Is the plan working?
by Bernie19Kosar on May 12, 2009 3:00 PM EDT
Email
PrintI don't think the plan is working. This is not a rant or some off the cuff reactionary diatribe. I am just like most of you guys, since 2001 I have bought into the Mark Shapiro "program". I have watched the Indians place a premium on certain type players. Cast aside so-called headcases/problem-child players for lower level "Shapiro-kind-of-guys". The Indians have styled their drafts for these kind of players. He has taken the lower ceiling, more of a sure thing, type players over the boom or bust type players. We as a fan base have been told this is because the Indians, like other small/mid-market teams can't miss on early picks.
The only problem has been that the Indians drafts since 2001 have been lacking. Granted injuries have played a part (Michael Aubry, Matt Whitney, Adam Miller) but is that really an excuse? Doesn't every team face injuries? This front office draft history has been horrible. In the 2005 MLB draft, one that has been called one of the best draft classes ever, the Indians had two picks in the first round and left with Trevor Crowe and John Drennen. It wasn't a case of bonus money, Crowe signed for 1.675 million and Drennen signed for a cool million. Both of those seem in line for where they were taken. They were just serious cases of poor drafting.
I know that the draft is an inexact science. You are trying to gauge how much growth a high-school kid will do in the next four years. There is a long list of kids with can't miss ability that did just that. But I am wondering how many other teams have missed this badly over the same amount of time? It would be pretty amazing to see if there was any other team that has gone 8 years without drafting an above average major leaguer. I know that the young kids from the last couple of draft classes haven't had sufficient time to dis-prove this, but other than Weglarz and Huff, is the hope very high for any others?
I don't want anyone to think that I am a draft guru of any magnitude. I am sure that there is a player that I am missing out on. But I am having a hard time remembering the last time that I was truly excited about an Indians drafted, homegrown prospect. I believe there are only 11 Cleveland Indian drafted players on this teams 40 man roster, that includes a couple of guys who haven't even gotten their first sip of coffee at the MLB level.
I do acknowledge that the Indians have done a great job of signing young Latin American players. Without this influx of talent, this team would be lost. Imagine this team with Vic, Droobs, Peralta, R.Perez and Fausto. The minors have some nice Latin flavor with Rondon and De La Cruz. I do know that in 2007 we had 20% of our roster was from Venezuela alone. This is something that Shapiro and company has excelled in.
Trading has been Shapiro's calling card. Personally I think that Shapiro is given too much credit for this. Yes he struck gold with the Bartolo Colon deal. It was the perfect storm of opportunity, panic, and carelessness. Bravo for Shapiro. The Hafner deal also was a steal. Hafner was blocked and the Rangers need pitching (Still do! Zing!) and Shapiro gave them a middle of the road starter and a catcher that was blocking our own top prospect, Victor. Is two great deals enough to cover for the lack of draft success?
Since these deals, Shapiro has been active on the trade market, with much less results (Granted the bar was pretty high at the time). The Barfield deal looks like a dud. Shoppach needs to cut down the K's dramatically if he ever wants to be a everyday MLB catcher. Marte was Marte. Ryan Church and Luke Scott were give aways that look bad now, albeit in a minor way. Jeremy Guthrie would look nice in the 3 hole on this team(Yes I know he was a DFA). No one is perfect.
Brandon Phillips and Milton Bradley were their own cases and have been discussed, kicked to death, and rehashed on this Website more than I care to remember. I was in favor of trading Milton. This team was young and Bradley was 26 YO kid who wasn't going to change his spots. He clashed with Wedge and he needed to go.
I don't want to restart a dead issue, but I believe that Shapiro let Wedge ruin Phillips in Cleveland. Shapiro should take some of the blame for the whole situation. I have never seen another franchise run a 22 YO kid through the grinder and let him waste such immense talent.
