OT.....Pirates and Nutting

[levance2]

The Pirates used to be able to outspend the big market teams at the amateur level and gain an advantage there. Can't do that now, because they'll lose draft picks and the ability to spend over $300K for international players.

I definitely understand why the rule changes hurt the Pirates, but I do see some logic on the other side. The NBA instituted their "1-and-done" rule because their GMs were too dumb to draft high school players. If the system devolved into clubs paying big bucks to 18 year olds, and a team like the Pirates misses on a few of them, that could really destabilize things. A guy could basically dictate, "I'll only accept $4M bonus signing with the Yankees," and hold the rest of the league hostage (not all that different than Appel).

The Pirates were overpaying (intelligently) in an untapped area. Even without a rule change, other clubs would have caught on and been willing and able to spend more in a free market. It's no different than every team now employing "Moneyball" tactics and pretty much ending the edge the A's had. There was no inherent advantage that the Pirates had in those years, other than being ahead of the trend. If anything, Boston did them a favor by changing the rules, rather than just upping their own spending beyond the Pirates' potential.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

I definitely understand why the rule changes hurt the Pirates, but I do see some logic on the other side. The NBA instituted their "1-and-done" rule because their GMs were too dumb to draft high school players. If the system devolved into clubs paying big bucks to 18 year olds, and a team like the Pirates misses on a few of them, that could really destabilize things. A guy could basically dictate, "I'll only accept $4M bonus signing with the Yankees," and hold the rest of the league hostage (not all that different than Appel).

The Pirates were overpaying (intelligently) in an untapped area. Even without a rule change, other clubs would have caught on and been willing and able to spend more in a free market. It's no different than every team now employing "Moneyball" tactics and pretty much ending the edge the A's had. There was no inherent advantage that the Pirates had in those years, other than being ahead of the trend. If anything, Boston did them a favor by changing the rules, rather than just upping their own spending beyond the Pirates' potential.

I think the only issue with that, though, is that kids never really held anybody hostage until the new draft rules took place.

Mark Appel, as you mentioned, was unable to be signed by the Pirates because of their draft pool limitations. Daz Cameron was regarded as a Top 5-10 type pick last year, and fell all the way to the 2nd round because he threw out a massive number for his bonus demands and essentially made it impossible for all but 3 or 4 teams to realistically draft him and sign him within the constraints of their bonus pool.

If anything, teams are being held hostage more now than they were previously. In the past, sure, a kid could say "I'm only signing with the Yankees and it needs to be a $4MM bonus" -- but as we saw Josh Bell you can still take that kid and say "alright, here's $6MM to sign, I dare you to turn it down and do better next year (or in 3 years) when you re-enter the draft".

Under the new CBA, if a kid says "I'm only signing for $4MM", then there are teams with no choice but to pass on him because they legitimately cannot afford him. At least give teams a chance to decide whether the price tag on a kid is too prohibitive to draft him.

Generally, I think leaving the draft alone would have been better because it at least gave teams the opportunity to choose how much or how little they wanted to spend. The larger market teams didn't want to spend, because there's more risk and there's a delayed gratification that a larger market team isn't going to want to wait on.

 

[levance2]

Generally, I think leaving the draft alone would have been better because it at least gave teams the opportunity to choose how much or how little they wanted to spend. The larger market teams didn't want to spend, because there's more risk and there's a delayed gratification that a larger market team isn't going to want to wait on.

I understand what you are saying, but they were only doing it because there had been no prior "disruption" to the system. As soon as the Pirates strategy proved to be successful, the Yankees could say, "We're pledging to spend $75M per year in the draft. Pittsburgh can suck it." And there would be nothing the Pirates could do about it.

I think what you are describing with guys demanding unreasonable prices is just the noise of the system establishing itself. Some of those guys (like Appel) are going to wait a year and get more money. Some of those guys are going to get worse, or get injured, and regret the decision. Most of all, however, the agents are going to realize that they need to maximize their results for the given system. There's no reason for a draftee to demand $20M bonus if the result is nobody signs him. Players and agents are still trying to feel out the boundaries of what they can and can't get away with.

 

[mvk112]

By and large, the Pirates wasted a boatload of money in the draft. Sure, Josh Bell had a great weekend and may turn into a very good hitting 1B (the bar is pretty high for 1B though), but outside of Bell, they got nothing out of the big money ($750k+) guys in 2008 (Grossman, Q. Miller), 2009 (ZVR, Cain), 2010 (Allie), & 2011 (Clay Holmes).

The 2009 draft is historically bad, with an awful pick at #4 (justified by a segment of the fanbase as a good cost saving move to sign not only overslot guys, but also because they were sure to sign Miguel Sano) and none of their signings making an impact on their team. The best player they drafted, they didn't even sign.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

By and large, the Pirates wasted a boatload of money in the draft. Sure, Josh Bell had a great weekend and may turn into a very good hitting 1B (the bar is pretty high for 1B though), but outside of Bell, they got nothing out of the big money ($750k+) guys in 2008 (Grossman, Q. Miller), 2009 (ZVR, Cain), 2010 (Allie), & 2011 (Clay Holmes).

