The Importance of the Draft - A New Philosophy
by SloshyJ on Jun 22, 2010 3:40 PM EDT
Email
PrintI'm floating this idea from a philosophical stand point - essentially, if an alien from another planet looked at the Pirates' predicament, how would he (it?) recommend we move forward independent of any human emotions or hang-ups familiar to sports fans. Here's what I see him (it?) saying:
"Any expenditure by a basement dwelling team without talent in its system, intended to serve near term goals and not designed to serve the team's long term goals, are actually antithetical to improvement due to the MLB draft system rewarding the worst W-L teams the best pick.
"I would rather the owner pocket that money than negatively impact the team's chances at future (immediate) high draft picks. That goes for just about every free agent veteran on the team currently: Bobby Crosby, Iwamura, Dotel and Donnelly. It goes doubly true for free agents like Adam Dunn circa 2008, who could have cost the Pirates the 2nd pick in the 2010 draft in exchange for 2 years of above average production.
"Exceptions in my mind can and should be made for bounce-back players acquired cheaply, especially when they may be retained for a longer period of time, and of course the advancement of prospects, as they can not be counted on to succeed, and if they do, are certainly worth the trade off in drafting status.
"That this goes against competitiveness in baseball is besides the point. That the Pirates are probably forced by MLB to spend money on veterans is besides the point. Acquisition of high end prospect talent should be the team's primary goal. Given the circumstances, and with a goal of systemic change, it is exceedingly the best way to go.
"While I am not calling for intentionally losing, any effort to stem the losing in the short term with external assets should be considered anti-future.
"Once prospects are acquired and the team is poised to be successful, the inclusion of high-paid free agents and trades for established players to augment prospects is advisable - needed even - and the trade off of losing high draft picks is sustained winning. When winning ceases, revert to efforts to attain high draft picks.
Any thoughts on this?
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.
20 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Actually
we would not have lost the 2nd overall pick. The first 15 picks are protected and the Reds would have gotten a comp round pick.
Still would have been a silly signing though.
Sloshy-J....
I would love a hit of whatever you are smoking…..
But, Schide’s point is salient – this is essentially the Buccos plan, as well as many other smaller-market squads. While they would never say they would rather lose to get higher draft-picks, or want to……practically speaking, that is what bad (awful) teams usually end up doing.
Let’s be honest: If TB didn’t suck for 8-9 years, they don’t get to the World Serie in YR 10, because they don’t get that many high picks. The difference between them and us? They drafted well…….we didn’t.
So, when Bob Smizik says ‘the plan’ is the same in everyone’s camp, he isn’t correct. You can have the same draft-picks….but, if you prefer safe/college players that project as #4 starters, or in Moskos case, Relievers, you will get essentially what our pitching staff is currently: a bunch of #4/#5 starters, who routinely get knocked around. Instead, like the Rays, if you prefer high-upside, best player available, not-afraid-to-spend-money on prospects…..well, you get the Ray’s major league team, as well as their system full of prospects.
Puff….puff.
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Jun 22, 2010 5:07 PM EDT reply actions
Cabrera
But, Schide’s point is salient – this is essentially the Buccos plan, as well as many other smaller-market squads. While they would never say they would rather lose to get higher draft-picks, or want to……practically speaking, that is what bad (awful) teams usually end up doing.
What leads you to believe that, particularly what is in bold? Changing sports, it is widely accepted that the Penguins tanked their way to the first pick that allowed them to lay claim to Mario. Without that pick, there are no Pittsburgh Penguins. I know its hockey not baseball, but the point remains. In fact, that is the reason for the lottery in both hockey and basketball, to prevent blatant tanking. If it wasn’t an issue or a reality, the rule wouldn’t exist.
That’s why I’m a huge advocate of swapping as many players we won’t need for the future as soon as possible, including guys like Doumit, Maholm, Duke, Dotel, and even Ohlendorf and maybe even Jones. Even if the package in return isn’t that great it would help accomplish three additional feats for a total of four (the first being getting prospects via trade).
1. Free up space/playing time for guys we have control over, at least for a while. This would allow us to figure out what we have and maybe build value for future trades. Guys that come to mind are Morton (if he’s ready), LaRoche, Milledge, Pearce, D. McCutchen, Hayden Penn, Brandon Moss, etc. It’s not like we are in the playoff race right now.
