Draft V: Buster Move
by Grant on May 28, 2008 8:00 AM PDT
52 comments
The dry recounting of Buster Posey: He was recruited as a shortstop, but he converted to catcher a couple of years ago. He can pitch, too, which allowed him to take part in one of those wacky played-every-position stunts, but he's definitely going to be drafted as a catcher. The Rays are rumored to be interested in Posey; for all of the talent in their organization, they don't have a whole lot of promise at the catching spot. He was expected to go somewhere near the first round before the season started, but he's been one of the best hitters in the NCAA this year (.471/.572/.880. 46 BB/19 K in 208 at-bats.) He's hitting for average and power while taking walks, and he's doing it all while playing fantastic defense at a premium position. That will always get you consideration for the #1 overall pick.
But some scouts are a little wary about him. Even though he's been popping home runs at a good rate at Florida State, he doesn't project to hit more than 15 home runs at the major league level. If you want to know why a player who has hit 19 home runs in 200 college at-bats is projected to be a slap-hitter at the MLB...you should know better than to look for an answer here. I sure as heck don't know. A loop in his swing? A hitch in his get-a-long? The dreaded condition known to scouts as "lemur thumbs?" No idea. But teams looking for some unholy Mike Piazza/Pudge Rodriguez combination would likely be disappointed.
Like a Frosted Mini-Wheat or Harvey Dent, I live a polar existence. Part of me is a "best player available" guy. Forget the young pitching in the organization and forget the presence of a teenaged slugger in Low-A; the Giants need the best player they can get. The other part of me is a positional scarcity guy. A team is better off with, say, Victor Martinez and Ryan Garko than it would be with Rod Barajas and Mark Teixeira. Normal, non-Giant teams can usually find a Ryan Garko somewhere, but a catcher like Martinez or Brian McCann is harder to find. I probably err on the side of "best player available", but it's close. A fortune cookie could change my mind if the fortune were worded well enough.
I can't tell whether it's reasonable or foolish to think about the best-case scenario when mulling over who to pick with such a high pick. It's so easy to be seduced by thoughts of a Gold Glove catcher who hits .320/.410/.500. That kind of line doesn't even need to buy me a drink. It had me at ".410." But ifs and buts were candies and nuts, a frog wouldn't bump it's ass-a-hoppin'. In a draft filled with polished sluggers, the Giants don't want to whiff on a Brad Ausmus clone with their first pick and watch Justin Smoak and Yonder Alonso combine for 1,000 home runs over their careers.
But I'd be satisfied with Posey. Oh, absolutely, I would. Are you sensing a pattern here? There are about six or seven players with whom I'd be thrilled. Posey definitely falls in that category.
Comment starter: Are you a best-player-available type, or a positional-scarcity wonk?
Links:
Jacksonville.com profile
MLB draft report
College Baseball Blog profile
Grainy-ass YouTube video
BrewerFan.net profile
College Baseball Prospects profile
0 recs |
52 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I’m a best player available at a positional scarcity type of guy.
I really prefer to go the route of a corner infielder that can absolutely mash, but I wouldn’t rip my hair out if we drafted Posey.
Proud adoptive parent of Tim Alderson.
by Anticon23 on May 28, 2008 8:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Best Player Available
MLB draft and development is soooo different from the immediateness of the NFL and NBA drafts where a team can draft for need today and have that player starting tomorrow. The road to MLB is full of potholes,burnouts and hard to projectness. Select the best player available. Time/talent will sort things out.
by wilriv21 on May 28, 2008 8:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You have to take the best player available, but you can use positional scarcity considerations to help you with the close calls.
Of course, the definition of “best player” is slippery, because you have to balance the whole risk/reward conundrum. A team with a grim immediate future, like the Giants, should be leaning more toward reward, methinks, but most people around here seem to prefer the “safe” college bat.