The 2009 draft is historically bad, with an awful pick at #4 (justified by a segment of the fanbase as a good cost saving move to sign not only overslot guys, but also because they were sure to sign Miguel Sano) and none of their signings making an impact on their team. The best player they drafted, they didn't even sign.

That money "wasted" though is still a drop in the bucket compared to the money wasted every year on even one free agent. All you need is a guy or two to hit within a draft class and the entire draft's spending budget is worth it in terms of on-field production. The only goal is to get as many lottery tickets into the system as possible, then hope that somebody works out.

I also think you're overlooking the main reason people were okay with the strategy they took in 2009 -- the 2009 Draft Class was regarded as one of the worst in the modern era, with Strasburg and Ackley the only 2 prospects that anybody had even an ounce of confidence in. There was no consensus "best player available" at even pick #3.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

I understand what you are saying, but they were only doing it because there had been no prior "disruption" to the system. As soon as the Pirates strategy proved to be successful, the Yankees could say, "We're pledging to spend $75M per year in the draft. Pittsburgh can suck it." And there would be nothing the Pirates could do about it.

I think what you are describing with guys demanding unreasonable prices is just the noise of the system establishing itself. Some of those guys (like Appel) are going to wait a year and get more money. Some of those guys are going to get worse, or get injured, and regret the decision. Most of all, however, the agents are going to realize that they need to maximize their results for the given system. There's no reason for a draftee to demand $20M bonus if the result is nobody signs him. Players and agents are still trying to feel out the boundaries of what they can and can't get away with.

I think in general there's probably some noise in terms of kids demanding big money and going back to school (especially with college kids), however, I think the HS kids demanding huge money is very much here to stay. It's been highly effective for them so far.

With college guys, the new system takes away almost all leverage.

 

[mvk112]

That money "wasted" though is still a drop in the bucket compared to the money wasted every year on even one free agent. All you need is a guy or two to hit within a draft class and the entire draft's spending budget is worth it in terms of on-field production. The only goal is to get as many lottery tickets into the system as possible, then hope that somebody works out.

I also think you're overlooking the main reason people were okay with the strategy they took in 2009 -- the 2009 Draft Class was regarded as one of the worst in the modern era, with Strasburg and Ackley the only 2 prospects that anybody had even an ounce of confidence in. There was no consensus "best player available" at even pick #3.

There's an excuse for everything with you, isn't there?

The publicity that they got for this (and still get for it) is ridiculous. Only an idiot would make them out to be big spenders for throwing $30m into 3 drafts (when they were picking top 4) while having a bottom 3 payroll.

That 2009 draft class might not have been the greatest, but they picked a kid at #4 who was rated very low in the first round or worse by all accounts (#32 by Baseball America). They could've taken college guys like Mike Leake (#14) or AJ Pollock (#23) or high school guys like Shelby Miller (#11) or Tyler Matzek (#8). Or maybe some kid from New Jersey named Mike Trout (#22).

But yeah, there wasn't anybody they could've picked at #4 that would've been worthy.

 

[TD_istheman]

I was told he was Nuttings grandson

 

[Pittbaseball11]

There's an excuse for everything with you, isn't there?

The publicity that they got for this (and still get for it) is ridiculous. Only an idiot would make them out to be big spenders for throwing $30m into 3 drafts (when they were picking top 4) while having a bottom 3 payroll.

That 2009 draft class might not have been the greatest, but they picked a kid at #4 who was rated very low in the first round or worse by all accounts (#32 by Baseball America). They could've taken college guys like Mike Leake (#14) or AJ Pollock (#23) or high school guys like Shelby Miller (#11) or Tyler Matzek (#8). Or maybe some kid from New Jersey named Mike Trout (#22).

But yeah, there wasn't anybody they could've picked at #4 that would've been worthy.

LOL. Come on, are we really going to get nitpicky on not picking the guys who turned out to be the best players out of what was viewed as a whole lot of crap?

The only expectations one should have for any draft is to take a rough approximation of the best player available, or to have a damn good reason for not doing it if they don't.

I'm not even going to get into the whole draft vs payroll spending. Those debates are just absurd, one is clearly more efficient than the other. However, it doesn't help much as a blanket to hold when trying to convince one's self that their team tried super hard after the randomness of the baseball playoffs claims another victim.

 

[mvk112]

LOL. Come on, are we really going to get nitpicky on not picking the guys who turned out to be the best players out of what was viewed as a whole lot of crap?

The only expectations one should have for any draft is to take a rough approximation of the best player available, or to have a damn good reason for not doing it if they don't.

I'm not even going to get into the whole draft vs payroll spending. Those debates are just absurd, one is clearly more efficient than the other. However, it doesn't help much as a blanket to hold when trying to convince one's self that their team tried super hard after the randomness of the baseball playoffs claims another victim.

They didn't draft the best player available, or even anything close to it. There were plenty of guys rated much higher than Sanchez (including Trout) that they could have taken with the pick that turned out to be productive MLB players. And they didn't have a good excuse for not picking a better player either.

It's one thing to take someone lower rated with the 20th pick or whatever Cole Tucker was, but the 4th pick you better hit on, at least to the point where he becomes a MLB player.

The Pirates 2009 draft was historically bad, and the excuse that there was nobody for them to take at #4 is an awful take on the situation. But not surprising considering the source.

