Stephen Strasburg Signs With Nationals
by Charlie Wilmoth on Aug 18, 2009 12:24 AM EDT
Email
PrintVia the Associated Press. It's apparently a major-league deal worth about $15 million. Second overall pick Dustin Ackley has also apparently signed. This rules out a couple possible options for the Bucs in next year's draft. Despite all the drama, it should be no surprise that Strasburg signed; it doesn't seem possible that his stock could ever get higher.
I have no confirmed information about any other Pirates picks who may have signed just before the midnight deadline. The Post-Gazette reports that the Bucs spent the most money of any team in the N.L. Central.
Here's my report after seeing Strasburg pitch in March.
107 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thank God
Now can we please stop with all the “let’s lose enough so we can draft Stasburg next year” talk. Of course, now I guess all the chatter becoms about Harper. I’d rather see us put a few things together, show some progress and win some games down the stretch rather than hope we lose more.
say we do win some games down the stretch and finish as the 5th worst team in baseball? what is the difference between finishing 5th or last? everyone knows we’re terrible either way. maybe the teams’ confidence has a little boost, but when does momentum from the previous year ever carry over into the following season?
i am a huge buccos fan and would actually like us to finish last. who cares anyway? we’ve been the laughing stock of baseball for 17 years in a row now, so why not finish last and have a chance of drafting the best prospect baseball has seen since ARod or Griffey? the Pens did it and drafted Mario. the rest is history. maybe this is what we need. draft an extremely talented player like Harper who has an attitude that is exactly what our clubhouse needs.
"but when does momentum from the previous year ever carry over into the following season?"
Bill James has studied this question and concluded that it often does. I guess the idea is that teams that play well at the end of a season often do so because they have some pretty good players who continue to be good the next season.
by WestCoastBuc on Aug 18, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
but we don’t have “some pretty good players.” we have mccutchen, jones who is playing good for the time being, maybe throw delwyn young in there if he can improve his fielding, and i think doumit is fairly good, just not this season. everyone else is completey average for mlb standards.
I was just answering your question above but the point is
if the team plays reasonably well over the rest of the season and ends up with, say, 90 losses instead of 100, it will reflect well on their chances for 2010.
IMO the idea of losing games on purpose to get a shot at Harper is a poor one and if we do that we probably deserve 17 more losing seasons after this one.
by WestCoastBuc on Aug 18, 2009 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions
i never said we should lose on purpose. i said i would like us to finish last. no manager will ever tell his team to tank the rest of the reason.
i’m sure a lot of people would be thrilled if we had a chance at Harper if we didn’t tank the rest of the season on purpose.
Makes sense I guess but I still root for them to win instead of lose
I can’t help but think of all the things that could go wrong after shelling out $15 mil to a 17 YO.
I think there is a fair chance that after spending $15 MM on Strasburg the Nats ownership may not be up for repeating that for Harper, so it is possible that finishing 2nd in the race for the bottom may be good enough.
by WestCoastBuc on Aug 18, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually my money would be on KC to finish with the first pick, they are playing even more horrific baseball than we are. 27-61 since May 8th when they were actually in the hunt for the AL Central.
by MrPedriqueIfYoureNasty on Aug 18, 2009 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions
According to the Padres website Tate signed as well (this may have happened earlier today).
Thinking about the other high profile guys, it doesn’t look like Crow signed with the Royals but I guess the deadline for his deal is different.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Aug 18, 2009 1:18 AM EDT reply actions
So is Scheppers.
According to Baseball America, they get different deadlines because they play Indy ball instead of high school or college.
by IAPiratesFan on Aug 18, 2009 1:27 AM EDT up reply actions
So many dumb comments on TWWL about how agents have too much power and teams should retain players’ rights for 4 years and other nonsense. I guess they prefer billionaire owners getting more money as opposed to millionaire players? I swear some people wouldn’t be happy unless players were getting dead ball era wages and player contracts had the reserve clause.
I don’t exactly like the current system but I really don’t like the idea of teams retaining the rights either. I would like to allow teams to trade rights to players they’ve drafted though.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Aug 18, 2009 1:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Also I just saw that 29 draft picks signed so only 3 (including Crow) did not. Is the system really broken?
