchez will hit for average.
by woobie on Jun 9, 2009 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but we could offer Matzek a fair deal and have an awful lot of leverage. Or Crow. I’ll bet he doesn’t want to spend another year in indy ball, and we couldn’t care less if he didn’t sign.
charity standing orders
by BadMaafala on Jun 9, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A fair deal won't be enough
Baseball America has Matzek asking for a record bonus of around $7 million.
I’ll pass.
by woobie on Jun 9, 2009 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, so we get the pick next year and draft someone who is actually worth $7M, or he lowers his price. Either one sounds okay to me.
charity standing orders
by BadMaafala on Jun 9, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good strategy ...
Though I doubt the Pirates would want to, warranted or not, that goes with not signing a top pick.
by woobie on Jun 9, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The downside there...
…is that the comp pick for not signing your first isn’t protected. You can’t keep rolling them over forever.
As such, unless we used it on a signability guy in 2010, he’d totally have us over a barrel, because we’d lose the pick for nothing if he decided not to sign.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, we’d have to be careful about how we used that pick next year, but there’s definitely a case to be made that the pick could be more valuable next year, taking talent, risk, and signability into account.
charity standing orders
by BadMaafala on Jun 9, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Green?
BP has the Pirates shying away from Sanchez and going with Grant Green in its latest mock draft.
by woobie on Jun 9, 2009 12:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd be OK with Green.
Great speed, decent discipline, decent pop, improving on his SB to CS ratio. Not sure we need another SS, though.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on Jun 9, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
They need all the talent they can get. SS or otherwise.
I think that nobody really knows who the Pirates are gonna take and so everyone’s just guessing.
by IAPiratesFan on Jun 9, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought there was a lot to Charlie's idea
of picking a tough sign at 1 (4) and low balling him with the idea of moving this year’s pick to next season which figures to be deeper at the top. To do that would give next year’s pick a lot of leverage in negotiations though and probably wouldn’t be very popular with the fans now.
by WestCoastBuc on Jun 9, 2009 1:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Bobby Borchering
what the knock on him? I wouldn’t mind a 6’ 4" switch hitting power hitting corner infielder
by Danatural08 on Jun 9, 2009 1:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He’s not super athletic, so he’s probably a first baseman in the long run; he’s young, so he’s a long way away; and he’s a high school hitter, so he probably has no idea of the strike zone yet. McCutchen was actually exceptional in terms of plate discipline in an 18-year-old prospect. Most are more like Robbie Grossman.
by shayborg on Jun 9, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Discipline
Discipline can be learned. Grossman has a .370 OBP right now.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on Jun 9, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Drafting for need?
That’s about as dumb an idea as I’ve ever heard. Good teams never draft for need. You draft the best player.
If no one else has him as even a top 10 pick, then I think there’s a message there.
Clearly if he’s drafted it’s because he’s signable.
If you are going to go cheap and signable, there are 10 other players better.
Draft the best player, make a reasonable offer. If the player signs, great. If not, you get the pick next year. But overdrafting by 20 to 25 spots is just stupid. It’s the Oakland Raiders strategy.
by Bernie6666 on Jun 9, 2009 1:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Donovan Tate
I haven’t seen the Bucs taking him in any mocks, yet I’ve seen mocks with Seatle or San Diego taking him in front of us. I’ve also read that he’s most likely going to go to college for football, but what do you guys think about him if it goes strasburgh, ackley, crow which many think will happen?
by Danatural08 on Jun 9, 2009 1:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’d love it as a gutsy pick, but doubt it’ll happen because I’ve heard nothing with him and the pirates, and he’ll want a fortune.
by ddff22 on Jun 9, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tate is a superb athlete, but there are real questions about his ability to hit for average. This is a truly high cost, high risk choice.
Viva Clemente!
by Roberto on Jun 9, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For someone with Tate's price tag...
…I’d want to have more confidence that he’s actually going to hit.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, not sure what happened there.