Slowly but surely I have watched Shapiro become a so-called genius. In 2007 he won the GM of the year. All was good. His plan was working. Yet I have seen how his plan is lacking. If Fausto never comes back (something I fear more and more everyday), our staring pitching isn't lacking, it is down right scary. We all believe that Cliff will be gone either by trade or FA. Fausto, Laffey, Westbrook, Huff and Rondon? Is that a rotation that can compete? Is our line-up to be feared? Our hopes are high for LaPorta, but he can't seem to crack through the Dellucci/Francisco outmaking wall and into the starting line-up. Vic is money, and Droobs seems to be bouncing back from his Soph slump. Is Peralta a long-term building block? Sizemore is having his worst season since he came up in 2001.
Is Shapiro's plan working? Is one trip to the playoffs in 8 years a plan (I'm not giving Shapiro credit for 2001, because that team was put together mostly by Hart)? An obvious lack of evaluating draft classes and bullpen arms has been an on-going problem. Is this front office's idea of "sticking to the plan" going to be good enough in the future? Is it good enough now? I think that a good amount of Cleveland Indian fans want Eric Wedge fired. But should we also be looking at the front office?
88 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don’t believe in the existence of some Shapiro overarching, super-strange, borderline-unique definable “plan.” The only plans that you have set forth is the low-ceiling draft strategy (completely untrue), and the fact that the Indians don’t like to employ complete jerks (probably true, but a negligible effect overall). Shapiro and company simply do try to be very thorough in evaluating talent. But yeah, they’ve still missed, and we expect a better bottom line.
I won’t get into any of your details except to say that you should learn about Carlos Santana, and that there is a club option for Cliff Lee next year. People keep missing that. Even if this season is lost already (it is not), our next good chance at contending is 2010. And Cliff should be a part of that team.
You mention trades, but then fail to mention a number of trades that were absolutely great for this club. Choo, Cabrera, Carlos Santana, LaPorta, etc.
If Fausto never comes back (something I fear more and more everyday)
If you have been watching, you would actually have noticed that Fausto seems to be improving each start, despite not being all the way there yet
Lastly, if you are going to criticize the Indians drafts and then openly wonder if another organization has done as poorly, you should probably consider doing that research yourself, to present us with a case instead of giving your gut feeling.
I’m beginning to think we need a moratorium on FanPosts, at least until the first 3 game winning streak.
Yeah, there is nothing in here but dead topics. I understand Bernie’s frustration, but unless there is something new to add, I don’t see the point.
Yeah, but why bother banning fanposts? Just don’t comment or rec a fanpost if you deem it stupid. There really isn’t any reason to stop people from posting fanposts. Sure you’ll get some of questionable quality (and I’m not saying this is or isn’t one of those), but really does it matter? The most thoughtful and intriguing fanposts will and should get the most comments and recs, the rest will fail on their own. I don’t think there is any reason to stop people from writing them.
It’s too bad we can’t create a new section on the website called “Vents.”
To determine where to place your post, use the following procedure:
1. Is your post full of supporting facts or diagrams? If yes, go to step 2, if no, post in “Vent”
2. Have you thoroughly reviewed other posts AND comments on posts to determine if you have a new topic? If a new topic post in “Fan Posts,” if no, post in “Vent.”
by ShawnK on May 12, 2009 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
There is, but there’s no significant FanPost volume. If we had eight FanPosts a day, two of which were rec’ed up, these would not be at all noticeable.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
This isnota rant or some off the cuff reactionary diatribe.
have been discussed, kicked to death, and rehashed on this Website more than I care to remember.
Idon’twant to restartamany dead issues
by Brick. on May 12, 2009 4:51 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I actually think we should really examine and take a long hard look at this as a group. All of you that support Wedge and the FO have to be commended. I personally am getting sick and tired of supporting a group that has one postseason appearance in 8 years.
Some great trades that werent included are…Cabrera and Choo for Broussard and E. Perez. But, overall, I think this staff has assembled a lot of top talent but done nothing worthy with it. Until I see results, or we all see results, I dont know how anyone can really argue that.
this 1 playoff in 8 years crap keeps getting tossed out there. the clock should absolutely not start counting from the time they took over this team that had to be torn apart and rebuilt.
why not?
why shouldn’t it count?
why do we have to assume that every time a team wants to contend, they have to go through a mandatory 4-year rebuild?