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Aug 18, 2009 1:58 AM EDT up reply actions
I dunno
It forces the bad teams to deal with the players they draft and keep them if they come to terms, rather than tempting the bad teams to trade or sell their top picks to the Yankees and the Red Sox and Angels all the time.
True but I’m assuming that each team acts in its own best interest so it would only trade a pick away if it benefited the organization and wouldn’t trade a pick away for simply cash.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Aug 18, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
That sounds like the Steelers of the 50’s and 60’s.
by ravidesai1984 on Aug 18, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m sure he would have but I can’t think of a GM currently as grossly incompetent as him. Also if an incompetent GM wants to trade away draft picks for Joe Randa, I’d be fine with that, not the system’s fault that he’s incompetent. Could be very interesting if the Pirates had been able to trade McLouth or Grabow for draft picks or draft rights in my opinion.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Aug 18, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Colletti redeemed himself a bit this offseason...
at least moving away from DL. Moore belongs on this list though.
Alright you got me with Dayton Moore and I think despite Colletti’s apparent incompetence, he has somehow built a contending team. I also don’t think either reaches the incompetence level of DL but some Royals fans might disagree
But even so just because there are idiot GMs who would trade draft picks to their detriment doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t exist. I really think it could help teams that are attempting to rebuild.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Aug 18, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Colletti "built the team"...
…in the sense that he stumbled across a pre-constructed playoff team assembled by DePodesta and Evans, and wasn’t quite able to disassemble it before they actually made the playoffs.
Virtually every action he has taken since assuming the position has made it harder for them to contend.
Bad teams are bad teams for good reasons, usually.
One is, as Vlad notes, angling for dubious short-term gains at the expense of long-term stability.
Should we be worried?
I just wonder about this year’s draft because they talked about the “spread the wealth” strategy and while it’s good to see a lot of these picks signed like Von Rosenberg and Cain, they only signed 23 of 51 picks. That doesn’t seem like very many, especially with guys like den Dekker, Heller and Dermody left unsigned. I know that most of the unsigned were after the top 25 rounds. They signed 18 of the top 25 and then signed only 5 from the last 26 rounds. But overall, I’m a little disappointed they didn’t sign some more guys in the draft, unless of course they’re still betting on Sano signing soon. Any other thoughts on this?
Keep in mind
That they traded for a lot of lower-level prospects, so W. Virginia and Lynchburg were pretty well stocked over the last couple of months. There wasn’t really the need for organizational filler some other clubs had.
I'm not worried.
I like this draft. What I’m more worried about is whether or not we’ll be able to draft an ace pitcher that can be big-league ready in the 2011-2012 window next year. Like Jim Callis said when he was interviewed by Rocco DeMaro, the Pirates have a lot of good pitchers in their system, but no ace. They’ve got a bunch of #3 starters.
While the idea of a bunch of #3 starters is good in the sense of always having a solid chance to win, I’d feel a lot better about our chances of competing if we had a guy that we could count on every fifth day to turn in a quality start. Even if we had no #2 and followed him with a bunch of #3 starters, I’d feel a lot better. (Though I think one of Lincoln or Morton will turn out at least well enough to be a #2 starter.)
www.sixtyftsixin.com
Once again
I ask you to count for me how many MLB teams have an “ace” starter now, and extrapolate from that our chances of looking five years into the future and managing to pick one from among a bunch of high school arms.
BTW, Zach Duke already does what you’re asking, give us a solid chance to win most every time out. I count only six game scores under 50 in 24 starts.
Quite a few in my opinion
AL East
Orioles – None
Red Sox – Josh Beckett
Yankees – CC Sabathia
Rays – Formerly Scott Kazmir, but not looking that way anymore.
Blue Jays – Roy Halladay
AL Central
White Sox – Mark Buehrle
Indians – None
Tigers – Justin Verlander
Royals – Zack Greinke
Twins – None
AL West
Angels – John Lackey
Atletics – None
Mariners – Felix Hernandez
Rangers – None
NL East
Braves – You could say Javier Vazquez now, but Jurrjens and especially Hanson could be.