For someone with Tate’s price tag, I’d want more of an assurance that he’s actually going to hit.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry I'm so fired up
Hypothetical: What would the Pirates have done with the #1 pick?
Just imagine if the Pirates had to cough up the $20 million to $30 million it’ll take to sign Strasburg.
by Bernie6666 on Jun 9, 2009 1:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
they would’ve taken strasburg, no question.
by mak_DC on Jun 9, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely.
The issue is that they apparently don’t see the high-priced guys available at #4 (like Matzek or Turner or Tate) as true $7M talents.
If Strasburg or Ackley somehow fell to #4, there’s no question that we’d take them.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Drafting for need
Any pick they make is drafting for need so that works out. I still like a couple of the high school arms in Miller, Wheeler and Turner, they seem to all have a lot of upside, Crow looks good but is closer to a finished product. I like Borchering too, with the way the outfield is being set-up, there will be like a total of 20 homeruns from them so drafting power is always a good thing because nobody trades power anything, arms or bats, so drafting is about the only way to get power into your system. Also, if they think Green’s struggles were injury related and by having a rather weak team around him, and he can stay at SS, I think that would be a good pick too. Ackley would be obvious 1st choice, then whichever HS arm they think has the highest ceiling, then Green, Borchering, then Crow would be my order of preference, I’d be happy getting anyone of those guys. I hope we luck out at 49 and 53 too and are able to get a couple high ceiling guys that fell for whatever reason. 3 top guys and then some guys like they got in the late rounds last year would make a great draft.
by SteelCity G on Jun 9, 2009 2:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Vlad
I wish you were right. But you have to admit this “Sanchez” nonsense has to make you wonder.
I just can’t see Nutting paying that much money. I think he’d go for Ackley instead and we’d get the line that the $15 million that was saved would go to international signings and signing for draft picks.
I just don’t think they’d pay him that.
Second, you’ll never convince me that there aren’t 15 players better than Sanchez who would sign for slot.
Why do none of the rankings have him as a top 10 player?
It’s a clear money move.
by Bernie6666 on Jun 9, 2009 2:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
As I've said...
…I personally don’t like Sanchez at all. I wouldn’t even take him in the second, given what else is on the board.
That said, I don’t see what their excessive optimism about Sanchez would have to do with Ackley or Strasburg. Those guys are elite talents, and clearly deserving of elite money. The decision to take a signability guy like Sanchez (or Hobgood or Borchering) would be motivated by a desire to not give an elite level bonus to a guy who isn’t necessarily an elite talent by historical standards (Matzek, Tate, Turner, etc.).
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
From MLB Trade Rumors - Mayo and Law
And here’s the final projection MLB.com’s Jonathan Mayo will make. He has Dustin Ackley going to Seattle, Donavan Tate going to San Diego, Tony Sanchez going to Pittsburgh and Zack Wheeler going to Baltimore.
ESPN.com’s Keith Law has the same five players going in the same order. Interestingly, Law has Aaron Crow and Tanner Scheppers out of the first round, in large part because they’re expected to demand lots of money.
by God Loves on Jun 9, 2009 2:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Makes One Wonder...
If they go with Sanchez due to the ease of signing and THEN use the #49 and. #53 for a player who slips and then spends to get them signed. Sanchez wont last until #49, but some of the more high dollar demanding players just might..then they can get 2 players they like.
Just a thought…
by Mick Kraut on Jun 9, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
So kind of use the projected wackiness of the draft to maybe get their first rated player with their second pick and their second rated player (who won’t last long enough to be there for their second pick) with their first pick?
Makes some kind of sense if you think about it, if only I trusted the Pirates to be lucky/competent enough to pull it off.
by TravisDW on Jun 9, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We saved about $15 mil by trading away McLouth...