 

[Delpanther]

Hi there. Pirates still winning. 1.5 out of the WC and 6.5 back from the Cubs. Still think I'm a silly eternal optimist?

Yes! The pitching is still a big mess.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

They didn't draft the best player available, or even anything close to it. There were plenty of guys rated much higher than Sanchez (including Trout) that they could have taken with the pick that turned out to be productive MLB players. And they didn't have a good excuse for not picking a better player either.

It's one thing to take someone lower rated with the 20th pick or whatever Cole Tucker was, but the 4th pick you better hit on, at least to the point where he becomes a MLB player.

The Pirates 2009 draft was historically bad, and the excuse that there was nobody for them to take at #4 is an awful take on the situation. But not surprising considering the source.

I mean, given their track record and the guys they took both subsequent to Sanchez and subsequent to the 2009 draft, I see no reason to play the results and question the process. It's not like any of the picks between 2 and 17 were particularly good -- Minor's been injured a ton, you got a couple of relievers, then a guy who's a back-end starter.

Their overslot signings in 2009 didn't work out, and it coincided with a historically bad draft class where literally nobody could come up with a solid "next tier" of players after Strasburg and Ackley. They've done well enough both in terms of drafting solid players/prospects and in terms of taking approximately the best player available that I see no reason to harp on 2009 incessantly, just like it would be stupid for an apologist to bring up 2011 incessantly. 2009 was a worst-case scenario, and 2011 is looking like a best-case scenario -- but the process isn't all that different.

It was the same basic process, it just yielded better results. There's no way to guarantee that any draft pick in MLB will be good, regardless of draft position. That's why the best strategy is just to get as many high upside, high quality players as possible -- the law of averages dictates that some of those guys are going to work out. You never put all your eggs in one basket.

It's why I care about process and not results. Look at these GMs with their trades and drafts and free agent decisions -- they're clearly not omniscient. They make mistakes, and they also have some moves that work out ridiculously well. In the basic sense, though, you could do something stupid and have it work out, but that doesn't make it any less stupid. It just means you got a lucky break. Over a prolonged period of time, somebody who consistently has a good process will have more success than somebody who consistently has a bad process.

More applicable to the Pirates -- over a prolonged period of time, the bad luck (2009 draft) will be balanced out by the good luck (2011 draft) and in general the basic process and its intentions will shine through.

 

[88Pitt88]

Well, I have heard the story that we are buyers and will be looking to add here at the deadline. I am interested in others opinions as to where we need to get better and more specifically who we might add that could help. I, for one, do not expect to be adding anything that would be remotely close to an impactful player. I expect maybe some middle relief type pitcher that could eat a few innings. Outside of pitching, I really don't see us doing a whole lot. Since we have a few young arms that seem ready, I don't think we will make a move for a starter either.

 

[Delpanther]

Well, I have heard the story that we are buyers and will be looking to add here at the deadline. I am interested in others opinions as to where we need to get better and more specifically who we might add that could help. I, for one, do not expect to be adding anything that would be remotely close to an impactful player. I expect maybe some middle relief type pitcher that could eat a few innings. Outside of pitching, I really don't see us doing a whole lot. Since we have a few young arms that seem ready, I don't think we will make a move for a starter either.

Charlie Morton may be available....he's a Nutting type pickup.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

Well, I have heard the story that we are buyers and will be looking to add here at the deadline. I am interested in others opinions as to where we need to get better and more specifically who we might add that could help. I, for one, do not expect to be adding anything that would be remotely close to an impactful player. I expect maybe some middle relief type pitcher that could eat a few innings. Outside of pitching, I really don't see us doing a whole lot. Since we have a few young arms that seem ready, I don't think we will make a move for a starter either.

They'll go bullpen and maybe a rental starting pitcher (Hellickson, Cashner if they think they can fix him). There aren't really any available upgrades in the lineup or on the bench. Most of the upgrades will be internal (Bell, Cervelli returning, maybe Moroff and Hanson get some time in September to earn a playoff roster spot).

 

[88Pitt88]

They'll go bullpen and maybe a rental starting pitcher (Hellickson, Cashner if they think they can fix him). There aren't really any available upgrades in the lineup or on the bench. Most of the upgrades will be internal (Bell, Cervelli returning, maybe Moroff and Hanson get some time in September to earn a playoff roster spot).

Sounds about right and would meet my expectations.

 

[PittPoker]

Harrison's been a total bust. Batting .202 since June 1, OPS is horrible -contract was a waste and have almost zero confidence every time he is up to bat cause he swings at everything. You would think with all the new money he got he would work in the offseason with a personal hitting coach to teach the man some damn plate discipline.

 

[NTOP]

Del, were you one of those fans that walked out in protest a few years back?

He's probably never been inside PNCPark.

 

[Delpanther]

He's probably never been inside PNCPark.

I've been to the park a number of times. Unlike you however I go to watch the game and not to get a free t- shirt and feed my face. Are you a fatty, by the way? I'm betting you are.

 

[NTOP]

I've been to the park a number of times. Unlike you however I go to watch the game and not to get a free t- shirt and feed my face. Are you a fatty, by the way? I'm betting you are.

I don't eat that junk. It's obvious you're about 80 lbs. of ego overweight. I'm not slim, BTW.