Marlins – Josh Johnson
Mets – Johan Santana
Phillies – Previously Cole Hamels, but he got overused last year. Let’s give him another year.
Nats – None, but they did just sign some kid…can’t remember his name though…
NL Central
Cubs – Zambrano, barely IMO…
Reds – None, but Cueto and Volquez look nice.
Astros – Oswalt, barely IMO…
Brewers – Gallardo could be…
Pirates – Uhh…
Cardinals – Carpenter and Wainwright
NL West
Diamondbacks – Webb and Haren
Rockies – None. Jimenez maybe down the road.
Dodgers – None. Billingsley maybe down the road.
Padres – None
Giants – Lincecum and Cain
Forgot about...
Cliff Lee for Philly as well.
They expect big things from Mat Latos for the Padres too, come to think of it. Orioles have a bunch of young pitchers, but I don’t know if any of them project as an ace.
Those are all true
But I tried to keep it to at least somewhat established players.
Fair enough, but he has pitched a fair deal already, as I just posted below. He’s started 45 games already at age 21, so it’s not like he’s an unknown.
I was referring to
Latos, and Matusz and Tillman for Baltimore.
It was just a quick glance at the league
I probably forgot some (Peavy and Lester jump to mind), but the point was that there are a lot of “aces” out there and the good teams all have em. The D’backs and Royals being the exceptions…
Well, remember: He’s only 21!
He’s had some struggles in some games, but has dominated many others. He has a 2.91 era in 24 starts this year, and he started 21 last year, so he’s already had a lot of MLB experience.
A 1.25 WHIP this season with 142 Ks in 136 IP at age 21…if that’s not ace stuff, I don’t know what is.
So not counting
the “could bes” and “maybes” and “barelys” you come up with 16. So they’re pretty rare, and since you count three teams with two each, that means 13 or 32 teams have an “ace.”
That’s a nice thing to have, but given the difficulty teams have finding one, I’d say your odds of loading up a staff with No. 2 and No. 3 types and trying not to have any black holes in the rotation is a more productive use of time and money and draft picks, especially for a team in our position, which is to say, not like the Yanks, who can just buy the available ace(s) every winter.
Here's a chicken-and-egg question, though
Are these good teams because they have ace pitchers, or are some of these guys aces because they play for very good teams?
Then you have the whole issue of keeping your aces healthy. See for instance guys like Chris Carpenter and Dontrelle Willis. But that’s a separate issue from finding one in the first place, I guess.
Thats why I had
Zambrano and Oswalt as barely’s. I don’t think they are that great. All of the rest I like though.
Well
I had the Brewers, Rockies and Dodgers as “could be’s”. With that in mind let’s take a look at each team.
Brewers – Looks like they won’t make the playoffs because they don’t have enough pitching. Don’t forget they only got their last year because they had that “ace” for the stretch run.
Rockies – In the wild card hunt, but could really use that one guy to put them over the top. I’ll admit though, Jimenez may have been a stretch.
Dodgers – Have two highly regarded maybe’s and Manny Ramirez.
You do the math.
One more thing
I suppose it’s possible to ride your bats (Rockies of a few years back) to a World Series, but you sure as hell better have a lot of em.
Jimenez definitely counts. He’s a top 10-15 pitcher, IMO.
by Gorkys n' Beans on Aug 18, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions
What do you think would have happened in last years World Series...
If we replaced Cole Hamel’s with a #2 lefty, like let’s say Ted Lilly? At the very least it would have been a much closer series IMO.
Aces are for the playoffs
I don’t think anyone expects 2011 to be a WS contending year, just a year we start putting losing seasons behind us and compete for the division.
I would say we have longer to develop or get an ace, simply because you can make the playoffs without one. You won’t win in the playoffs without one, but you can get there.
Look at the White Sox when they won, they were 4 pitchers deep getting solid outings every game and hitting well and had a closer. Those pitchers all played above their usual level and the White Sox won. You don’t have to be an ace to play like one. I think you can win with a group of solid 2’s and 3’s having a great year.