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 12, 2009 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Even if you’re gonna be strict, I think it’s reasonable to give them two years
I'm *always* in the driver's seat, cugino -- Chuck
by Turkmenbashi on May 12, 2009 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions
i can live with that. . . but i still think you have to evaluate shapiro’s work from 2002-present, i.e. when this current group or core of players started taking shape. after all, it was shapiro’s goal to knock down and rebuild completely. i don’t think we have to just blindly accept the premise that the timeframe he set for himself was justified.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 12, 2009 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions
You don’t have to blindly accept it, but there’s no other sensible interpretation of the facts. He inherited an underperforming team of overpaid veterans in decline, plus C.C., and zero impact players in the minors who had played above Single-A.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
disagree that there is no other sensible interpretation of the facts. . . a 4 year rebuilding window seems awfully arbitrary to me. what about seattle this year? they were supposed to be awful. they’re loaded with bad contracts, have a weak farm system , and yet jack Z has them competing out in the west.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 12, 2009 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Four years is optimistic. Most rebuilding plans last more like six to 15 years.
The Mariners have been rebuilding for years already, and I wouldn’t stake your argument on a 32-game record if I were you.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
not trying to stake it on the mariners, believe me. it was just a quick example off the top of my head.
15 year rebuilding plan? i hope you don’t mean that any team would intentionally set forth one of those. yikes.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 12, 2009 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions
No, of course not. But there’s been a lot of dopes.
Seriously, setting aside for the moment the question of “recovery time,” what Shapiro did in completely dismantling the team, and just ruthlessly re-stocking the minors with advanced prospects, what utterly unprecedented. I mean, this is a big part of the reason his peers respect him so much, it took GIGANTIC BALLS to do what he did, go on TV and tell the fanbase, “We’re not in it this year, and you know what? Not next year either, and maybe not the year after that.” The Colon deal is still the standard by which all stars-for-prospects deals are judged.
And the thing is this. If you don’t do a total tear-down, the rebuild is only going to take LONGER, because the guys you didn’t get rid of are going to be free agents before your new, shiny advanced prospects become polished major leaguers.
Look at it another way. Guys like LaPorta — or Cliff Lee in 2002 — are the most advanced prospects you can acquire. Very, very tough to acquire top-tier talent who are already thriving in Triple-A — you end up with either second-tier AAA guys or top-tier AA guys, and that’s only if you deal effectively. But guys like LaPorta — or Cliff Lee in 2002 — they’re not going to mature into major leaguers overnight. It took Lee two or three years to become a solid contributor (2005), and LaPorta probably will need a couple years, too.
And those are the most advanced guys! And this is assuming they pan out! And of course it’s not enough to have one or two guys, you need to have a whole “core” of young talent panning out at a reasonable rate, and then you surround them with a few key complementary pieces. So we started out with Sabathia, and then Westbrook, and then a year later Martinez and Hafner develop, and then it’s Lee and Sizemore and Peralta … and at that point, we have a pretty good nucleus of a contending team. But you still need the final pieces.
But the point is, it’s basically impossible to get an entire nucleus together in less than four years. IF you had a bunch of talented Triple-A guys, then maybe you can do it in 2-3 years. But if you have a bunch of Triple-A guys, why are you rebuilding?
Now, you could do what Beane has done a couple of times, which is to break up the contending club a year early rather than a year late, rebuild on the fly, be mediocre for a year but ready to roll again a year or two later. I would argue that (a) this isn’t a true according-to-Hoyle’s “rebuild,” and (b) Shapiro did not have that option. Indeed, Shapiro attempted this in the 2001-2002 offseason, with the Alomar trade, and as we all know, both that season and that trade went terribly.