Another thing to think about is that catchers play fewer games than other players, which reduces their value somewhat. And slugging first basemen and corner outfielders are seriously overpriced on the free agent market relative to the defense-first positions, so it’s probably more efficient to grow your own sluggers and buy your up-the-middle players.
Finally, I know I’m a bit delirious over Pablo Sandoval’s season, but I think it’s an open question whether the organizational need is greater at catcher or at first base.
by Evan on May 28, 2008 8:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
+1 except
About the college bat. I am in the “safe” camp. The Giants cannot afford to have this pick turn out to be a bust, and as such – probably should pick the BPA with the highest chance of making an impact at the ML level.
Generally I am a BPA guy, but that does mean that you have to be willing to trade those players/prospects to fill positional scarcity when the time comes. The Giants thusfar have not proven willing to do so. If you aren’t, then you need to draft for positional scarcity.
IE, the Giants probably should have traded Lincecum for infield prospects ASAP to satisfy positional scarcity. Now the fanbase has fallen in love with him, and they can’t/shouldnt.
If you just keep all of your “prospects” and only trade older players as they approach FA, then you need to draft for positional scarcity.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on May 28, 2008 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Giants SHOULD NOT
Have trded Lincecum for infield prospects. Even before the year after the draft was up and he was eligible to be traded, Knowing fans had grown to love him, and by the end of last year all fans had grown to love him.
The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."
Freezing Giants Blog
by WalrusMan on May 28, 2008 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention, his value is SOOOO much higher now than it has ever been. Trading him at any prior point would have been a bad job of valuation and we would have gotten less than we could now. That said, I will fucking knife someone if they trade Timmy.
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on May 28, 2008 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I got your back on that one
I will hold that sucker down for you!
Adoptive parental unit of Kevin "Most Spectacular Pitcher" Pucetas.
"I'm a Giant now... I like watching the ball get up there" - Wendell Fairley
"I'm really proud to be on this team." - Nate Schierholtz
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on May 28, 2008 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
With regards to the risk/reward conondrum, i agree with you, i’d lean move toward reward. At the end of the day, “Impact” (whatever your definition of it is) players are just so much more valuable to a team, so whilst it’s important to have good players, you have to strive for high reward players. Ability isn’t a uniform attribute, ss an example, how many Correia’s would you want back if you were to trade Cain/Lincecum?
Having said that though, i don’t think risk/reward falls as simply as on HS/College lines (and i know that’s not what you were implying) or on positional lines.
Proud owner of the most boring Username! Alex Hinshaw: Now showing in a bullpen near you!
by GiantFan on May 28, 2008 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, slugging 1b and corner OF
are indeed overpriced. OTOH, a reasonably open minded and diligent GM should be able to find a 1b type who can OPS+ around 100-115 for a minimal price. Unless the slugging 1b type you’re drafting is projected to be a star, > 130 OPS+, at the very least, he isn’t going to be much better than an almost freely available player, like a Russ Branyan.
And while an up the middle D first player who can’t hit, is undervalued, that’s not the case with up the middle players who are decent hitters.
Catchers do obviously play less games than other players, take longer to develope, and suffer attrition of their skills more quickly than other players. OTOH, good catchers are scarce.
The positional scarcity issue is both a team specific, and and MLB wide issue.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on May 28, 2008 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take the contrarian position on this
I’m against using the #5 pick on Posey when Sandoval is in the system and doing so well. He could be the catcher for this team by 2010, so taking Posey now doesn’t really get us anything sooner or necessarily better. But this team has no solid SS, 1B, or 3B options in house now notwithstanding where AnVil ends up playing. So I would go with Alvarez, Smoak, or the Beckham ahead of taking Posey.
by Buck Henry on May 28, 2008 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
take a look back...