…unless signing Sano is a guarantee, going cheap with the roughly 20th best player by most accounts at 4 overall is terrible.
by ddff22 on Jun 9, 2009 2:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
well...
the Bucs saved a little less than $15 million (about $13.6 million)
but not in this year’s budget
It was more like $1.35 million this year ($3.5 million – $1.5 million signing bonus = $2 million then prorated at about 67% of the season left)
and then $4.5 million next year
and then $7.75 million in 2011
by dirtyfrank on Jun 9, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BA new projections...
Sanchez at 4…
terrible
by BattlinBucs on Jun 9, 2009 2:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Link...
…here.
Shit. Terrible decision, what a waste.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with mac_DK
I’m fine with this IF they draft (and sign) several Grossman-type players overslot and get Sano into the system.
Also, if Sanchez moves up quickly, the Pirates could trade Doumit, who’d likely bring back quite a bit in return.
I think it’s best to wait it out until Thursday night — or perhaps Aug. 17; the 15th falls on the weekend this year — to make an absolute judgment. Until their decisions start blowing up in their faces and trade returns/picks become busts, I’ll still believe this regime knows what it is doing.
by woobie on Jun 9, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am fully on board with the new regime
However, if you go for signability at 4, you will have to do something similar for our compensation pick (can’t afford to get someone who is going to be a tough sign and lose it). So your first big chance at getting someone who slipped is 2nd round
by BattlinBucs on Jun 9, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everything I know about evaluating players...
…is telling me that Sanchez is going to be a huge disappointment.
They’re going to need to have a hell of a remaining draft in order to make up for wasting our first rounder. And if they’re thinking that Sanchez is the right pick, I don’t see any reason why they won’t blow the later picks, either.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
That’s my problem as well. There are a ton of other “signable” guys who have much more upside. Nobody can convince me that there isn’t a better choice than Sanchez.
I’d draft Gibson and take the risk on his health before I drafted a mediocre catcher.
You don’t waste a #4 pick on a guy with so many red flags. If he’s such a great pick, what other teams are so high on him?
by Bernie6666 on Jun 9, 2009 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How do we know?
Why is Sanchez at 4 terrible? Is it because people have the perception that it’s a “cheapskate” pick? Is it because he’s commonly rated around #20 by the so-called experts?
Unless we have some professional scouts in attendance here, who are also privvy to the overall thought process in place in Bradenton right now, simply saying “Sanchez at 4 is terrible” is really a silly response. There are SO many variables in play it’s crazy. Also, is it really impossible to believe that the Pirates have Sanchez rated as their favorite guy that will sign for slot? If they do, is that wrong? Can anybody say?
Tom Hagen posted as I was typing that they might take Sanchez and go after a signability guy with #49. Definitely a possibility. Or maybe they’re really going to sign Sano, costs be damned, and want a cost-certain guy at #4.
We (Pirate fans) are going to drive ourselves crazy if we can’t divorce the old regime with the new regime. Have Coonely / NH done anything so far just to save money? Have they done anything that says “eff it, we don’t care about the future of the franchise”? I’m not saying they’ve been right 100% of the time….I’m not even saying that Sanchez would be the right pick. I’m just saying that to say it’s stupid / terrible / same old Pirates is an unreasonable position to take (unless, as I said, you’re a scout). Truth is, nobody knows.
by mak_DC on Jun 9, 2009 2:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It's possible that they have him rated as the highest guy on their board.
But that wouldn’t make him any dumber a pick. It’d just mean that they’re misreading his likely level of ability.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point really is this….why are they automatically wrong if they think Sanchez is better than the 20th player overall? All I’m saying is that I don’t know, and I’m guessing nobody else on this board KNOWS. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, of course, but what is a FACT is that I know less about this than NH does, so I have to take the decision with a little faith.
by mak_DC on Jun 9, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't have enough faith...
…to justify a pick like that. I look at him, and I just don’t see the bat going forward. And it’s not like the general scouting community disagrees with me, either.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come on…we’re talking about a guy everyone is ranking in the top 20 or 25 of all players available. It’s not like he’s not a first round pick.
by mak_DC on Jun 9, 2009 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Everyone"?
Hardly.