 

[Delpanther]

I don't eat that junk. It's obvious you're about 80 lbs. of ego overweight. I'm not slim, BTW.

Relax, I'm kidding with you. I'm sure you're a good guy "in person." Something about message boards....

 

[TD_istheman]

This page me laugh out loud , people are looking at me like I'm crazy at work.

We need a nice bat , and a starting pitcher for sure, a bullpen arm wouldn't hurt either. Anxiously waiting to see what gets done here.

 

[mvk112]

I mean, given their track record and the guys they took both subsequent to Sanchez and subsequent to the 2009 draft, I see no reason to play the results and question the process. It's not like any of the picks between 2 and 17 were particularly good -- Minor's been injured a ton, you got a couple of relievers, then a guy who's a back-end starter.

Don't excuse them for taking a guy at #4 overall that wasn't projected to even be a first round pick because others in some arbitrary range weren't great either.

But AJ Pollock has been really good, Mike Leake has been pretty good, it'd still be nice to have Zachary Wheeler or Drew Storen.

But again, Sanchez was rated #32 overall, the process told them to pick this guy at #4 overall. That's just dumb, when kids like Shelby Miller (#11), Mike Trout (#22), and AJ Pollock (#23) were available.

The process sucked, it produced a historically bad draft for a team picking #4 overall.

I suppose you agreed with David Todd this offseason when he said Giancarlo Stanton wouldn't be enough of a return for Jim Benedict. Pirates bloggers, and fans that excuse everything NH does, are some of the dimmest people on earth.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

Don't excuse them for taking a guy at #4 overall that wasn't projected to even be a first round pick because others in some arbitrary range weren't great either.

But AJ Pollock has been really good, Mike Leake has been pretty good, it'd still be nice to have Zachary Wheeler or Drew Storen.

But again, Sanchez was rated #32 overall, the process told them to pick this guy at #4 overall. That's just dumb, when kids like Shelby Miller (#11), Mike Trout (#22), and AJ Pollock (#23) were available.

The process sucked, it produced a historically bad draft for a team picking #4 overall.

I suppose you agreed with David Todd this offseason when he said Giancarlo Stanton wouldn't be enough of a return for Jim Benedict. Pirates bloggers, and fans that excuse everything NH does, are some of the dimmest people on earth.

I don't follow anything Pittsburgh media related. They all suck.

And, again, you don't put all your eggs in one pick/basket or evaluate things off of one pick.

The overall process, as it's always been, was to get as many solidly rated players as possible and play the law of averages that a couple will work out.

They didn't go cheap, they didn't overdraft a guy because he was local, they didn't specifically avoid dealing with a certain agent. I suppose the worst you can say is that they clearly were drafting based on need, but then, how do you even define BPA when the entire draft board after Strasburg and Ackley is just a dung heap?

You're really just using a ton of hindsight in this thread.

 

[mvk112]

I don't follow anything Pittsburgh media related. They all suck.

And, again, you don't put all your eggs in one pick/basket or evaluate things off of one pick.

The overall process, as it's always been, was to get as many solidly rated players as possible and play the law of averages that a couple will work out.

They didn't go cheap, they didn't overdraft a guy because he was local, they didn't specifically avoid dealing with a certain agent. I suppose the worst you can say is that they clearly were drafting based on need, but then, how do you even define BPA when the entire draft board after Strasburg and Ackley is just a dung heap?

You're really just using a ton of hindsight in this thread.

You're clearly excusing them for punting on the 2008 draft, just as you excuse them for punting on this past offseason.

Saying they should have drafted someone rated higher than #32 at pick #4 isn't hindsight, it's common sense. Picking somebody better at #4 wouldn't preclude them from taking good players in later rounds still. It's a pretty stupid defense of the front office and especially the GM.

They drafted a low upside guy at #4 and played up some BS about his defense, which turned out to be the worst part of his game, the sole reason why he's never going to be a MLB catcher.

Calling a draft that had Mike Trout, AJ Pollock, Mike Leake, Randal Grichuk, Shelby Miller, etc. drafted after the Pirates drafted a player rated #32 with the 4th overall pick a pile of dung heap is disingenuous at best.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

You're clearly excusing them for punting on the 2008 draft, just as you excuse them for punting on this past offseason.

Saying they should have drafted someone rated higher than #32 at pick #4 isn't hindsight, it's common sense. Picking somebody better at #4 wouldn't preclude them from taking good players in later rounds still. It's a pretty stupid defense of the front office and especially the GM.

They drafted a low upside guy at #4 and played up some BS about his defense, which turned out to be the worst part of his game, the sole reason why he's never going to be a MLB catcher.

Calling a draft that had Mike Trout, AJ Pollock, Mike Leake, Randal Grichuk, Shelby Miller, etc. drafted after the Pirates drafted a player rated #32 with the 4th overall pick a pile of dung heap is disingenuous at best.

LOL. Captain Hindsight coming back strong, once again.

The 2009 Draft is still referenced by pundits in the context of "this class isn't quite as strong as 2005/2011 on paper, but it's still worlds better than the 2009 class on paper". It was a terrible, terrible draft on draft day.