Yeah, that’s not a likely scenario, it doesn’t happen much, but most World Series teams have three or four players playing better than they do the rest of their career.
by Phantaskippy on Aug 18, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed
I was approaching the discussion from the point of view that the end goal is a championship.
One thing though, if the window we’re hoping for is 2012 – 2014 then we better get someone in the system soon. The Pirates damn sure aren’t going to be able to sign a player like that, and the minor league situation is pretty far away from having expendable sure things to trade for one.
I don’t think 2012 is the beginning of a championship window. This team needs to get a winner, and a playoff contender.
We have prospects to build a solid Major League team, not a World Series contender. Even with an Ace it would take all the cards in the world falling right for a team based on players in our system to win a world series.
We are (I would think) building a playoff caliber team, one that can stick around for a while and contain good enough players that we can improve and get to that level eventually. Or maybe we have winning seasons and contend for the division every year and make some noise in the playoffs.
Just imagine what a playoff series win would be like. That would be a great thing for the Pirates, if we can get one of those by 2014 I would be pumped.
by Phantaskippy on Aug 19, 2009 2:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Shouldn't worry at all.
The Pirates signed all of the best talent that they drafted. Den Dekker would have been nice, but I honestly don’t think he wanted to sign with us. I mean who goes away on a cruise over the signing deadline. Made for a nice excuse on his end. With all the trades we made, we added a lot of low level depth. So, it made sense to focus on the quality choices. Buccos get an A from me on this draft.
Vlad, we get.....
that you don’t like the pick, that we should have taken a high ceiling guy. We get that you think he should be dominating at low A where he is absolutely raking. You have made that perfectly clear many, many times.
You don’t need to add hyperbole by saying “a real first-rounder.” Two things 1) he generally wasn’t rated below 30 on anyone’s list. There are 32 teams in MLB. So, he was generally considered a back end of the first round pick. 2.) At the end of the day his performance will determine if it was a good pick. If he becomes Mike Piazza or outperforms Posey or Weiters we’ll have a better perspective. If he is the second coming of Ed Ott, we’ll know. I appreciate everyone from BA to KLaw to your rankings and opinion. But, I have a hard time when everyone can’t step back and now evaluate the talent rather than just speculate. Sanchez has performed better than anyone could ever have hoped thus far. Let’s see where the next step takes us.
The FO followed their plan. I don’t think we need to score it today. Let’s score it July 31, 2012. The dogmatic approach that people take with their opinions is a bit ludicrous.
two ways to rate.
You can rate down the road and see what the draft brought the team, or even later and see the total impact. But that ignores things like scouting and injuries, draft strategies and guys who come out of nowhere to be a good player.
Or you can look now at the draft and try to see what tey went for and what they needed to go for. See what kind of plan they are trying to pull off and then evaluate how well they do it.
They went for quantity over top end quality. They spent a lot on a lot of players instead of a lot on a few. I think it’s a great move because Sanchez is a known, and I think we’ll get more for his contract than most of the first rounders. We then grabbed guys that have big upside but a low chance to sign and signed above slot to bring them in.
It’s like having 15 picks form the 3-8th round. It’s not bad when you are hoping to find quality starters at most positions, and quality pitching anywhere. We shouldn’t do this every year, but this year it was a great opportunity to try it out and they did.
Now we will see how this all turns out as the years go by, but I would bet we drafted more quality MLB players than any other team in this draft. That’s what we wanted, and I bet that is what we got.
by Phantaskippy on Aug 18, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Sanchez actually WASN'T ranked in most people's first round.
There are 30 teams in MLB (not 32 – 16 NL, 14 AL). Among draft “experts”: John Sickels had Sanchez at 33, in the sandwich round. Baseball America had him at 32, in the sandwich round. I can’t find a link to Keith Law’s rankings (which are behind the pay wall), but IIRC he didn’t have Sanchez in the first, either. Many rankings also had him second or third among catchers, behind players who were drafted outside the first and signed for less money.