BA has him at 32 in their rankings (Link). John SIckels had him at 33 in his (Link). And I think both are too optimistic.
He’s a huge reach.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is it possible that they just leaked they wanted Sanchez to screw with other teams projections?
So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded!? Yea, totally. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets do a sample. There are 4 of us and you're retarded. Thats 25 percent. -South Park; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce.
by gorillakilla34 on Jun 9, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doubt it.
If they leaked, it was more likely with the intent of pressuring an above-slot guy to agree before the draft on a lower bonus, and even that would be kind of byzantine.
I’m hoping like hell that it’s some kind of game they’re running, but I don’t think it is.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I posted above that I convinced myself that Sanchez would be ok...
but I’m changing my mind again. The closer we get to this thing and the more people that hate it really make me nervous. I really hope it’s just a stupid game they’re playing on other clubs……….or maybe they just wanted to drive Law insane..
So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded!? Yea, totally. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets do a sample. There are 4 of us and you're retarded. Thats 25 percent. -South Park; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce.
by gorillakilla34 on Jun 9, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope
Per ESPN’s Keith Law:
The Pirates are taking Boston College catcher Tony Sanchez. A predraft deal is done.
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4246090&name=mlb_draft
by woobie on Jun 9, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can they do that?
Its not like they have the 1st pick or even the 2nd…
by Mick Kraut on Jun 9, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure they can.
It just becomes moot if someone else takes him first.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So it's time to start hoping
that SD loves Sanchez
True Blue Jazz
Bucco Ball
I'm on Twitter
RIP Nick Adenhart. 4/9/09
by UtesFan89 on Jun 9, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Never said it was same old Pirates. You’d rather have a catcher who can’t hit offspeed stuff over a pitcher with upside?
by BattlinBucs on Jun 9, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why
Why do people always say “so-called experts?” They’ve got that job because they’re right more often than not. I’d like to see anyone on here do better.
The only Billy Beane strategy I was never a fan of was overdrafting players to get them to sign cheap. How many of them ended up in the Majors?
I’m not confusing this front office with the old one. I’m just saying that if we treat them like every decision they make is guaranteed to be right, it could blow up in our faces. They may not be like Littlefield, but would you all honestly feel great if they ended up like Cam Bonifay and started out with a great rebuilding scheme followed by futile attempts at .500?
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on Jun 9, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
NH’s letter sounded directly out of the Littlefield playbook to me. For nearly two decades, the so-called experts have done much better than the Pirate scouts, who remain largely the same.
I have zero confidence in the scouts.
Moreover, it’s not like the experts are split on Sanchez. I know of no one who thinks he’s a top 10 pick.
Nearly every professional scout I’ve read has called him a cheap reach.
by Bernie6666 on Jun 9, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then again
Maybe they see something we don’t.
by woobie on Jun 9, 2009 2:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Sanchez's mechanics
don’t really impress me. Not a lot batspeed. There doesn’t seem to be alot of power projectable with a wooden bat shown in this one swing in this clip:
by Danatural08 on Jun 9, 2009 3:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
correction
his mechanics aren’t bad, it just doesn’t seem like he has alot of bat speed. again, this is just one clip
by Danatural08 on Jun 9, 2009 3:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I realize that there's not really much PR left to be lost
But can they really afford to have the ESPN draft people laughing at their pick like they did 2 years ago? Can they really afford the backlash when local radio people are reading off scouting reports of the guy as a highly probable backup catcher?
I know they’re the Pirates, but they can’t really draft this guy….. can they?
by TravisDW on Jun 9, 2009 3:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
how come
you dont see a lot of trading of draft choices in MLB like in the NFL?
by samvescovi on Jun 9, 2009 3:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
well that just makes perfect sense! thank you
by samvescovi on Jun 9, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My 2 cents...