You keep harping on picking Sanchez at #4 when he was ranked #32 -- okay. What do you say about picking the guys ranked #41 (Von Rosenberg) and #50 (Black) as well? That's 3 Top 50 prospects out of a class that was considered to have a grand total of 2 exceptional talents. How is that not their exact strategy/process pretty much every year?

Okay, they missed on Sanchez, but when you look beyond him, what did they do differently than they've done pretty much every year? Again, the process was the same. There's no reason to throw a tantrum over it.

You say they punted on it because the results are bad. Nothing more. It's little more than a facile argument brought about, as best I can tell, by some misplaced paranoia or some sense of entitlement that you're owed some big, meaningless payroll number.

 

[mvk112]

LOL. Captain Hindsight coming back strong, once again.

The 2009 Draft is still referenced by pundits in the context of "this class isn't quite as strong as 2005/2011 on paper, but it's still worlds better than the 2009 class on paper". It was a terrible, terrible draft on draft day.

You keep harping on picking Sanchez at #4 when he was ranked #32 -- okay. What do you say about picking the guys ranked #41 (Von Rosenberg) and #50 (Black) as well? That's 3 Top 50 prospects out of a class that was considered to have a grand total of 2 exceptional talents. How is that not their exact strategy/process pretty much every year?

Okay, they missed on Sanchez, but when you look beyond him, what did they do differently than they've done pretty much every year? Again, the process was the same. There's no reason to throw a tantrum over it.

You say they punted on it because the results are bad. Nothing more. It's little more than a facile argument brought about, as best I can tell, by some misplaced paranoia or some sense of entitlement that you're owed some big, meaningless payroll number.

They could've still picked Black and ZVR had they picked anyone else #4. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? They wasted the #4 overall pick of a draft, no matter how shallow the talent pool in a draft may be, there are still worthy players available at #4.

But that doesn't fit your 'defend NH at all costs' narrative where everything bad that happens is bad luck and everything good that happens is due to the genius of NH and his process.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

They could've still picked Black and ZVR had they picked anyone else #4. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? They wasted the #4 overall pick of a draft, no matter how shallow the talent pool in a draft may be, there are still worthy players available at #4.

But that doesn't fit your 'defend NH at all costs' narrative where everything bad that happens is bad luck and everything good that happens is due to the genius of NH and his process.

So if they had taken Randal Grichuk, ranked 58th overall, it would have been a really good, smart pick compared to Sanchez? Trout (#22) or Pollock (#23) would have been MUCH better choices as well on draft day despite being ranked within 10 spots of Sanchez? There's that much separation between prospects that exists, let alone within a class that's pretty much "take Strasburg, take Ackley, pull a name out of a hat after that".

And you're arguing that you aren't basing your argument purely off hindsight?

I've also pretty consistently said that there's good luck, too. I mean, Jesus, I said their 2011 class that people love so much represents a best-case scenario. I even called it good luck.

I'm extremely aware of the luck that goes into everything in baseball. However, I'm also aware that aside from some strange, paranoid subset of people in Pittsburgh, the Pirates are one of the more well regarded organizations in baseball -- and that's after controlling for things like luck.

 

[mvk112]

Trout and Pollock would've been much better on draft day. They were at least first round projections. And isn't the job of NH and the scouts to determine who to pick? The Sanchez pick and the 2009 draft was a colossal failure on the part of the organization, it's not playing results one bit.

Pollock was considered one of the top college hitters in the draft, with top level speed that would play in the field and on the base paths, also projected to move quickly through the minors. That's exactly the type of player they were looking to draft, but chose the wrong guy. That's a failure.

Trout was considered to have all the tools and superstar potential, but considered a bit raw due to being a northeast kid. When you're looking to break out of a historical losing streak, you look for superstar potential. Tony Sanchez and superstar potential were never uttered in the same sentence.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

Trout and Pollock would've been much better on draft day. They were at least first round projections. And isn't the job of NH and the scouts to determine who to pick? The Sanchez pick and the 2009 draft was a colossal failure on the part of the organization, it's not playing results one bit.

Pollock was considered one of the top college hitters in the draft, with top level speed that would play in the field and on the base paths, also projected to move quickly through the minors. That's exactly the type of player they were looking to draft, but chose the wrong guy. That's a failure.

Trout was considered to have all the tools and superstar potential, but considered a bit raw due to being a northeast kid. When you're looking to break out of a historical losing streak, you look for superstar potential. Tony Sanchez and superstar potential were never uttered in the same sentence.

It's 100% playing the results, because it's ignoring the fact that they used the same process that's netted them some pretty outstanding returns.

Also interesting that a kid with superstar potential was ranked #22 and a quick-moving college hitter who could play a premium position was ranked #23. I follow the draft pretty closely and those rankings are WAY off for that type of player. Methinks we're using quite a bit of revisionist history, as none of the scouting reports -- or rankings -- available on the internet are anywhere close to that glowing.

Here's a snippet from Baseball America's profile on Pollock, for instance: "While there's debate as to whether he's a true first-round talent, with a shortage of quality college hitters he should get selected in the bottom third of the round."

Even in Trout's write-up, he got the dreaded "grinder" label, while drawing a comparison to Aaron Rowand: "Trout's bat is not a sure thing, but he has a chance to be a solid-average hitter with average or better power. Like Rowand, Trout is a grinder who always plays the game hard."