Now, you could argue that he just botched it. I would argue that it was so far from succeeding that they never should have tried it, and I think Shapiro would agree with that statement. And then I would also say he also pretty much botched it, which he might not agree with. But anyway … if you’re really gonna rebuild, it’s gonna take four years minimum — and that’s assuming it works.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 12, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
according to whom? not trying to be smart. just would like to see who/what comparable teams have done.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 12, 2009 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
this strikes me as argumentum ad ignorantium
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 12, 2009 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, as long as it strikes you.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 12, 2009 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t know why I feel the need to answer these in detail. Maybe I just want to make sure I’m not getting lazy.
I have watched the Indians place a premium on certain type players. Cast aside so-called headcases/problem-child players for lower level "Shapiro-kind-of-guys".
There is the start of a legitimate critique here …
The Indians have styled their drafts for these kind of players. He has taken the lower ceiling, more of a sure thing, type players over the boom or bust type players.
… but this isn’t it. There is little if any evidence that the Indians are risk-averse in the draft. Worse yet, the fact that drafting is the first item in this critique does not bode well for its overall quality.
We as a fan base have been told this is because the Indians, like other small/mid-market teams can’t miss on early picks.
When were we told this? I think this is total BS that you made up. Let’s see the quote.
In the 2005 MLB draft, one that has been called one of the best draft classes ever, the Indians had two picks in the first round and left with Trevor Crowe and John Drennen.
Granted, this is a reasonable complaint. But I don’t think people realize that outside the first 5 or 10 picks, even first-round picks are basically a crapshoot. They are not 50/50 to become significant contributors. I never liked the Crowe pick, but he did become a productive Triple-A player at least. Drennen had a nice pro rookie season but hasn’t put it together. These are not successes, but I don’t think they’re embarassments.
I know that the draft is an inexact science. You are trying to gauge
Good Lord, are we still talking about the draft? Get a life! You don’t know anything about the draft!
I don’t want anyone to think that I am a draft guru of any magnitude.
I wouldn’t lose any sleep worrying about that.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 12, 2009 8:19 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Without this influx of talent, this team would be lost. Imagine this team with Vic, Droobs, Peralta, R.Perez and Fausto.
The implication here is that the international signings are a nice little bit of seasoning, but the draft guys are the main course. The reality is the opposite of this. This ain’t the 1960’s; the international market is where it’s at. You won’t find an impressive collection of all-drafted talent outside of (a) teams that spend huge dollars on plummeting Boras clients, and (b) teams that have had massively advantageous draft positions (looking at you, Rays).
Since these deals, Shapiro has been active on the trade market, with much less results (Granted the bar was pretty high at the time). The Barfield deal looks like a dud. Shoppach needs to cut down the K’s dramatically if he ever wants to be a everyday MLB catcher. Marte was Marte.
Re: Shoppach, the OP apparently is not aware of how starting catchers actually hit in the majors. Shoppach was an elite catcher last season, and he probably would produce above-average numbers more often than not given a starting job. Shoppach’s inclusion in the Crisp deal "wins" that trade by a far stretch — no GM in the game would trade Shoppach for Crisp now, or would have a year ago, either. The Barfield deal doesn’t work out, but Kouzmanoff has hardly set the world on fire while playing against inferior competition in the NL West.
You forgot: Asdrubal, Choo, Smith and Valbuena. LaPorta, Santana, Brantley and Meloan.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 12, 2009 8:20 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Kelly Shoppach’s only season with regular playing time (last year) was far and away better than anything Crisp has ever done in his career including Crisp’s best year with the Indians in 2005
I believe Kelly Shoppach has been wildly overrated in these parts, based on his performance last year. This year—when he had been playing fairly regularly until the bottom fell out—he has been terrible. Horrible. Whatever excuses and justifications one wishes to muster for his collapse this year, Kelly is 29. He showed power in Pawtucket in his age 24 and age 25 seasons. We saw his best ML year last year. He’s at 91 OPS+ this year. His career OPS+ is sustained by his great (and aberrant) 2008 season. I would also quibble with his rep as above average on defense. He hasn’t looked that way this year and can’t seem to throw, either.