I haven’t read the 140+ posts above yet, but I think we should be taking a high school pitcher at #4 overall. I know that there is significant risk, but the idea of taking Crow or some other pitcher that doesn’t have #1 potential strikes me as a mistake. Amateur signings – of which the draft is the most prominent aspect – is the only realistic way the Bucs have for acquiring superstar players.
Drafting Maholm was one of the first times Littlefield took an affirmative action that really had me questioning him. Crow may have a bit more upside, but from what I read, it isn’t a lot more. I gather that he has a ceiling as a #2 SP.
To me, you can draft pitchers with #3 SP ceilings later in the draft in greater numbers for the same or a lower cumulative cost, thereby offsetting the lower probability of success. The same can’t be said for #1 potential players. Put another way, I’d rather succeed with drafting a star player 1 out of every 4 times rather than succeeding with drafting a decent major league contributor 1 out of ever 2 times.
The Wheeler kid out of Georgia seems particularly intriguing and would likely be my choice.
Sanchez with a pick other than #4 would be okay by me, but I don’t like him with our first pick.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Jun 9, 2009 3:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I want them to take Grant Green.
Not really in the mood for another future failure of a pitching project.
I also wouldn’t mind letting this pick go and then collecting two top ten picks next year.
by Suffering Buc on Jun 9, 2009 3:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Done deal
Per Keith Law, there’s been an agreement reached on a deal w/ Sanchez:
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=mlb_draft
May the grousing commence…
by Jeffasaurus on Jun 9, 2009 3:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Can someone with insider access give an excerpt?
by Suffering Buc on Jun 9, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pirates reach predraft deal with Sanchez. That's it.
by Slick1 on Jun 9, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our best young position player (other than Cutch) is a catcher. Doumit’s not going anywhere anytime soon, or at least he shouldn’t be. Why not address a position where you actually have needs? I understand taking the BPA, but Sanchez is not that.
by Suffering Buc on Jun 9, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can't draft for needs that way.
Even a college hitter is generally going to need 2+ years in the minors. By then, who knows what Doumit will be doing.
That said, it’s a terrible decision purely on the basis of talent.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“The Pirates are taking Boston College catcher Tony Sanchez. A predraft deal is done.”
That’s all it says.
by Jeffasaurus on Jun 9, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Meh
Not what I’d do. Here’s hoping they’ll spend big elsewhere.
by woobie on Jun 9, 2009 3:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If Law is correct...
are they saving the cash for any bounty that falls to #49 and #53?
by Mick Kraut on Jun 9, 2009 3:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Huntington is going to stick to his guns no matter what.....
Huntington has proven he will do what he thinks is right. Period.
Commendable in a way. And something I have liked about him before today.
But I am not a fan of Sanchez at four at all. Not that I am an amateur baseball expert. Not that I even mind the concept of going with a signability pick this year at four and spending money on Sano and other picks. But going by the experts and the little I have seen myself I think it Sanchez is the wrong signability pick. I’ll root for him though…… Maybe he can be the next Benji Molina……
by haven on Jun 9, 2009 3:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
“The past couple of years, we’ve had guys like Buster Posey [and] Matt Wieters … who may do some things better,” Aoki said. “But I would take Tony over those guys. Posey’s a better power guy, Wieters, too. But I don’t think each at the same age played as well as he does.”
If his coach’s words are meant to pump him up, I’m still not impressed. Posey doesn’t have that much power. And a Posey with less power is not an intriguing prospect.
by bolton on Jun 9, 2009 3:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Time to start drinking
So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded!? Yea, totally. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets do a sample. There are 4 of us and you're retarded. Thats 25 percent. -South Park; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce.
by gorillakilla34 on Jun 9, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what will Sanchez sign for? Slot money? Slot 25 money?
charity standing orders
by BadMaafala on Jun 9, 2009 3:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Unless they follow up with an announcement that they signed Sano today, this is going to cause a shitstorm of legendary proportions.
Although, as someone either earlier today, or maybe yesterday (I’ve spent so much time on this blog the past two days it just all runs together), they may be doing this because there is going to be so much focus on the Penguins, win or lose, that this move may be able to fly under the radar for the most part.
by Bishop1973 on Jun 9, 2009 3:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe.