Sanchez's write-up, for reference: "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."

 

[mvk112]

That absolutely was not the same process. They always took highly rated, high upside guys. 2009 was the exception. Alvarez, Sanchez, Taillon, Cole, Appel, Meadows/McGuire, Tucker, Newman. Tucker was lower rated but considered high upside, and was picked in the 20's. Newman was #2 on Keith Law's board, again, taken around 20.

You will excuse anything and everything NH does including this horrendous draft and abortion of an offseason. I always thought the Jason Bay trade was amongst the worst trades ever made by a GM, but this Walker for Niese deal comes close. They downgraded at two positions at a time they needed to get better to take the next step.

These are straight from the MLB.com draft tracker. Jonathan Mayo is a really good at what he does.

Comments: Pollock is one of the better college hitters available in this Draft class, with a great approach and the ability to make consistent contact. He won't hit for a ton of power, but has some extra-base ability. His above-average speed helps him on offense and in the field, though he is still learning to play the outfield. He's the type who makes everything look effortless and with his hitting ability, could be the kind of college bat that moves quickly through the Minors.


Comments: Trout is a toolsy high school center fielder who was gaining momentum as the weather in the Northeast warmed up. He looks more like a football safety -- his position in high school -- than a center fielder, but has the tools to play there with plus speed. He just started switch-hitting to enhance his offensive value, and with some changes to his approach at the plate should hit for some power down the line. There is some rawness with the bat, but he has the kind of upside many teams look for in a high school position player, and was moving into first-round conversations as a result.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

That absolutely was not the same process. They always took highly rated, high upside guys. 2009 was the exception. Alvarez, Sanchez, Taillon, Cole, Appel, Meadows/McGuire, Tucker, Newman. Tucker was lower rated but considered high upside, and was picked in the 20's. Newman was #2 on Keith Law's board, again, taken around 20.

You will excuse anything and everything NH does including this horrendous draft and abortion of an offseason. I always thought the Jason Bay trade was amongst the worst trades ever made by a GM, but this Walker for Niese deal comes close. They downgraded at two positions at a time they needed to get better to take the next step.

These are straight from the MLB.com draft tracker. Jonathan Mayo is a really good at what he does.

Comments: Pollock is one of the better college hitters available in this Draft class, with a great approach and the ability to make consistent contact. He won't hit for a ton of power, but has some extra-base ability. His above-average speed helps him on offense and in the field, though he is still learning to play the outfield. He's the type who makes everything look effortless and with his hitting ability, could be the kind of college bat that moves quickly through the Minors.


Comments: Trout is a toolsy high school center fielder who was gaining momentum as the weather in the Northeast warmed up. He looks more like a football safety -- his position in high school -- than a center fielder, but has the tools to play there with plus speed. He just started switch-hitting to enhance his offensive value, and with some changes to his approach at the plate should hit for some power down the line. There is some rawness with the bat, but he has the kind of upside many teams look for in a high school position player, and was moving into first-round conversations as a result.

I don't see any large differences between what Baseball America says and what Mayo (who I consider "eh") says. Both say Pollock is one of the best college hitters in the draft, Baseball America mentioned that he moved into the first round conversation as well while ranking him #23 overall. Again, not seeing these stark differences, I think you're really overvaluing them relative to their stock on draft day because of how they turned out.

I haven't really defended anything, all I've said is what the process is. People can take it or leave it, but it's not going to change anything. I see no use in utilizing hindsight, except for in a macro sense. You need to use hindsight when evaluating trends and seeing if the overall process is working, which is obvious I think. Using it to cherry pick different moves is only of use if there's an agenda being pushed.

 

[mvk112]

Is the entire process working? We'll see how Bell and Glasnow turn out, looking good now and better options than what are currently on the MLB team for sure, but neither are sure things.

Otherwise, what do you have?

3 players (Alvarez, Mercer, J. Wilson), no stars, from 2008, a draft where they picked #2 overall.

1 player (Brock Holt), no stars, from 2009, a draft where they picked #4 overall.

1 player with minimal experience (Taillon), no stars, from 2010, a draft where they picked #2 overall.

3 players (Cole, Bell, Glasnow), 2 with minimal experience, 1 star, from 2011, a draft where they picked #1 overall.

0 players from 2012, a draft where they picked #8 overall.

So in 5 drafts that are 4+ years in the rear view, when they were in the top 5 four times, and #8 the other time, has yielded 1 star player and 8 players total, 3 of whom have less than 30 days MLB experience.

You really believe the drafting is going well?