I’m perfectly happy to wait on grading the draft, but since this particular part of the thread is about giving early draft grades, I don’t think I’m out of line for sharing mine. And since Sanchez was the most expensive investment we made in the draft, my opinion of his selection is going to heavily color my opinion on the subject, and would do so just as heavily if I loved the pick.
Not a problem.
I wish it were true – two 16-team leagues, grouped into four divisions, would make a lot more sense in many ways.
Keep in mind...
for the future. The CBA expires after the 2011 season. It is rather likely that there will be changes that will affect the draft after the next year or two. I’ve heard differing ideas on it…including making it a worldwide draft (no more Latin America FA signings, like Sano)…or an NBA-like draftee payscale. And of course…some owners wanting salary cap/floor.
Frankly…Pedro (and others) could arrive in the majors just in time to go on strike.
Players generally don't care about the draft.
Draftees aren’t part of the union. A lot of them would honestly like the idea of draftees getting paid less. It would mean more money for them.
I’d love to see an NBA-style payscale. The slot recommendations are a joke. If Huntington plans to repeat this strategy it would probably kill that plan, but I’d prefer to see it in the name of real parity. I doubt it’ll happen, though. If it does, I’d love to see the look on Boras’ face when it happens.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
Draftees aren't part of the union...
but if they sign a Major League Contract…like Pedro or Strasburg…they are IMMEDIATELY eligible to be in the union. Basically…if a player is on the 40 man roster…he’s in the union. BTW…coaches…managers and trainers are also eligible to be in the union.
Tyler Matzek, who some believed was the best talent available at 4th overall, signs with the Rockies for just $3.9 million. That’s less than expected.
by Gorkys n' Beans on Aug 18, 2009 3:51 AM EDT reply actions
So say the Pirates take Matzek and he signs for that, does that prevent them from signing either Cain or Von Rosenberg?
Maybe.
Though if I were tossing pitchers over the side of the boat to make up the money, I probably would’ve started with Dodson.
That said, the FO indicated yesterday that we had remaining money unspent under the budget, and the draft budget wasn’t a hard cap anyway. So we might’ve been able to afford him outright at that price (which, in turn, he may or may not have accepted in the #4 slot).
It probably...
would have meant no Dodson, no Stevenson. Don’t forget we still had about 1.5 million left in the draft budget. I still what have taken Shelby Miller who signed for even less than Matzek. Overall, I think the draft was a solid B.
It's all idle speculation...
They had a plan they wanted to execute and did. People can like it or not, but they obviously liked Sanchez and knew they could sign him and have him in camp immediately and they did. Then they took a bunch of tough signs and got many of them.
So, they did exactly what they wanted. Now they need those players to perform. And everybody’s job depends on it. FC and NH are officially on the record. They’ve had two drafts and traded away or revamped virtually the whole 40 man roster.
Now we can all sit back and watch. And two-three years from now the front office will be lauded by everybody in baseball because they Pirates are winning 85-90. Or a new organization will be starting with their own plan. I guess the absolute pyrrhic result would be 82-84 win teams from 2012-2014.
Yeah, they needed that quick sign.
So they could get on with the lower guys fast.
Getting that 1st round contract signed that fast enabled them to do their plan.
by Phantaskippy on Aug 18, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Doing what you wanted is nice.
But it’s not a bulletproof defense. When DL was blowing high picks on Moskos and Corley and Mike Felix, he was “doing what he wanted” there, too.
I don't think it's a defense either....
As I posted below, now they can be fairly judged on future results.
Shelby Miller, the kid I wanted for us in the 1st...
…signed for $2.875M, only $375k more than Sanchez got.
Sigh.
Yes, but
just because he signed for $2.875M at #19 doesn’t mean he would’ve settled for the same if we had drafted him at #4. Same deal with Green, who signed for $2.75M at #13. Both would have held out for more if they’d been selected earlier, no?
Probably, yes.
But it wasn’t a given at the time of the draft that Miller would be willing to drop from his stated price tag of $4M, and yesterday’s events seem to indicate that he would’ve been. Even if he’d been willing to settle for $3-3.25 from us, instead of the $2.85 he actually got, he still would’ve been a better value than Sanchez.