2. Speaking of a race, we are, in fact, in a race for last place, and (most likely) Anthony Rendon next year. Obviously selecting him first right now would be premature, but since when was being able to pick first less than optimal. By moving our tradeable older players, we would (more than likely) get worse rather than better. Right now, call me crazy, I literally root for a bucco loss and Baltimore (along with Houston and Cleveland among others) is/are my new favorite team(s). Of course, I still want our core to play well and build confidence, Cutch, Walker, Tabata, Lincoln, and Alvarez especially.
3. Finally, it will save some money, which is probably the last thing the average Pirate fan wants to hear, but I believe in and trust the ownership and GM (although I will admit they make mistakes, Aki Iwamura and I’m still scratching my head at acquiring Dana Eveland) and more money saved will hopefully mean more money spent in player development, the draft, LA, and FA’s down the road.
Ultimately, I know its unlikely to happen, but I’ll continue to dream and certainly won’t get mad at another “fire sale” if it happens, regardless if Pittsburgh literally gets burned down in the process. Long term, I think its in the Pirate’s best interest.
The only caveat I will admit to having is that if NH believes the Pirates will be ready next year, he could move the opposite direction and buy a few players, both in trades (Stephen Drew) and FA during the offseason. I wouldn’t object totally, but I would be less than thrilled, believing that to be a sacrifice of the future.
Added note : Part of me believes all the questionable (or at least some of them) decisions made during games (i.e. batting Church here, etc.) is a way of trying to lose games that is in some way pre-mediated. Putting it like that makes it sound like murder, but I approve (well, not of murder of course)
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jun 22, 2010 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with a lot of what you say....
However, my big problem, at least practically speaking, is your #2. When you say you are rooting for our core to play well and develop…..a lot of that will inevitably mean that we are winning more games than we have. I figure we are going to lose our share, simply based on our pitching staff, so I kind of want it in-between – lose a bunch, but not too much.
Regarding Rendon, yeah, he is the consensus #1. But, in reality, even if we pick as low as 5th or 6th (not likely, as our SP staff is horrendous), we are still going to get a good player. While I won’t be ‘pissed’ if we end up losing the most, and, hence, getting Rendon, I still would like to see some improvement in the W/L column….maybe due to my competitive nature. I just can’t root for my team to lose…at least not until the last week where it really ‘matters’ (as in, I can see we need to lose one more game than the Orioles-matter).
But, a lot of what you say is true….I don’t disagree a bit.
Good stuff, Truth.
by CabreraKilledMyChildhood on Jun 22, 2010 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions
However, my big problem, at least practically speaking, is your #2. When you say you are rooting for our core to play well and develop…..a lot of that will inevitably mean that we are winning more games than we have. I figure we are going to lose our share, simply based on our pitching staff, so I kind of want it in-between – lose a bunch, but not too much.
A simply unavoidable cause of the Orioles’ dead-last position, is the fact that their young core of Wieters, Jones, Reimold, Tillman, and others have played like garbage and not developed like the top talents they were supposed to be. Adam Jones is turning around lately, but the others have still been very questionable.
Their position in the 2011 draft has come at the cost of a .613 OPS for former uber-prospect Matt Wieters at the halfway point. Unfortunately, we can’t really ignore that elephant in the room.
If Cutch and Alvarez play like superstars and Tabata is a well above-average everyday player, then we just don’t lose more games from here out than teams like Houston or Cleveland with very little talent, or the mightily struggling Orioles.
If we’re asking Alvarez and Tabata to tank this year and then suddenly become superstars afterward, then those are some strange things to ask for that are hard to do.
by Adam Reynolds on Jun 22, 2010 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions
True
If we’re asking Alvarez and Tabata to tank this year and then suddenly become superstars afterward, then those are some strange things to ask for that are hard to do.
I completely agree, and I don’t think anyone is calling for our prospects – the guys we’ve acquired by picking high in the draft – to tank. I think it’s about the transition years we’ve experienced in 2008 and 2009, before they came up.
Why bring in Bobby Crosby and Ryan Church? Or Iwamura? Or Dotel? Are we signing these veterans because the Pirates have made some deal with Bud to throw some of the revenue sharing dollars at aging vets? Luckily, these players haven’t radically changed our futures. But if this was last year, and they all performed magic, could we hope to contend? Not bloody likely… and the effect would be picking 6th instead of 2nd. Goodbye Jameson Taillon. Hello Barrett Loux.
Before you call up those prospects, there have been chances to embrace our crapiness and acquire talent. We never did, really, bringing in temporary talent that kept us from 100-loss seasons. This may be our last season to put ourselves in the position to get franchise-changing talent. Hopefully Cutch, Pedro and others take off offensively, and even with a poor rotation, we’ll be picking 10th or higher in 2012.
