Coonelly: Maybe We Won't Draft the Best Player

by Charlie on Mar 4, 2008 7:43 PM EST in News Comment 25 comments

The Philly Inquirer writes about the Bucs, and not for positive reasons. One very interesting quote (italics mine):

"We'll pay attention to the slot, but we'll take the best available player that we believe we have a chance to sign," Coonelly said. "If we think a player's value is over the slot, we'd certainly consider it."

No. No no no no no. I'm calling you out on this one, Coonelly. In late January you said this at PirateFest:

Stressing each syllable when asked if the Pirates "honestly" will draft the best available player at No. 2 overall in June: "I'll say it again: We are going to select the best player. This organization has been criticized in the past for not doing that. We are going to do it."

That's it. You said it, with no qualifiers and no ambiguity. No BS about the slotting system. Anyone will sign with the Pirates if they pay enough. So which is it, Mr. Coonelly? Are you going to pony up for some real baseball players, or aren't you?

0 recs | Comment 25 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Marvellous

The italicized quote is almost word-for-word what DL used to say.

Meet the new boss . . . .

by WTM on Mar 4, 2008 9:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Oh, come on, you're reaching

It's really a stretch when you ... Aw, crap. Cue RichieHebner. God I hate this flippin' team.

by azibuck on Mar 4, 2008 9:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Consider

Coonelly is acutely aware that this is a big issue with the fan base. I guarantee you he's also aware that Scott Boras is Pedro Alvarez' agent. A lot of times I'd look at pronouncements like this as meaningless cliches, but I don't doubt he's choosing his words very carefully on this subject.

I also find interesting the difference between what he tells the Philly paper and what he tells the PG.

by WTM on Mar 4, 2008 9:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you are reading it incorrectly

To me it seems as if he is saying that he is willing to pay above the value assigned to the draft slot if the player is worth it. The article mentions the way that the Yanks and BoSox bust the slot recommendations and then poses the question whether the Pirates would be willing to do the same, to which he said that he would be.

That's my take at least.
I look at it as a good thing...though I'd have to see it to believe it.

by Mike on Mar 4, 2008 9:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure you're reading closely enough

He's not saying he'd be willing to bust the slot recommendation, he said he'd "consider" it. And he clearly points to signability in the part Charlie italicized. Those are two (rather huge) qualifiers that pretty clearly indicate they won't necessarily draft "the best player".

by azibuck on Mar 5, 2008 8:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mike's take

I tend to agree with Mike's take. Though a bit confused by "slot" speak, I read into the quote that he will pay above "slot" value.
As an aside, I consider myself to be a fairly knowlegeable fan, and while I understand what I believe to be the concept I am not aware of a body of work addressing this issue of "slot" recommendations.

by meandterry on Mar 5, 2008 10:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

signability

I think the August 15 deadline is helpful as far as signability. Wieters probably would not have signed until fall or even later if Boras thought waiting could have resulted in a bigger bonus.

The Bucs should take the best player and not worry about signability, the players who are that highly rated will sign.

If they miscalculate and they don't sign him they might end up with first pick in 2009 along with the 3rd (with Giants picking second).

by ECBucs on Mar 5, 2008 10:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Aw, crap.

I would've rather seen a headline about Jason Bay being arrested in a cannibal murder spree.

This is awful. The 2008 draft is going to be the draft that determines whether we manage to assemble a supporting cast around McCutchen before he reaches free agency. If they blow this, we can probably kick any hypothetical successful rebuilding project down the road for another three or four years.

by Vlad on Mar 5, 2008 11:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I wrote to Dejan

I asked whether he could try and get a "clarification" from Coonelly. That'd give him an opportunity to retract, if he wants it.

We need to push back hard on this. They'll take as much rope as we're willing to give them.

by Vlad on Mar 5, 2008 12:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Cue Richie Hebner

To what end? I wanted to be wrong about all of this. There isn't much joy in saying I told you so, especially given Vlad's description of what we are facing. It is frustrating beyond words. Hopefully, he will jump on the opportunity to retract. I am sending Dejan a note as well.

by RichieHebner on Mar 5, 2008 3:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Coonelly chat at the mothership

http://pittsburgh.pirates.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080305&content_id=2406817&vkey=spt2 008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=pit

Some good stuff there. Starting with the salient issue:

ian_smuth: You may have already discussed this, but regarding the amateur draft, how much will signability determine the player that the Pirates select?

Coonelly: Very good question, ian_smuth. Regretably, signability has been a principal factor for many clubs as they evaluate players in the Draft. What the Pirates will do going forward is select the best player available who we believe will help us build the championship-caliber teams we are trying to build. No one can ignore inflated demands by agents or players, but we will not allow signability to dictate our decision making.

That answer is more wordy than I'd have liked, and he still needs to address his comments to the Philly paper.

I loved this:

signdante: How many home runs will the "change in atmosphere" hit this season? And will it be suitable protection for Jason Bay in the middle of the lineup?