If you’d said 5 years ago, “What will the Giants need in 2008?” you’d have said, “Well, their regulars are all old and they have no likely candidates in the farm system to replace them, so they’ll be stuck playing retreads and never was-es. See how wrong you’d have been? Well, ok, bad example…
My point is that the uncertainty dwarfs all else. Draft the best player available. Even if you end up with 2 studly young 1B, neither of whom can change positions, then you end up trading one for 90 cents on the dollar. As worst case scenarios go, that’s not so bad…
I got one word for you: "youneverknow"
by senorvegas on May 28, 2008 8:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
HE’S A MONSTER!!!!
Sorry, I haven’t read the actual post yet.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
by jponry on May 28, 2008 8:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh and Posey wouldn’t be my first choice but I’d be completely satisfied if he were the pick.
To be honest, there are a lot of players who’ll be available at #5 that I’d be happy with. Somehow, I’m expecting that the Giants won’t take any of them. :\
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
by jponry on May 28, 2008 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
QFT
To be honest, there are a lot of players who’ll be available at #5 that I’d be happy with. Somehow, I’m expecting that the Giants won’t take any of them. :\
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on May 28, 2008 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's ok.
Who reads the posts anyways? Gut reactions!
The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."
Freezing Giants Blog
by WalrusMan on May 28, 2008 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I've read it NOW.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
by jponry on May 28, 2008 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still haven't.
In fact, I didn’t even read your post, I just figured it out. Pretty good huh?
The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."
Freezing Giants Blog
by WalrusMan on May 28, 2008 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
109?
If you like things that are funny, perhaps you will enjoy ChatterBalks Dot Com?
by groug on May 28, 2008 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That might not be relevant, but I didn’t read anyone’s posts.
If you like things that are funny, perhaps you will enjoy ChatterBalks Dot Com?
by groug on May 28, 2008 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know why you keep trying to insist that turkey is the wrong way to with this. It’s the CLEAR choice, for all of the aforementioned reasons.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on May 28, 2008 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's what she said!
If you like things that are funny, perhaps you will enjoy ChatterBalks Dot Com?
by groug on May 28, 2008 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on how much better one player projects than another… if they are close, go with the position of need. If there is a significant difference, say between the ceilings of a very good player and a perennial all-star/great player, then go for BAP.
If I had to pick one strategy and lock into that for the next decade, however, I would go with BAP.
Psycho killer, qu'est-ce que c'est?
by shikantaza on May 28, 2008 8:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Best player available is the way to go for me. Whatever can’t be put to use in the system can always be traded for things that can be used. That’s probably oversimplifying things, but I’m not a GM so I can do that.
"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on May 28, 2008 8:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What did the pajamas look like?
I don’t know – they were jammies! They had Yodas ‘n’ shit on ‘em! .
Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.
by delorean on May 28, 2008 8:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
recidivism
repeat offender!
Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.
by delorean on May 28, 2008 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that’s one bonehead word.
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.
by Roger on May 29, 2008 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gross.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on May 28, 2008 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BPA.
With the only exception being a case where a team has beaten you down with 15 years of Post-Will-Clark-Era-Slappy-First-Basemen. I am irrationally desperate for an offensive threat at 1B.
by mxmob33 on May 28, 2008 9:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm in this boat
Thats another reason i want to see the Smoak.
Tentatively adopting Dan Ortmeier. And Boom Goes the Dynamite.
by Andy from DC on May 28, 2008 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Both
That is, you don’t overlook the best player available, but you do take into account (1) your current and projectable team, and (2) the current and projectable market for players. So, if David Price were available to us this year, we’d have to take him. But no one like him will be, so we should choose a hitter.
Our current and projectable team needs the following: C, 1B, SS, 3B. And yes, everybody could use the next stud SP. OF seems to be relatively covered, and I think we can scrounge up a 2B from the likely candidates. We might conceivably have a SS candidate in the system, but who that is isn’t entirely clear (Burriss?).