Cardinals those five drafts - Brett Wallace, Lance Lynn, Shane Peterson, Sam Freeman, Kevin Ziegrist, Shelby Miller, Joe Kelly, Matt Carpenter, Trevor Rosenthal, Matt Adams, Greg Garcia, Trevor Lyons, Kolten Wong, Seth Maness, Michael Wacha, Stephen Piscotty, Tim Cooney

Giants those five drafts - Buster Posey, Brandon Crawford, Zachary Wheeler, Brandon Belt, Chris Heston, Heath Hembree, Adam Duvall, Joe Panik, Andrew Susac, Kelby Tomlinson, Matt Duffy

Dodgers those five drafts - Dee Gordon, Nathan Eovaldi, Josh Lindblom, Joc Pederson, Shawn Tolleson, Corey Seager, Paco Rodriguez, Ross Stripling

Mets those five drafts - Ike Davis, Kirk Nieuwenhuis, Collin McHugh, Steven Matz, Matt Harvey, Jacob DeGrom, Josh Edgin, Matt den Dekker, Michael Fulmer, Logan Verrett, Brandon Nimmo, Gavin Cecchini, Kevin Plawecki

Nationals those five drafts (even excluding Straburg/Harper) - Danny Espinosa, Tommy Milobe, Louis Coleman, Drew Storen, Nate Karns, Robbie Ray, Aaron Barrett, Sammy Solis, Anthony Rendon, Alex Meyer, Billy Burns, Lucas Giloito

Take a look at those five teams - a full 1/3 of the National League, and tell me again the overall process is working.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

Is the entire process working? We'll see how Bell and Glasnow turn out, looking good now and better options than what are currently on the MLB team for sure, but neither are sure things.

Otherwise, what do you have?

3 players (Alvarez, Mercer, J. Wilson), no stars, from 2008, a draft where they picked #2 overall.

1 player (Brock Holt), no stars, from 2009, a draft where they picked #4 overall.

1 player with minimal experience (Taillon), no stars, from 2010, a draft where they picked #2 overall.

3 players (Cole, Bell, Glasnow), 2 with minimal experience, 1 star, from 2011, a draft where they picked #1 overall.

0 players from 2012, a draft where they picked #8 overall.

So in 5 drafts that are 4+ years in the rear view, when they were in the top 5 four times, and #8 the other time, has yielded 1 star player and 8 players total, 3 of whom have less than 30 days MLB experience.

You really believe the drafting is going well?

Cardinals those five drafts - Brett Wallace, Lance Lynn, Shane Peterson, Sam Freeman, Kevin Ziegrist, Shelby Miller, Joe Kelly, Matt Carpenter, Trevor Rosenthal, Matt Adams, Greg Garcia, Trevor Lyons, Kolten Wong, Seth Maness, Michael Wacha, Stephen Piscotty, Tim Cooney

Giants those five drafts - Buster Posey, Brandon Crawford, Zachary Wheeler, Brandon Belt, Chris Heston, Heath Hembree, Adam Duvall, Joe Panik, Andrew Susac, Kelby Tomlinson, Matt Duffy

Dodgers those five drafts - Dee Gordon, Nathan Eovaldi, Josh Lindblom, Joc Pederson, Shawn Tolleson, Corey Seager, Paco Rodriguez, Ross Stripling

Mets those five drafts - Ike Davis, Kirk Nieuwenhuis, Collin McHugh, Steven Matz, Matt Harvey, Jacob DeGrom, Josh Edgin, Matt den Dekker, Michael Fulmer, Logan Verrett, Brandon Nimmo, Gavin Cecchini, Kevin Plawecki

Nationals those five drafts (even excluding Straburg/Harper) - Danny Espinosa, Tommy Milobe, Louis Coleman, Drew Storen, Nate Karns, Robbie Ray, Aaron Barrett, Sammy Solis, Anthony Tendon, Alex Meyer, Billy Burns, Lucas Giloito

Take a look at those five teams - a full 1/3 of the National League, and tell me again the overall process is working.

I think when much of the drafting is HS kids that it's going to take a little longer, particularly with pitchers. To me, it's not surprising that we are only just now seeing the HS kids break through.

And, I think using certain players as trade currency shouldn't really be discounted either. Robbie Grossman developed into a Top 100ish guy, then was used as a centerpiece in the Wandy trade. Vic Black made it to the majors then was traded in the Marlon Byrd deal. Alex Dickerson was traded. Adrian Sampson as well. Others have also been traded, but haven't yet broken into the majors.

As I see it, I have no issues with 2008.

2009 was bad.

2010 the jury is still out on. If Kingham comes back healthy from TJ and you can get back Cumpton and Sadler healthy, that's not a bad haul. Cumpton and Sadler are solid 5th starter types who can provide AAA depth in case of emergency.

2011 is pretty good on paper.

2012 isn't great with Appel not signing and the slotting system. Max Moroff might be the only regular that sticks with the Pirates. Adrian Sampson was traded for Happ last year and he needed arm surgery soon after the Mariners brought him up so not sure how he will be going forward.

2013 is pretty good at this point. Traded Taylor and Jones, have 2 players up already, still have Meadows and McGuire.

2014, 2015, 2016 probably way too early to decide anything.

 

[mvk112]

Cumpton and Sadler were dime a dozens before surgery, they're not going to be anything after surgery.

Continuing to excuse this front office for five years of crap drafts when pretty much every NL team has done as much, and many have done better, in that timeframe shows you will go to any lengths to defend NH. It's quite sad, actually.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

Cumpton and Sadler were dime a dozens before surgery, they're not going to be anything after surgery.

Continuing to excuse this front office for five years of crap drafts when pretty much every NL team has done as much, and many have done better, in that timeframe shows you will go to any lengths to defend NH. It's quite sad, actually.

I said they're 5th starter types?