But that doesn’t make it any less stupid. They better get Sano, and they better get gold later in this draft.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on Jun 9, 2009 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It'll only fly under the radar...
…for as long as Sanchez plays like a #4 overall pick.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pleassssssee ...
The shitstorm happened last week with McLouth. It can’t get much worse.
Besides, contrary to popular belief, not every baseball fan is a huge draftnik,
by woobie on Jun 9, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I presume
That you know that they can’t sign Sano until next month (7/2/09, I believe).
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Jun 9, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pitchforks ready?
Flaming arrows?
Bricks and Stone throwers ready?
Federal Street HERE YE COME
by BadAndy on Jun 9, 2009 3:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i’ll have my on stand by…I’m willing to wait til after the supplemental and 2nd round picks til i decide to light up the arrows
by BattlinBucs on Jun 9, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did Law get the scoop?
Because I haven’t read this anywhere else.
Also, what’s up with the Post Gazette? We’re two hours from the draft and there are no updates, no anything.
by woobie on Jun 9, 2009 3:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I know. I’ve checked there all day and nothing…not impressed
by BattlinBucs on Jun 9, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Law’s been on it for almost 2 weeks now, and intimated in his chat today he had some kind of inside source.
by mak_DC on Jun 9, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but is it a source from the pirates or from sanchez’s side? if i were his agent i’d be pretty happy with spreading these things around.
by johnnycuff on Jun 9, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
An agent who lies about having a pre-draft deal...
…is an agent who gets fired within the next 24 hours.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not if it bumps his client up 10 picks
by johnnycuff on Jun 9, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are only three teams in front of us.
And none of them are dumb enough to pick him.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i wish they were dumb enough but i agree with you.
who in the national media was talking about tony sanchez before the last few days? who knows, maybe it gets a few teams to take another look at him in these few hours while it seems like it’s true. or maybe we’re trying to pressure another draftee.
look i’m just throwing stuff at a wall here. if law gave any indication about where his source was from i’d be much less curious.
by johnnycuff on Jun 9, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was being mentioned as a candidate at three picks in the first:
Ours, the Royals at 12, and Seattle at 27. 27 is basically the sandwich round, and the Royals are the Royals.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If it is Sanchez
I will be disappointed b/c it is not an exciting pick. And while I understand that Vlad has a better idea of what is going on that most (myself included), until new management gives us a reason not to trust them, I will probably give them the benefit of the doubt.
I still like Zach Wheeler.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Jun 9, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably all still sleeping it off...
…from the game last night.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. I am not in favor of this.
2.
BP mentions…That his absolute ceiling would be someone with Yadier Molina-like defense and good power. The thing is, no one thinks Sanchez will hit for average.
Wouldn’t that make him Bengie Molina? Great, if we could get plus D, 30 Homers and .270 from our catcher….but that’s his absolute ceiling and #4?? Really??
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 9, 2009 3:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll Wait
To see what happens later in the draft. Management has been saying for quite some time that it’s a deep draft, so I want to see what else they get.
by Slizeezyc on Jun 9, 2009 4:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If they get Crow, Scheppers or Gibson Ill be happy
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 9, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If their idea of "depth"...
…is only “players almost as good as Tony Sanchez”, then yeah, there’s a hell of a lot of depth in this draft. Probably five rounds’ worth.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vlad, what specifically is the problem with this guy? You’re obviously a far bigger detractor than anyone I’ve seen in any forum, so I’m interested in what it is that you don’t like about Sanchez.
by mak_DC on Jun 9, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In order:
1) He has a long swing.
2) He has trouble with breaking stuff.
3) He isn’t great at centering the ball, and as such is going to top out at 10-15 HR power in the best case.
4) He was, up until this year, noted for being fat and out of shape.