Coonelly: signdante, I detect some sarcasm in your question ...

Littlefield's people never would have made up a question like that.

by azibuck on Mar 5, 2008 4:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Pretty good chat.

I'm amused by the response to the "rebuilding" question. He's right that you can't re-build if you haven't built anything in the first place; we're kind of the Ryugyong Hotel of MLB right now.

by Vlad on Mar 5, 2008 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

oh wow

that "change in atmosphere" question made me laugh out loud.

nice one signdante.

by johnnycuff on Mar 5, 2008 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I asked Dejan about the signability thing...

...and I put a summary of his response on my blog.

by Vlad on Mar 5, 2008 4:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hmph.

Which has been semi-mooted by the chat. Oh well.

by Vlad on Mar 5, 2008 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Much ado about nothing.....

Seriously, do we need to critique every word that management says and then give our take and make a final judgment? Come on, this is getting ridiculous. We will see what happens in June. But we all agree if Alvarez demanded a major league contract and $8 million bonus we shouldn't take him. There are limits. Let's just see what happens rather than rendering final judgment based on an interview in a Philly paper in March.

by dtoddwin on Mar 5, 2008 5:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't know...

...that I'd necessarily agree with that. Bonuses go up every year, after all, and with Alvarez being a polished college product the ML deal probably wouldn't be an issue. You take him, and you see whether you can talk him down to the $6M that Wieters got, plus a ML deal. God knows we wouldn't have much trouble finding space for him on the 40-man...

It's important to push back on management's comments like this one because management is only going to take as much rope as we're willing to give them. If we the fans make it known that they can prevaricate with impunity, they'll never give us a straight answer about anything. If we let them speculate about cutting costs on bonuses, then we won't be able to keep them from actually doing it when the time comes.

by Vlad on Mar 5, 2008 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think....

you are giving the fan base too much credit.

Also, do you expect Connolly to come out and say we will pay whatever it costs no matter what? We will take the best player and pay the price? That doesn't exactly help you come negotiation time. Basically the guy said there are some limits. What's the big deal? It's pretty clear the Bucs are going to take one of four player in Alvarez, Smoak, and the two high school kids if things play out the same way over the next three months. And I'm sure they will sign him. I don't know why Connollly needs to sound like he'll open the vault just to make some guys like us feel good. If they don't pay up in June then we can bitch like hell.

by dtoddwin on Mar 5, 2008 6:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

False dichotomy.

He doesn't have to say anything at all about money. If he just says that we'll take the best player and leaves it at that, everybody's happy. Hell, he can say nothing at all about money to us and bluster in private with agents. That's fine, too.

The problem here is that he came out in public and provided a reason for the team to not take the best available player at a time when he had no compelling need to do so. Coonelly is, by all accounts, a pretty sharp guy, and guys like that don't just do things for no reason. It's like the rule in theater about how the gun that's displayed in the first act is fired in the third. There's no earthly reason for him to start talking about restricting draft selections based on signability... unless he want to give himself an "out" to do exactly that further down the road.

Thus we, in turn, need to take steps to let him know that we won't stand for it.

by Vlad on Mar 5, 2008 8:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not so fast

But we all agree if Alvarez demanded a major league contract and $8 million bonus we shouldn't take him.

I sure don't agree. If his ceiling is what the scouts are saying, this would be a reasonable deal. IIRC, that's $3M less than what they've committed to Freddy Sanchez, and nobody batted an eye. Freddy is a roughly average regular 2B. Alvarez is potentially a franchise player. Even though there's no guarantee with him, there's also no guarantee that Freddy won't get hurt or decline. Alvarez is a greater risk, but the potential reward is far greater.

A major league contract would present no added risk. If he wasn't in the majors to stay within three years, that'd mean he wasn't going to become the player people project him to be.

by WTM on Mar 5, 2008 7:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I meant to add . . .

What Alvarez demands and what he'll get are two different things. DL played up the fact that Wieters was demanding $10M as a defense of the Moskos pick, but Wieters signed for $6M. People freak out when they hear the numbers Boras throws around because, for some odd reason, they assume he'll get whatever he demands. That almost never happens.

by WTM on Mar 5, 2008 7:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Okay....

I don't necessarily disagree. I meant to be a little more outrageous, so let's say he wanted $12 million. You at least have to think about whether that makes sense. I guess that was my point. Why should Connolly paint himself in to a corner where he has no negotiating leverage because for six months he goes on record as saying we will pay any amount?

In the larger context I just think we are analyzing every word a little too closely. But, hey, when Bay can't catch or field a ball and Dejan, Russell and Bay himself don't seem to think it matters, we might as well focus on this.

This high sky and sun thing is a crock. Guys really shouldn't lose balls. Sure it can happen, but the response, rather than I screwed up, was it happens down here. That's ridiculous.

by dtoddwin on Mar 5, 2008 7:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs