Drafty

I love you.

As for the question, I would go BPA everytime. If I were the GM, I would probably lean towards the best hitter over the best pitcher, but I can't blame them for going with pitchers due to their track record. However, I will be very disappointed if the supp. round ends and we don't have at least one guy who looks like a future impact bat.

60% of the time, it works everytime!

I'm not against drafting more pitching. What we can't use can be used as trade bait. Should we decide to draft more hitters, great, but I'm not sitting around waiting for the next great bat to emerge from this draft.

All I ask of the organization is to make good picks that work for the team.

/bad joke

I guess the best player available is the logical answer, but I sure do like semi-instant gratification, and a college hitter like Mills seems so enticing.  I'll be pulling for a hitter at #10 almost no matter what, and if they decide to go with a pitcher instead I'll understand, but I won't like it!

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070605&content_id=2006566&vkey=draft2007&fext= .jsp

It has us taking Wieters at 10, Poreda at 22, and Smoker at 29.  I'd be ecstatic with Wieters, Poreda doesn't excite me too much, and Smoker I like a lot.

MVN's Draft just got me giggling like a little schoolgirl.  Imagine a lineup with Villalona hitting 3rd, Heyward 4th, and LaPorta 5th.  Talk about a murderer's row right there.  Our farm system could turn from somewhat decent to pretty damn good, all in the course of one day!

So I guess I'll default and joing the BPA bandwagon.

If a hitter is rated higher on their board than pitching then a hitter it is. Obviously they can use the later rounds of the draft to fill out their minor league teams and draft by position.

What? I can dream.

Then you look at the Minor League Ball mock draft and see that the loudest fans clearly think that high school hitters are always the best player available.

I'd do the general BPA argument, but give special consideration to college hitters available in the first two rounds.  If Wieters is available, take him.  If Wieters and Price are available, take Wieters.

Of course, I'm kicking myself for saying this: BA is reporting that Wieters will want something similar to what Teixiera got: $9.5 million and a four-year MLB deal.  Um....yikes.

It's interesting that there's this backlash against Poreda.  His fastball is a pretty special velocity for a left hander.  Its movement is what makes it so great, though.  What he needs is a changeup, which he's started on.  Yes, it needs to be worked on, but the fastball is right up there.

In my mind, it's like liking a player for one tool.  I like Poreda at 29 at the highest, but he'd be an excellent sandwich round pick.  The fact he's a college player doesn't factor in, since he was late to baseball.

I stick by my Sanchez comparison, except I hope people can talk Poreda out of using his slider as anything more than a show-me pitch earlier than Jonathan.

I'll be satisfied with noting that Wieters has been projected by some to drop past the Giants because of signability issues (Boras) but apparently none of the mock drafters that say this realize that the Giants eschew signability issues with their #10 pick, so if Wieters is there, he will be taken most probably, because most commentary I've read about him says that he is the top college hitter in the draft.  

If we get him, I would say he would be a nice bookend to last year's draft, as I think he is comparable to us getting Lincecum last season:  he's a switch-hitting catcher with power, looks like he might stick at catcher too, and a potential top 3 pick that somehow fell in the draft to us.  Premium hitter at a premium position, plus as a college player, he's probably only a year or two off, instead of possibly 4-6 if a high school hitter was drafted.

Can lightening strike twice?  I hope so.

Pitching we have traded away, besides the worse in Sabean's tenure (and you know which one was that), since World Series, that I can remember:

Ainsworth, Moss, et al for Ponson:  Ponson's half year performance for us is still more than any team has gotten from the three pitchers we traded.

Foppert and Torrealba for Winn:  Foppert did nothing for Seattle and we got him back now.  Winn is a good complementary player.

Walker for ???:  We got Walker back.

Accardo for Hillenbrand/Chulk:  looks like a bad trade right now, at the end of last season, it looked like a good trade for us, Accardo did terribly for Toronto.

Williams/Aardsma for Hawkins then Kline:  Hawkins and Kline has pitched better for us the past year and a half than Williams and Aardsma has.  Williams landed at AAA Washington this season and couldn't stick there.  Aardsma had a nice partial year last year with Cubs but was traded to ChiSox and did poorly, getting sent back down recently.

Burres for nothing:  Doing OK for Orioles, so that's bad for us, but it's not like he's doing great either like the trade that cannot be mentioned.

Coutlangus for nothing:  Doing so-so for Reds, I think he got dropped back to the minors sometime this season, if he were with the Giants, I think Misch would rank ahead of him on depth, but the Reds are desperate for relievers.

Josh Habel for half year of Eric Young:  Young didn't do much for us, but neither did Habel for the Brewers.

Hensley for ???:  Forgot how we lost him to SD, (Herges?) he had a great year last year but horrible this year, I think he just got dropped to minors but still, they got a great year out of him last year.

Villanueva and ??? for Wayne Franklin and ???:  Franklin ate innings for us, Villanueva is now doing well for Brewers as reliever/starter, Brewers probably will be way ahead of us on this deal too.

Martis for Stanton:  Stanton did great for us for half year.  Martis doing poorly for Advanced A league in Washington's minors, 4.64 ERA, only 6.0 K/9, 3.2 BB/9, 1.89 K/BB, .295 BABIP so no good or bad luck there, 1.34 WHIP which is good, but some bad luck, his FIP is 4.18.  But this is advanced A.  It's like I noted last year, no big deal losing him.

Overall, we got Winn, Chulk, and Kline (plus a few half season rentals) for Accardo, Torrealba, Aardsma, Burres, Coutlangus, Hensley, Villanueva.  We give up more bodies, but most of them are expendable, fungible pitchers in Aardsma, Burres, Coutlangus, Hensley, Villanueva.  

Overall, it is not a bad exchange - not good - but not bad, Winn I still think is an above average OF, he's just not a power hitter that so many is so fixated on that they forget that he is a good hitter, about 780-800 OPS which is above average for all RF since 2000.

If I forgot any, sorry, doing this from memory and (shhh) from work, I'm burned out from a looong project....

--Jarrod Parker, high-upside RHP from an Indiana HS.
--Matt Dominguez, high-upside, smooth-fielding HS third baseman.
--Beau Mills, lefty college bat, defensive questions.
--Jason Heyward, lefty-hitting RF, high-risk, high-reward. He's probably a better prospect for a team like the Braves who have a much better record in helping these kinds of guys to succeed.

As for the best-player-available debate, I definitely lean toward getting the best signable player but with a few possible guidelines:

--Looking at the top-six picks overall, I'd like to see a mixed portfolio of risky/polished players and mix of pitchers/hitters. This isn't a big consideration, though.

--When in doubt, I'd probably take the pitcher over the hitter. The Giants develop pitchers so much better than hitters that it just makes sense to take a risk there, rather than with a hitter. (I wouldn't get crazy about it, however.)