I mean, you're the one listing out bench players, busts, middle relievers and swingman starters like Tim Cooney, Tyler Lyons, Chris Heston, and Logan Verrett to pump up the other NL teams -- what kind of bar are you expecting the Pirates to reach relative to them in order to be "doing a good job".

 

[mvk112]

I said they're 5th starter types?

I mean, you're the one listing out bench players, busts, middle relievers and swingman starters like Tim Cooney, Tyler Lyons, Chris Heston, and Logan Verrett to pump up the other NL teams -- what kind of bar are you expecting the Pirates to reach relative to them in order to be "doing a good job".

Cooney, Heston, Verrett, and Lyons all are much better than Cumpton and Sadler, who aren't even legitimate 5th starters. Never mind that the Cardinals and Mets drafted and developed guys like Michael Wacha, Lance Lynn, Shelby Miller, Matt Harvey, Jacob DeGrom, Steven Matz, and Collin McHugh. It'd be different if the Pirates had a few other SP that have made more than a handful of starts between them. They have Gerrit Cole. That's it. Or if they had a handful of guys like Posey, Belt, Crawford, Panik, Duvall, and Duffy; which they don't.

 

[mvk112]

I said they're 5th starter types?

I mean, you're the one listing out bench players, busts, middle relievers and swingman starters like Tim Cooney, Tyler Lyons, Chris Heston, and Logan Verrett to pump up the other NL teams -- what kind of bar are you expecting the Pirates to reach relative to them in order to be "doing a good job".

As for what they need to reach in order to a good job, how about more than 1 legitimate star player or more than 3 or 4 regulars (being generous with this one considering what they have drafted) over a five year period when they were picking in the top 8 every year.

You seriously looked at the Cardinals list and picked out Cooney and Lyons, the Mets and picked out Verrett, and Giants and picked out Heston. The Cardinals have Matt Adams, Matt Carpenter, Stephen Piscotty, Michael Wacha, Lance Lynn, Shelby Miller, Joe Kelly, and Trevor Rosenthsl on their list. The Mets have Matt Harvey, Jacob DeGrom, Steven Matz, Colin McHugh, and Muchael Fulmer on their list. The Giants have Posey, Belt, Crawford, Panik, Duffy, Duvall, and Wheeler on their list.

You're at the point where you're going to defend NH for trading Cutch for a bag of baseballs, a backup catcher with four years of control, and a PTBNL this offseason.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

As for what they need to reach in order to a good job, how about more than 1 legitimate star player or more than 3 or 4 regulars (being generous with this one considering what they have drafted) over a five year period when they were picking in the top 8 every year.

You seriously looked at the Cardinals list and picked out Cooney and Lyons, the Mets and picked out Verrett, and Giants and picked out Heston. The Cardinals have Matt Adams, Matt Carpenter, Stephen Piscotty, Michael Wacha, Lance Lynn, Shelby Miller, Joe Kelly, and Trevor Rosenthsl on their list. The Mets have Matt Harvey, Jacob DeGrom, Steven Matz, Colin McHugh, and Muchael Fulmer on their list. The Giants have Posey, Belt, Crawford, Panik, Duffy, Duvall, and Wheeler on their list.

You're at the point where you're going to defend NH for trading Cutch for a bag of baseballs, a backup catcher with four years of control, and a PTBNL this offseason.

1) I picked those guys out as swing men. I could have totally picked those choices apart even more if I singled out the busts, relievers, and bench players.

2) Look at the guys you just listed out. Look at the only guys for the Pirates who you would consider a "star" or "regular" in their careers. Tell me what the overwhelming majority of them have in common.

3) Go ahead and look at those teams' current farm system rankings relative to the Pirates. Now look and see what most of the Pirates' top prospects in the upper levels all have in common. Those system rankings aren't the be-all, end-all in terms of drafting success, but they'll help explain the difference in timing.

I mean, you're listing off guys who are already 30 years old up there. The Pirates' major HS signing in 2008 (Robbie Grossman) is currently in his age 26 season.

 

[mvk112]

1) I picked those guys out as swing men. I could have totally picked those choices apart even more if I singled out the busts, relievers, and bench players.

2) Look at the guys you just listed out. Look at the only guys for the Pirates who you would consider a "star" or "regular" in their careers. Tell me what the overwhelming majority of them have in common.

3) Go ahead and look at those teams' current farm system rankings relative to the Pirates. Now look and see what most of the Pirates' top prospects in the upper levels all have in common. Those system rankings aren't the be-all, end-all in terms of drafting success, but they'll help explain the difference in timing.

I mean, you're listing off guys who are already 30 years old up there. The Pirates' major HS signing in 2008 (Robbie Grossman) is currently in his age 26 season.

You're still trying to defend 5 drafts where they picked top 8, that have produced 8 MLB players (3 of them having less than 30 days experience) ?

If they drafted as well as the Cardinals, Mets, Giants, Nationals, etc, then they wouldn't have had to trot out crap like Jeff Locke, Juan Nicasio, and Jon Niese as part of an actual MLB starting rotation for half the season.

Then again, they'd still probably be holding those guys down in the minor leagues if they had drafted better, so it's a moot point.

Keep on defending and excusing, and then wonder why their ceiling is playing in the Clint Hurdle Invitational in early October.