On my board, he’s the third-best catcher available, and that’s only because I’m not entirely sold that Tommy Joseph can stay behind the plate. I think he’s a fairly low-upside player with a fairly high downside risk for someone who has such a small chance of becoming a star-level performer.
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, I'm done for the day.
No point in even watching the draft or talking about it at this point. Why buy the cow if you know the milk’s sour?
by Vlad on Jun 9, 2009 4:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
if sanchez is the pick, i really hate it
i guess i am confused..ok so the pirates want to sign a guy at the slot recomendation, then why pay a guy who’s value is welllllll below the #4 slot money wise. if you are forced to pay 2.5 mill (which i believe is the recomendation) sanchez is not worth $2.5 period. he should get 20 something money. that is like going to walmart and buying generic cereal but paying regular brand prices. (goofy analogy i know)
wouldnt it be better to pay someone who actually is talent-wise worth the #4 pick. basically getting value for your $$$$????
by jsn4219 on Jun 9, 2009 4:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Certainly possible he signed for less than slot.
by mak_DC on Jun 9, 2009 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd guess so
[to jsn4219]
slot bonuses are recommendations, not a price floor
by dirtyfrank on Jun 9, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i understand that, but really what else does this pick reek of other than signabliity/money? I just get tired of wasted top 5 picks, regardless of the talent in drafts year to year. If you draft in the top 5 you should be picking someone with the potential to be an impact player at the mlb period. whether it comes to fruition or not, its a crapshoot, but better talent certainly increases your odds of a bullseye.
by jsn4219 on Jun 9, 2009 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t believe we’re even having this conversation
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 9, 2009 4:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
MLB.com video
by dirtyfrank on Jun 9, 2009 4:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Music was exciting
till the video started. THat was pretty uninspiring. I wonder if Moskos is widdling a wood albatross for Sanchez to wear around his neck. Then they can be buds
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 9, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only thing i am holding out hope on is this..
pittsburgh expects quite a few of the first round pitchers to fall bc of signability, thus getting a chance of taking them with one of their second round picks. whereas sanchez wouldnt be there for their second round opportunity if they took a high bonus player with #4, but then have additional leverage with one of the guys that fall.
by jsn4219 on Jun 9, 2009 4:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree...
They must be gambling that Sanchez would not be available @ #49 but one of the high end pitchers just might be. Crow, Matzek or Purke perhaps.
If not, then they need to go down the Grossman, Quinton Miller path in the remaining rounds for this move to make sense in the long term.
by Mick Kraut on Jun 9, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BA has him as a "Sandwich Round Talent"
And top of the list for what its worth…not much I suppose.
Sandwich-Round Talents
1. Tony Sanchez, Boston College, B-T: R-R
Sanchez, who grew up playing with Miami shortstop Ryan Jackson in South Florida, dreamed of playing for the Hurricanes when he was younger, but he was overweight and overlooked by many recruiters out of high school. He’s slimmed down by 35 pounds in three years at Boston College and made himself into one of the nation’s premier college catchers. Sanchez is a slightly above-average major league defender with soft hands, quick feet and a solid-average to plus arm. He excels at framing pitches and blocking balls in the dirt. Offensively, Sanchez has solid-average power, but his bat is not a sure thing. He punishes fastballs but struggles mightily against breaking balls, though he’s an intelligent enough hitter to lay off breaking stuff that he cannot hit. He has a mature approach at the plate and excellent makeup on the field and off.
by Mick Kraut on Jun 9, 2009 4:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I loved Tony Sanchez from the very beginning.
I just hope he doesn’t fail for his sake and Neal’s sake
This and the McLouth trade will determine Neal’s fate
by BadAndy on Jun 9, 2009 4:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Wouldn't it be crazy...