I’m just messing with you on Coco, but Coco brought Horacio Ramirez, who is better than two Shoppachs.
I’m pretty sure his playing time hasn’t changed all year. In fact, he has played MORE recently. Coming into today, he started 16 games: Lee’s 7 starts, Pavano’s 7 starts and Reyes’ last 2 starts. So, he has increased playing time for himself, because…
He has not been terrible at all. He has been mediocre at the plate generally but for a catcher that is really good. He is hitting about as well as Garko by OPS+. And since the lineup with Martinez at 1B and Shoppach at C is an upgrade at 2 positions, it seems like he has played himself into even more playing time.
by Ryan Kelsey on May 13, 2009 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions
This is correct. The plan all along was to start him during all Lee and Pavano starts. Odradek, I can tell you dislike Shoppach, but I feel like you are making stuff up to support your opinion
As I admitted above, I am embellishing for effect. In 22 games in April, he did not play in 10. (He didn’t start in one but played.) In those 12 games he played in he walked once and struck out 16 times. In 13 games so far in May (not counting the Tampa game) he’s played in eight. He didn’t start in one of those eight. His OPS for May is .604. So either he isn’t playing enough to unleash his awesome power, or he’s playing too much, or just enough. Or something.
Small sample size, incredible past glory, not enough reps—whatever the defense—I suggest personal observation. Shoppach looks bad at the plate. I didn’t see enough of his swings last season to know if pitchers have simply adjusted to him (he had an aberrational 0.78 GB/FB ratio last year) or if he has started swinging for the fences.
We rush to defend him, but I say he may be perfectly ordinary.
I’ve watched enough of him in two years to tell you that yes he strikes out a lot, and that yes he still hits for very good power. He is a catcher
I just looked up Shoppach’s numbers, and I am as amused as I am shocked.
A 728 OPS? From a catcher? That’s what’s prompting all this vitriol? This is … I’m sorry, but … this is cleveland.com stuff here.
Shoppach’s overall offensive production this year is slightly above-average for a catcher — not to mention, he’s only got, what, 80 PA or something? There is no support of any kind for the idea that his 2008 season was completely aberrant. A little aberrant, sure, but his career numbers in the majors are right in line with his minor league track record, too.
Facts are facts:
1. Shoppach, in a down year and a part-time role, is producing at an average or above-average level for a catcher.
2. Shoppach, in his only opportunity at a full-time role, was one of the better hitters in the entire league.
I need not speculate or project or even calculate anything at all — the facts are the facts.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 13, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m exaggerating a bit for rhetorical effect. Kelly is better than Corky Miller and Gerald Laird, I will grant you that. But based on his “a little aberrant” 2008 he was being heralded by many people here as a star, someone who would start for most teams. I say he had a hot streak, an impressive one, but now he’s back to earth. He’s not Mickey Cochrane.
Jose Morales is OPSing .784, and he’s three years younger. SSS.
John Buck is OPSing .750, the same age.
So you’re asserting that Kelly Shoppach is in fact (or was) one of the better hitters in the American League? Because he led the AL for four months in isolated power? I’d like to believe it, but that’s not what I see today. If he’s such a great hitter then why isn’t he hitting better? Why isn’t he playing more?
As I showed above, he is starting to play more. Also, Martinez is good at Catcher, and I don’t think we want to lose how involved he is with the pitching staff.
by Ryan Kelsey on May 13, 2009 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions
2. Shoppach, in his only opportunity at a full-time role, was one of the better hitters in the entire league.
We’re talking about 71 PA here. I could find you plenty of examples of Victor hitting worse than this over 71 PA.
I doubt that Kelly could sustain his 2008 pace if returned to a full-time roll, but I don’t doubt that he’s a solid-average hitter, well above-average for a catcher. I think it’s worth at least speculating that he thrived from getting real reps at the plate every day, and this potentially is a dilemma for the Indians. He may turn out to be not all that effective if he only plays twice a week. The Indians have been trying to have it both ways with Victor and Kelly, but maybe they can’t.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I think you are overstating everyone’s affection for Kelly. The majority of LGT recognized that 2008 was likely a high water mark for Shoppach and were pretty eager to see him traded this offseason.
Jose Morales’s OPS is the product of a ridiculous BABIP of .400. He isn’t drawing many walks and he isn’t hit for much power. His minor league track record suggests that he isn’t a good hitter, unlike his 50 plate appearances in the big leagues suggest. In his minor league career, he has a .709 OPS, though he has hit AAA better than any other level.
The John Buck comparison is also pretty weak. Outiside of the 70 PA this year, their major league careers would suggest that Shoppach is the much better hitter. Buck’s career OPS+ is 82. Shoppach’s is 103.
Hell, Clark, you’re no fun. Of course Morales sucks. Of course Buck does as well. But I’m saying Shoppach is closer to Buck than he is to Russ Martin. Give him a few more seasons and his career OPS+ will be equivalent to Buck’s. I believe we’ve seen the best of Shoppach, and it was damn good, but that’s it. He’s not, as I remember reading here, a catcher who would start for 20 (or somesuch number) other teams.
Disagree that he is closer to John Buck than Russ Martin. Russ Martin’s career OPS+ is 106.
I tell you what, make a convincing argument that he couldn’t start for 20 something teams. I’d say Twins, Cubs, Braves, Dodgers are the locks. After that, it becomes less cut and dry. The Rockies have a Shoppach clone, that’s younger, in Iannetta so they probably don’t need him. The Angels have Napoli, who is the better hitter, but he has injury and defensive issues. There are others that you could make pretty reasonable arguments, but I’ll let you do that since you are the one that thinks the statement is so ridiculous.
Isn’t this already played out?
Everyone would allow that Shoppach can’t likely sustain his 2008 numbers. Everyone should allow that 72 PA doesn’t count for much, even if a guy looks terrible — which he does in some ways.
But to nullify his 2008 success entirely, looking only to his very sporadic play prior to that year to indicate his real talent? That’s just silly and not even worth discussing.
And in any event … we’ve already discussed it.
Dead topic.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I had a long reply but Jay beat me to it. But I think you mean Ramon Ramirez at the end, and you’re just saying that because we have an accute need for a guy like that right now, and not so much a need for Shoppach.
by dgcambridge on May 13, 2009 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions
Shoppach is a slightly above-average hitter (career OPS+ of 103) who plays above-average defense at catcher.
Anyone who would trade him for Crisp needs a class in Remedial Everything.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Added to which … I made this point in the Annual …
Once he assumed an everyday role around June 1 last year … Shoppach led the American League in Isolated Power.
Let that sink in for a moment. He led the league in power hitting for four whole months. Now of course he’s unlikely to do that again, not at that level. But anyone who could even do that once obviously is a good enough hitter to be an everyday catcher.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
To which I again ask, if he’s so good, why isn’t he hitting better? Small sample size? Look at his 346 non-2008 plate appearances. He was late getting to the bigs (nine games with Boston at the age of 25). He’s a 29-year-old catcher who is not having a good year defensively.
(b) teams that have had massively advantageous draft positions (looking at you, Rays).
Actually, when you look at the Rays, they haven’t drafted all that well – at least when you consider what they got for their picks.
First round picks by the Rays, from ’07 backwards: Price, Longoria, Townsend, Niemann, Delmon Young, Upton, Brazelton, Baldelli, Josh Hamilton, Jason Standridge, Paul Wilder.
Really, the fortunes of the Rays franchise turned the moment they called up Longoria. Upton provided a good return last year, but none of those other draft picks really amounted to anything (directly) for the Rays. Sure Delmon was spun for Garza, and he was helpful in their run to the WS, but Young himself didn’t do anything to help.
And by the way, how stupid do the Royals and Rockies look for skipping Longoria and taking Luke Hochevar and Greg Reynolds over Longoria??
The Rays had a highly advantageous draft position in every round of every draft, not just from the first-round picks.