Even in the best-case scenario, Crosby, Church, Iwamura, and Dotel were going to add very little, with Crosby and Church in particular looking like possible sub-replacement level candidates even when signed.
What hurt us, in hindsight, was not dumping every productive player from the 07 team in the 2007 offseason.
by Adam Reynolds on Jun 22, 2010 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions
they didnt have that much value
in the 07 offseason!
iwamura, had he played to career averages, should have been a hot commodity on the trade market right now. I totally saw Iwamura as a solid trade candidate when he was acquired.
“hot commodity” is of course exaggeration, but there should have been teams willing to give up a decent prospect for him
As you contemplate that return...
… the idea of “decent return” had Iwamura played to career averages… is that return from his trade worth drafting 7th instead of 4th? Or 5th instead of 2nd? Or even 1st?
The justification for the acquisition of Dotel and Iwamura, as with all veterans, has been the potential to “flip them for prospects,” but those prospects can never measure up to the potential upside of a top-2 draft pick.
thats not what I m saying
the team and the FO has some responsibility toward putting up an ML quality team. For a rebuilding team with genuine prospects, they should be trying to find playing time for their prospects, and going young at those positions. However, the Pirates did not have any legit options at 2B and they were facing with having to go (Delwyn) young at 2B. Suddenly, a pretty decent 2B fell into their lap, and they were right to take him.
But its not easy to predict what position the team would be in at any given point. While Iwamura would be solid, he wouldn’t be more than 2.5 WAR likely, and Dotel would likely be about 1 WAR. That’s not a big difference in the standings (maybe 1 spot) at that level, but you need someone to play positions who can pass as MLB players!
by BurgherKing on Jun 23, 2010 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions
Why?
That’s not a big difference in the standings (maybe 1 spot) at that level, but you need someone to play positions who can pass as MLB players!
See, that’s why my alien from outer space is so smart. He isn’t hung up on such notions. His primary goal is getting the Pirates to be competitive again as fast as possible.
At the heart of our 18-years of losing seasons is the patchwork nature of rent-a-vets. Why couldn’t Young have played 2B? Or if that hole was likely following the departure of Sanchez, why wasn’t Walker moved there in 2008? The point is, there are always internal options if you get over the concept of needing to field a team that can “pass as MLB players.”
Thankfully, and perhaps its ironic, but Iwamura provided us the sort of not-quite-ready-for-MLB production that may allow us to compete for Rendon. The offense will improve, but the roatation sucks out loud. I’d hate to see us go out and acquire a SP at the trade deadline, for example. Let’s go after Rendon.
Man, I couldn't agree more
While we’d (and the alien) would be remiss if we ignored the effects of morale and psychological factors, such as the effect it would have if young players continuously experienced losing, I think the entire notion is somewhat overblown.
You could easily argue that players will instead be more motivated by losing than they would be mediocre success. It’s hard to predict.
Therefore, at least in my opinion (and seemingly our alien and SloshyJ’s) the best way to improve our team would be securing the best draft pick possible, obviously with the ultimate goal as the #1 pick. Regardless if its Rendon or someone else, you can maximize value and get the best player if no one picks in front of you. It can never really be a bad thing. In addition, I see no reason why we shouldn’t be setting ourselves up to make a run at the #1 pick, both morally and logically.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jun 23, 2010 8:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Morale & psychological factors...
I’m glad you bring this up, because I’ve been criticized elsewhere for this philosophy, and it usually goes back to something like this:
“Wait, Garrett Jones has an 11 game hit streak, better bench him so we have a chance at Rendon…” And it’s said facetiously, mocking the idea. I am not advocating for standing in the way of prospects making an impact. That’s the whole goal. I do think the team architect (GM) should spend time considering the timing of such decision, and not just for the purposes of putting off arbitration, ie: am I accumulating talent that can be brought together at a similar time (say, over 2 years) to allow for maximum impact? When McCutchen was brought up, I think it started that clock. So, decisions should be made to acquire talent that will compliment the “core.”
Signing Adam Dunn after the 2008 season, for example, wouldn’t have served that philosophy. He signed for 2 years, $20 million. By the end of those two years, the plan says we’re only just bringing up Lincoln, Alvarez, Walker (thankfully) and Tabata. Dunn provided nothing but “empty” offense, during a time when that offense was actually counter productive toward acquiring draft talent.