If the Pirates worked out a deal for Sanchez with their comp pick? Then they take Crow with the first pick? IT WOULD BE SO UNEXPECTED.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on Jun 9, 2009 4:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
they could try. but if sanchez was drafted by another team before that pick the deal wouldn’t mean much.
by johnnycuff on Jun 9, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be unexpected. Except that he has to fall to 49. wont happen
RIP NATE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN...MISTER TONY PLUSH!
by GTrain on Jun 9, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tony Sanchez
The first thing everyone really needs to do is let go of the past. Comparing Sanchez to the Moskos pick is absurd. The enire front office has changed. There obviously is a plan in place and by now it should be pretty easy to see what it is. The future of the Pittsburgh Pirates started with McCutchen’s promotion. Neil and company and making all their moves based on what will help put a winner on the field by 2011 and beyond. Ryan Doumit is not going to be part of that. Jack, Freddy, Adam (thank gawd) will all be gone. All of them could possibly be gone by the trade deadline this year. Even Jonathan Mayo at MLB Network has said this “is a bit of a reach, but if ever there was a year that you take the player you really want that you know will not be there with you next pick…this is the year to do it.” Alot of the arms being tossed around for picks 4 – 10 all have questions marks (health, throwing certain pitches, cost, etc). So, why not go get someone the Pirates believe in. I don’t think anyone was very high on Robinzon Diaz or JJ when we picked them up, but obviously someone on the Pirates saw something everyone else was missing. I am just as disgusted as anyone about 16+ losing seasons, but Neil, Frank and company have made a lot of good calls so far and I trust them. If you take the Littlefield era blinders off, you might see that too.
by Brakeman8 on Jun 9, 2009 4:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I just don’t think this is the best pick, even if they limit themselves to only slot money. I even see what you’re saying about Doumit, but Sanchez doesn’t look to be much of an upgrade over Jaramillo or Diaz, and is a definite downgrade from Doumit. At any rate, in the first round you take the best available player. If they want a catcher, they can get one later.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on Jun 9, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
The comparison is legit to me: Both were money driven picks. Different GMs, same reason for overdrafting. Same reason for taking a less talented player.
In fact, I’d make the opposite argument. Moskos was considered by most people to be a top 10 pick.
Sanchez is not. I’ve defended nearly every action FC and NH have made.
This is not defensible. Sorry.
by Bernie6666 on Jun 9, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If a deal really has been reached...
is there a good chance it is significantly under slot, a la Billy Beane?
by scully0505 on Jun 9, 2009 4:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree, Brakeman
If a Wieters-like talent was available at No. 4, they Pirates most certainly would take him. If anything, the Pirates (again) picked a bad year to pick in the top five.
by woobie on Jun 9, 2009 4:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Baseball America is saying Sanchez, too
These six picks look fairly certain:
1. Nationals: San Diego State righthander Stephen Strasburg.
2. Mariners: North Carolina first baseman Dustin Ackley.
3. Padres: Georgia HS outfielder Donavan Tate.
4. Pirates: Boston College catcher Tony Sanchez.
5. Orioles: California HS righthander Matt Hobgood.
6. Giants: Georgia HS righthander Zack Wheeler.
by woobie on Jun 9, 2009 4:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Damn
I guess it’s time to start looking at #49
True Blue Jazz
Bucco Ball
I'm on Twitter
RIP Nick Adenhart. 4/9/09
by UtesFan89 on Jun 9, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Orioles and Giants also went for signability
Seems like a lot of players projected in the top 10 yesterday are going to be falling.
by haven on Jun 9, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
?????????
Instead of using the 4th pick to highly overdraft someone and then hope a top ranked player falls to them with there next pick, why not use both picks for elite talent, why not draft the best player at both spots and sign both. I don’t get why using there 2nd pick on an elite player will make this look good when that means they could have gone top talent at 4 and then also top talent at 49 or 53. Just because of money? That’s bullshit, I look at this as a missed opportunity to get 2 maybe 3 top talents(4 and whoever falls to 49 & 53) instead of a player you like who wont drop to 49 or 53 and then the top talent that falls to those picks.
by SteelCity G on Jun 9, 2009 4:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Let’s move to an overflow thread, everyone.
by Charlie on Jun 9, 2009 4:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