Then, what is the current and the projectable market for players throughout MLB? That is, which assets (positions) are highly valued because of their scarcity? I would argue that 3B is a huge void through MLB – and I’m thinking of players who can both field the position and hit with power and/or a high average. Look at the weakness of 3B throughout baseball. Now imagine we had David Wright playing 3B for us, and the next Miguel Cabrera or Scott Rolen in our minors just about ready to break into the bigs. I think we could trade one of those guys for just about anything we need (this assumes a GM with better trading skills than the current Giants GM). The positional scarcity makes them very valuable. Look at us: we had light-hitting David Bell at 3B, and that team almost won it all. We’ve had Bill Mueller. Pedro Feliz. It’s not a proud list.
So, I lean heavily toward a slugging 3B. Pedro Alvarez, obviously. Gordon Beckham might very well outgrow SS and become a slugging 3B; I’d like him a lot. If neither are available, go with Smoak. Then look for a Conor Gillaspie or James Darnell with the next pick. We gots to have a 3B!
Your 2011 SF Giants: the 2008 Augusta Greenjackets!
by Lyle on May 28, 2008 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No want
That is all.
Adopted father of the AnVil / GIANTSPACE™ returns!
by SoFa King Mike on May 28, 2008 9:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think positional considerations are important, but overrated somewhat in the draft. Ultimately it’s a long & uncertain process to the major leagues & you need to pick the player with the best chance of making it & being an impact player.
With regards to Posey, he’s not my top choice, but i’d be fine if we chose him. Like others have mentioned, there’s a number of decent options available.
Proud owner of the most boring Username! Alex Hinshaw: Now showing in a bullpen near you!
by GiantFan on May 28, 2008 9:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
f you want to know why a player who has hit 19 home runs in 200 college at-bats is projected to be a slap-hitter at the MLB…you should know better than to look for an answer here. I sure as heck don’t know.
The answer is “Bink”
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN
by zenbitz on May 28, 2008 10:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Not a fan of “Ping”?
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on May 28, 2008 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think anyone likes “Not-Crack”
The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."
Freezing Giants Blog
by WalrusMan on May 28, 2008 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the scouting reports say Posey is a gamer. But we have too many of them already, if you field 4 at the same time, they get in fistfights with each other or with fans. Like the velociraptors in “Farseer”
A college hitter that seems like a lock to hit with power…I guess I am a draft for need. Can I have a Smoak plz?
adopter/sponsor of "Go, Antoan" Richardson
by foothillsfan on May 28, 2008 11:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
We should just draft a velociraptor.
BADASS!
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
by jponry on May 28, 2008 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be cool until it went bezerk and ate Wendel Fairley in the SK season opener.
"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on May 28, 2008 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You have to think positive. Like the velociraptor is polished for his age and goes straight to Augusta.. then eats Jackson Williams.
by mxmob33 on May 28, 2008 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
burp
Five tool player with an apparently large appetite.
"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on May 28, 2008 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
id rather it eat
james loney, matt kemp, russel martin…. ettttccc
by Azmanz on May 28, 2008 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Suck it Russel Martin
If you like things that are funny, perhaps you will enjoy ChatterBalks Dot Com?
by groug on May 28, 2008 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Man… but I don’t want to have to learn to lock doors with computers and stuff.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on May 28, 2008 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Best post of the thread!
It's my blarg! Quick Pitch
by can of corn on May 28, 2008 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
does anyone have projections of our supp pick and later? i really want us to draft brandon crawford, ucla SS but cant figure out where he is gonna get drafted
by Azmanz on May 28, 2008 3:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think that picking for need is the best way to go
Which, of course, would mean Howie is the best choice.
Only 920 games until the end of Zito's contract
by thehavenot on May 28, 2008 6:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Posey sounds good to me. I could see him as a .290/.370/.450 kind of guy, which is awfully good for a catcher with good defense.
by Dan from NM on May 28, 2008 8:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Almost 50 comments, and no Puzzle Bobble references.
Errr… well, make that one.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on May 29, 2008 2:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nor a Young MC reference. I am surprised.
"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on May 29, 2008 7:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