Oh, well. What’s done is done.
Sanchez
It’s not like Sanchez has been a bust or anything. In fact, he has played rather well and because he signed early, he’s a step ahead of nearly everyone else who was drafted this year. I see him starting at Lynchburg and moving to Altoona next year. Great progress for a C in 1 1/2 seasons.
Sanchez has been playing well...
…as a college junior facing 18-year-olds. For a month.
AA is the level that’s going to either make or break him, in terms of bat speed and breaking stuff.
Scouting assessments
Sanchez will be a major barometer of Huntington & Co.’s ability to properly assess talent. You have to look at the full picture, so anyone brought in over the last two years will be part of that barometer, but Huntington clearly said that they had Sanchez rated high on their draft board — which was in direct conflict with other scouting assessments. In 2-3 years, it will be interesting to see if the scouting department was correct in pegging Sanchez as an early Round 1 talent.
While most folks here applaud the approach taking by Huntington since he took the job — volume talent in the minors, avoiding veteran signings, typically trading players at high value, moving forward despite the objection of many fans, etc. — the approach is only as good as the scouting and player development behind it. If you don’t choose the right players to bring into the organization and nurture that talent through the farm system, the approach is for naught. Whether he likes it or not, Sanchez will Exhibit A in this.
Think Daniel Moskos and how he represents DL’s legacy.
18 year olds? Really? You’re reaching NuHo levels of obsessiveness on your dismissal of this guy as a prospect.
Okay, it’s not directly above me anymore. I was replying to:
Sanchez has been playing well…
…as a college junior facing 18-year-olds. For a month.
AA is the level that’s going to either make or break him, in terms of bat speed and breaking stuff.
by Vlad on Aug 18, 2009 8:29 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions 0 recs
Yep
This comment stuck me as kind of funny too. Don’t have the time or inclination to average the ages of every pitcher in the South Atlantic League, but I’m pretty sure it’s not 18.
According to baseballexaminer.com:
The lowest level among full-season leagues is low Class A featuring several players between ages 21 and 23. A decent prospect should not be older than 22 if he is still in low Class A ball.
Also note that some of the other highly regarded college players currently in low-A are holding their own, but certainly not OPSing 1.000 or anything:
Tim Wheeler 263/338/361
AJ Pollock 267/302/394
Not saying Sanchez is destined for stardom or anything, but his performance so far in West Virginia has been notably good, not something you’d expect from any old college junior.
Ah, okay. Fair enough. And you’re not wrong about AA being make or break for him in determining how good a prospect he’ll be, but really you can say that about almost any prospect.
True.
I just think that people are crediting his early success too heavily. It’s a nice stat line, but it’s a small sample against competition that mostly won’t be able to challenge his weaknesses, and WV’s park has traditionally played as a hitter’s environment.
Eh, if I’m reading it right it skews as a hittable ballpark, but nothing too outrageous like a High Desert or Charlotte. And if it’s that hittable I don’t know how well that bodes for some of the other hitters down there since no one outside of Marte is really hitting the crap out of the ball or anything.
Again.....
I don’t think anyone here is saying Sanchez is the next Johnny Bench. I think they are saying he’s off to a great start at WV—which he is. And you’ve told us, I think, that maybe you didn’t like the pick and want to disregard anything he does before he gets to AA because he’s 22. Got it.
It's not that I want to disregard it.
It’s nice that he’s doing well in his first bit of pro ball. I just don’t see that success as particularly significant.
Getting carried away on the strength of a guy’s first month as a pro is always a bad idea.
I agree. Though if Sanchez was hitting .220 with no home runs at this point then a lot of the reactionaries would be going nuts!
by Gorkys n' Beans on Aug 19, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Some, probably.
Though I think I’d be refraining. I mean, up until this minute, I haven’t mentioned even once all of Sanchez’s errors, even though it’s a bad performance that’d cut him down a bit. Because it’s a small sample, and I don’t think it’s significant until we see more.