If the team “loses” during that stretch of prospects being given a shot, they lose on their own steam, which is psychologically better than losing your spot in the starting lineup to Ryan Church, or Aki Iwamura, only to watch them suck. It develops a team, and win or lose, those roles are defined. In other words, I don’t think losing is as psychologically damaging to the prospects when the team is intentionally handed over to the youngins. But I don’t have anything to back that up.
I want to be clear, though, that I’m not advocating for benching players who are performing well. If the design is right, those players should be young performers you hope will develop as opposed to Adam “$12 million and gone next year” Dunn.
Can you tell I’ve been in another forum talking about Adam Dunn? I have…
Exactly...
Speaking of a race, we are, in fact, in a race for last place, and (most likely) Anthony Rendon next year.
In contemplating this situation, the space alien would likely suggest exactly this – Rendon appears to be, like Alvarez, a franchise-changing player. Why wouldn’t a fan of the Pirates want them to have a chance at him, in exchange for empty wins that are meaningless in the grand scheme of sustained winning?
Consider the Nationals in 2008, who signed Adam Dunn following a 100-loss season in 2008. While some would champion the signing, saying it is a commitment by the team’s ownership to improving whatever way they could, consider what might have happened had their pitching even been slightly better in 2009 – had they won just a few more games, they would have lost a chance at Harper. That they got the #1 pick in back-to-back seasons, acquiring franchise-changing talent in Strasburg and Harper, will be pointed at as “the” defining moment for the Nationals. Signing empty free agents in 2007 and 2008 could have given them a few extra wins, and #8 draft picks. They would continue to be mired in mediocrity.
The fact is, the Pirates haven’t been bad enough over the last 15 years. We’ve only had the first overall pick once. Had the team ever been truly committed to losing – not signing Sanders or Burnitz for example – we might have accumulated more talent.
It’s largely a theoretical approach. Cabrera, I’m glad to find someone else who thinks as I do. This is a pretty great forum. Looking forward to posting here more often…
Wanting the Pirates to lose more for the last two drafts – sure.
(Although, to be clear. There’s not some sort of massive gulf between the upside of Harper and Taillon. They are both huge upside players. Especially accounting for that Harper won’t have much defensive value. Strasburg vs. Sanchez is 100x worse for the Bucs than Harper vs. Taillon.)
Now that the band is finally together, though, it is a different matter. It is hard for them to produce a lot of runs and for we to suck.
by Adam Reynolds on Jun 22, 2010 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions
And just add
to why I think the #1 pick is so valuable and to semi-refute
Regarding Rendon, yeah, he is the consensus #1. But, in reality, even if we pick as low as 5th or 6th (not likely, as our SP staff is horrendous), we are still going to get a good player. While I won’t be ‘pissed’ if we end up losing the most, and, hence, getting Rendon, I still would like to see some improvement in the W/L column….maybe due to my competitive nature.
(no offense and nothing personal)
From an earlier post by me, some crude but valuable data.
These stats are since 1965, when the June Amateur draft started.
WAR/#1 overall drat pick – 17.9
WAR/#2 overall draft pick – 11.9
WAR/#3 overall draft pick – 12.0
WAR/#4 overall drat pick – 13.6
WAR/#5 overall draft pick – 9.2
Thats a big gap between the highest (WAR/#1) and the second highest (WAR/#4), who’s number is close to WAR/#2 and WAR/#3.
To put it in better context, since 1965 is a long time ago, I did the WAR/#1, #2, #3 starting in 1990 and cut it off in 2005 (to make sure players have had time to reach the majors and fulfill at least some of their potential)
WAR/#1 – 19.10
WAR/#2 – 10.425 (lets hope Pedro helps bring that up)
WAR/#3 – A dismal 3.79
Now these numbers, except for the first, are (and should be) lower than the total numbers because it uses accumlated WAR instead of WAR/year. As such, many players with “low” WARs who are very good right now should finish with much higher ones once their career is over. Still, because everything was gauged on equal footing, (the time span viewed 1990-2005) the numbers listed immediately above are relevant to each other.
Pretty much, I want the 1# overall draft pick
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jun 23, 2010 1:26 AM EDT reply actions
=== http://www.ccshoper.com ===
Hello, summer, good place for shopping, fashion, sexy, personality, maturity, from here to begin. Are you ready?
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
New era cap $15
Bikini (Ed hardy) $25
=== http://www.ccshoper.com ====
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