They also got a little help from Price and Upton and a lot from Young. (What difference does it make if Young did it directly? Did we have the luxury of trading one of several first-overall picks for help? No, we did not.)
From an educated point of view, it’s very rare than any team looks “stupid” for not taking one player or another. Generally if one team passed over a guy, a dozen or more other teams did or would have. It’s the nature of the draft.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
From an educated point of view, it was “smart” for the Pirates to draft Brian Bullington over BJ Upton in ’02? Or the Padres to draft Matt Bush over Justin Verlander in ’04? Two cities vehemently disagree.
I don’t know that any team has a great majority of their roster built via the draft any more. But considering the greatest rate of success for drafted players is highest in the first round, the biggest advantage a team has in the draft is by drafting early in the first round. Looking at all of the players the Rays drafted in the first round of all their drafts, they’ve really only received significant return from Upton and Longoria. So they haven’t gained a significant advantage by drafting in an early position.
In fact, if you look at all the players they’ve drafted, only these helped them – directly – last year: Sonnanstine (13th round), Niemann, Upton, Longoria, Price, Jason Hammel (10th), Gomes (18th), Crawford (2nd), Shields (16th), and cheating a little to say Dan Wheeler (drafted by TB in ‘97, FA signee w/ NYM then traded to TB via Hou). Only Upton, Longoria and Price had significant impact and were drafted in the first round. Heck, they only had 6 picks drafted in the top 10 rounds that played at all. So, no it isn’t fair to say they had a significant advantage by having a high draft position.
To say that Young helped the Rays is wrong. He didn’t. He was traded for a player that did help them. If we are to say that a drafted player helped a team by being part of a trade, then we need to say that Casey Fossum helped the Red Sox win the ‘07 World Series because he was traded for Schilling. That’s a pretty weak argument to be making.
From an educated point of view, it was "smart" for the Pirates to draft Brian Bullington over BJ Upton in ’02? Or the Padres to draft Matt Bush over Justin Verlander in ’04? Two cities vehemently disagree.
The educated view is that you can’t judge these moves fairly by only employing hindsight. I don’t know the nitty-gritty on those decisions as they were made at the time, so I won’t judge them.
Of course the first-round advantage is more profound, but we are talking about a cumulative effect of always picking at the end of the supplemental round rather than some 20 picks later, in multiple rounds, over multiple years.
I’m not sure what argument you’re making here. Did they do a terrible job of leveraging that advantage? You seem to be saying that, but that doesn’t change the fact that they had that advantage to work with.
I’m also not sure what bone you’re picking talking about Young. We are talking about picks and players as assets to a team. No, the player Young did not help them, but the player/contract/asset obviously did help them. And they had that player/contract/asset due to their superior drafting position, and that did clearly and unarguably work to their advantage, i.e., it was an advantage that other teams did not have that led to the development of an asset that other teams did not have.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
By saying that the Rays benefitted from having a high pick in every round, we need to see if that’s true. Looking at the Rays’ roster & where they drafted them is the best way to evaluate that. As you see from the guys they selected, and how much of an impact they had, only Upton and Longoria were picked in the first round. Crawford was a second. But beyond those 3 guys, they really didn’t have any benefit from drafting high. Almost all the other guys they drafted that contributed last year were selected in the 10th round or later. So you can’t fairly say that they had any kind of edge by having a high draft position, when the draft picks they’ve had really haven’t worked out.
As far as the draft picks go, at what point is it hindsight? Before the draft, during the draft, and every day after the draft, including today, everyone knew that Verlander was the better player than Bush. It’s been well documented that Bush was picked over Verlander simply because the Padres didn’t want to pay a huge bonus to the #1 pick, and almost went down a list until they found a guy that would sign for their price as the #1 pick. In no way is that a “smart” or “educated” decision when running an organization.
Re: the first paragraph, you seem to be ignoring two things. The first is that there are two separate questions, the first being whether they had an advantage, and the second being how well they utilized it. As to the first, there really is no question that it is a significant advantage, either to utilize or to squander. (Why you’re pretending Young doesn’t count, I have no idea.) The second thing you’re ignoring is that the superior draft position affects every round of the draft, not just the first round, and not just the early rounds.