Don't ever compare State College
to good ole’ Charleston, WV.. or.. I’ll do.. something
but in all honesty, I understand your concerns about bat speed and breaking balls but in person he has look as good as advertised by the FO. He lays off breaking balls with ease, waits for pitches he can drives, and when he needs to hit a breaking ball in a tight count, I’ve seen him do it numerous times.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Aug 18, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
The problem is that guys in A-ball...
…generally don’t have workable breaking stuff. Either it spins instead of breaking, or they telegraph it mechanically, or they can’t consistently command it. He needs to see a steady diet of good breaking stuff before we’ll know whether he can hit it.
I think we all agree that we need to see him hit guys who can actually get quality breaking stuff over for strikes, and he won’t find that until AA. But until then, I think it’s OK to be very encouraged by his performance at WV.
Well, yeah.
I’m happy to see him doing well, too. It’s much better to have him do well than struggle.
I just don’t think his success thus far is as significant as some people here seem to think that it is.
Maybe my irrational exuberance detector is broken, but I don’t think I’ve seen too many people here drinking Sanchez-flavored koolaid. He’s doing very well now at an age-appropriate level, which is encouraging, but most people seem to have about the right perspective on him so far.
I would agree
Most reports seemed to have Sanchez as having a great glove and an average at best, but, more likely below average bat (the Yadier Molina correlations). I think his current success has given a lot of people hope that there’s at least a possibility he develops an above average bat (for a catcher). For me, if he develops into a Molina clone, I’ll be satisfied with that pick. But if he could replicate what Molina is doing this year (.294/.365/.382), with maybe a little more power, I would be ecstatic.
I've actually seen some moving of the goalposts there.
The glove has generally been decribed by scouts as above-average, but that’s not the same thing as GG, which is the descriptor that gets thrown around here a lot. And the bat estimation sometimes gets a similar boost in casual description.
Which is why I think people here are overstating the case for him. They’re making him sound like a guy with an above-average ceiling, by stretching both his offensive and defensive estimates.
He’s not ranting on the Bucs for signing a lower number of picks which makes this the Worst Draft Evah!
by Gorkys n' Beans on Aug 18, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions
As I mentioned last night...
the CBA expires at the end of next season. Jayson Stark wrote a fairly lengthy article today about possible changes in the draft process for the next CBA.
Illogical
Stark chastizes the owners rationale for barring trades of draft picks because it would allow the Boras’s of the world to manipulate the draft. Stark says that Boras already manipulates the draft, so the logic of the no-trade rule is shot.
I don’t think so.
Earlier in the article he talks about he near inevitability of a slotting system that would determine draft pick compensation. If compensation is no longer negotiable, the Boras’s of the world will lose the significant majority of their leverage.
Am I missing something?
By the way, if a mandatory slotting system is coming, it seems to me the Bucs had best continue to take advantage of the current system while they can. They’ll need a new trick if slotting becomes mandatory, which, by the way, seems to me like a good thing for the sport.
Good day.
I disagree, I think the way we are “wrecking” the current system is good. the slotting system keeps cost to sign down, similar to a rookie cap would. We aren’t raising the bar of the whole draft, we are bucking the system of players being in multiple drafts until they get high enough to get their money. I think our behavior will be repeated by another team or two eventually and then teams will have to take seriously where they draft and pass on guys more than now.
College Baseball might suffer, but I think our methodology should be watched and not condoned, but allowed as long as overall draft spending for the team doing it stays in a reasonable boundary. For example if we outspent the Nats I would say they need to not let us do it ever again. As it is we sacrificed at the top to gain at the bottom, I think it would be good for baseball.
by Phantaskippy on Aug 19, 2009 3:00 AM EDT up reply actions
I have no idea
what you just said.
Good day.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Pitcher Clayton Richard gets key pinch single in 13th after coming in 0 for 16
- Livan Hernandez welcomes ball boy to the bigs with shower of sunflower seeds (VIDEO)
- Man beaten by four others in Dodger Stadium parking lot
- Lance Berkman’s knee injury creates a lot of questions for Cards but also his career
- Next generation: Scott Van Slyke, son of Andy Van Slyke, hits first career homer