As for what I can fairly say was an edge … how many first-two-rounds Indians draft picks do we have on the roster? We don’t have Upton and Longoria and Crawford, nor did we have Young to trade for Bartlett and Garza. In what insane universe does having those players not constitute an edge over not having them?
I agree with you about the Matt Bush situation specifically, and I’d even allow that the Padres aren’t the only team to get caught up thinking in a certain direction without a well conceived philosophy. Still, you certainly can’t generalize that one situation to all blown prospects in the first round. There are a dozen or more busted first-round picks every year, and it’s safe to say the great majority of them were picked by their clubs in the belief that that player was the best available talent on the board at that point.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
You won’t find an impressive collection of all-drafted talent outside of (a) teams that spend huge dollars on plummeting Boras clients, and (b) teams that have had massively advantageous draft positions (looking at you, Rays).
That is your quote. Your statement says that the Rays have an “impressive collection of all-drafted talent”. Garza was acquired via trade of a player they drafted. So Garza was not drafted by the Rays, and Young didn’t help them last year. Young’s NOT ON THE RAYS, so you cannot include him in your argument.
I’m not ignoring a superior draft position in every round. I’ve said many times that the Rays got Upton, Longoria and Crawford in the first two rounds. Price played very little last year, so I haven’t focused on him in my arguments. But looking at the rounds in which most of the Rays’ drafted player, most were acquired after the 9th round. That late in the draft, any draft position is completely meaningless. Every team had a minimum of 6 chances to select any player that goes that late (6 b/c of lost draft picks due to signings). Arguing that a team that selects first in the 15th round has a significant drafting advantage over the team that drafts last in the 15th round is just mind-boggling. That late, both teams had many, many chances to select the player and chose not to. That a player drafted that late worked out is more luck than anything.
I’m only going to say this one more time: Your critique makes no sense to me — I can’t imagine what analytic value there could be in drawing lines arbitrarily where you’ve drawn them. You’re debating a trivia question, not a substantive consideration.
I see no value in discussing it further, and I won’t be.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
It is disingenuous to list those players and say they haven’t drafted well. Not all of those guys have contributed to the Rays big league club, but they still drafted those guys. Price, Longoria, Young, Upton, Baldelli, and Hamilton are all very solid picks. Some of those others may be as well, I just have never heard of them
Fausto, Laffey, Westbrook, Huff and Rondon? Is that a rotation that can compete?
Apparently you are extending Westbrook’s contract but not Lee’s into 2011? Okay, I guess. But find me some better 2011 rotations out there. This one actually looks pretty good to me.
Our hopes are high for LaPorta, but he can’t seem to crack through the Dellucci/Francisco outmaking wall and into the starting line-up.
Yes. It’s been four days, obviously all hope is lost.
Is Peralta a long-term building block? Sizemore is having his worst season since he came up in 2001.
Peralta is probably not a long-term building block, but so what?
Sizemore was not even in the organization in 2001. You have to chill out on the five weeks of stats.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 12, 2009 8:20 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Is one trip to the playoffs in 8 years a plan (I’m not giving Shapiro credit for 2001, because that team was put together mostly by Hart)?
What you should really give Hart credit for is the 2002 club, which had to be blown up because it was bloated with expensive, underperforming veterans and had no significant talent ready to graduate from the upper minors.
Is this front office’s idea of "sticking to the plan" going to be good enough in the future? Is it good enough now? I think that a good amount of Cleveland Indian fans want Eric Wedge fired. But should we also be looking at the front office?
These are valid questions, and I do think we should be scrutinizing the front office more. It just seems like these long FanPosts out of the blue are way too sloppy with the facts and devoid of any real reason or comprehension.
We could use some serious critique, but this just isn’t one.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 12, 2009 8:21 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Give us the serious critique. I know it’s coming, but I’m antsy.
by supermarioelia on May 13, 2009 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
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.
