PDA

View Full Version : Strasburg signed



Highlifeman21
08-18-2009, 12:11 AM
SportsCenter just reported he signed for $15.7 Mil.

WMR
08-18-2009, 12:12 AM
Who???

Highlifeman21
08-18-2009, 12:13 AM
Who???

#1 Pick, Stephen Strasburg

Washington Nationals

Supposedly was going to hold out and re-enter the draft next year.

westofyou
08-18-2009, 12:14 AM
Cy Young or Anthony Young, lots of spaces in-between.

WMR
08-18-2009, 12:15 AM
#1 Pick, Stephen Strasburg

Washington Nationals

Supposedly was going to hold out and re-enter the draft next year.

I know, I was just giving you a hard time about the thread title.

Too bad he signed, getting him OR Harper seemed actually somewhat feasible considering how poorly this team is performing.

Brutus
08-18-2009, 12:16 AM
I know, I was just giving you a hard time about the thread title.

Too bad he signed, getting him OR Harper seemed actually somewhat feasible considering how poorly this team is performing.

Adding insult to injury:

If the Nationals keep the worst record, they may wind up with Strasburg AND Harper.

Highlifeman21
08-18-2009, 12:20 AM
I know, I was just giving you a hard time about the thread title.

Too bad he signed, getting him OR Harper seemed actually somewhat feasible considering how poorly this team is performing.

You, bust my balls? Never....

The Nationals now might get Strasburg AND Harper in back to back years.

How do you like THAT for a battery?

WMR
08-18-2009, 12:31 AM
Poor ole Jimbo... he would've sold both his kidneys to get a chance to draft those two guys. :lol:

George Anderson
08-18-2009, 12:33 AM
Poor ole Jimbo... he would've sold both his kidneys to get a chance to draft those two guys. :lol:

No, he would have drafted outfielders.

But good for these kids, every pitcher Jimbo drafted #1 never worked out for one reason or the other.

camisadelgolf
08-18-2009, 08:30 AM
No, he would have drafted outfielders.

But good for these kids, every pitcher Jimbo drafted #1 never worked out for one reason or the other.
To be fair, Brett Tomko (a 2nd rounder but #1 pick) has put together a decent career, and C.J. Nitkowski landed the Reds David Wells, who did well to get the Reds to the playoffs and advance to the second round. Jim Bowden's regime is one of the worst ever at drafting--especially when it comes to pitchers--but even Bowden couldn't swing and miss on every pick.

redsmetz
08-18-2009, 08:46 AM
A snippet from the Washington Post story:

"The reason he signed -- he wants to be in the big leagues, he wants to be a Washington National, he wants to win a Cy Young award and he wants to win championships in D.C." Rizzo said. "That's the reason he signed with us here. Money was a nice perk and a nice byproduct for him, but he's here to pitch. He's chomping at the bit to get on the mound. He's ultra-ultra competitive, and I think he was getting a little tired of sitting around the house."

That will be a tall order, and good luck to him, but of the fourteen pitchers picked Number 1 overall since the draft began, only four have won more than 100 games (Floyd Bannister, Mike Moore, Tim Belcher and Andy Benes) and the closest any got to the Cy Young Award was Mike Moore who finished a distant third in 1989 to Brett Saberhagen and Dave Stewart.

savafan
08-18-2009, 12:07 PM
For the Nats sake, I hope he's not the next Brien Taylor

Highlifeman21
08-18-2009, 12:17 PM
For the Nats sake, I hope he's not the next Brien Taylor

Or Ariel Prieto.

savafan
08-18-2009, 12:19 PM
That's a lot of money to throw at a kid who's never thrown a professional pitch.

Chip R
08-18-2009, 12:32 PM
That's a lot of money to throw at a kid who's never thrown a professional pitch.


Yes it is. OTOH, the Nats would have looked really bad if he didn't sign.

savafan
08-18-2009, 12:39 PM
Yes it is. OTOH, the Nats would have looked really bad if he didn't sign.

True. They'll also look really bad if he blows out his arm before he makes it to Washington. The only way they win is if he becomes the stud everyone thinks he'll be, otherwise it's a risky gamble, and one I wouldn't want to have to choose to make.

Chip R
08-18-2009, 12:44 PM
If you look at the numbers, it's really not much more than what Mike Lincoln is making. He's only signed through 2012 and - without the bonus which is spread out - he's making $3M a year tops. If he blows his arm out, they can let him go for the price they would pay an average major league pitcher.

savafan
08-18-2009, 12:47 PM
If you look at the numbers, it's really not much more than what Mike Lincoln is making.

This should not be the scale for intelligent general managing! ;)

I do get what you're saying though Chip, and it does make it seem a little less outrageous.

redsmetz
08-18-2009, 02:29 PM
Here's Boswell's take on the signing:


Strasburg Signing Is Washington's Baseball Redemption

By Thomas Boswell
Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Few teams have ever needed a watershed event more than the Nationals. And no town in baseball has needed a validation and a fresh start more than Washington. On Monday night, at 11:58:43 p.m., both the team and the town got their wish.

Just 77 seconds before a witching midnight deadline, the franchise that so often gets kicked when it is down and the town that is constantly accused of baseball's original sin (being Washington) proved that it could do something big and difficult and right.

The Nats signed Stephen Strasburg, probably the most heralded young pitcher of the last 50 years. Who knows what portion of his collegiate and Olympic fame will prove justified. But not only did the Nats sign him for a fair price of $15.67 million, despite the howls of his crusading agent Scott Boras, but Strasburg also did what has been unthinkable in baseball until now.

He chose here.

No 21-year-old deserves such responsibility; but Strasburg has put the Nats squarely on baseball's map, on the list of can't-miss attractions in the game that must be seen. Does he really throw 100-102 mph with command? Or is that partly scouts' mythology? Is his 93-mph slider really his best pitch, so sharp it actually seems to hit something in mid-air and deflect? And is Nats interim general manager Mike Rizzo correct when he says what sets Strasburg apart is not just his stuff but "a fierceness"?

Those who, after nearly two years, have not yet found an excuse to visit Nationals Park will now have to discover a reason not to come. I meet such people all the time. Where is the park exactly? What about the parking? Well, the team is terrible, right? Why take the trouble? The owners, aren't they cheap? Why not punish them with indifference until they prove themselves with a World Series? Then, maybe, find South Capitol Street.

Soon, in much less than a year, that may change. Strasburg will come to spring training next year with a spot in the rotation waiting for him, his to lose. How can you live here and not see Alex Ovechkin play hockey? You can't. So it may be with Strasburg and the Nats by sometime next year. A winning team? Someday. But with luck and health, every fifth day, the Strasburg phenomenon may beckon.

At least it is possible. And that makes a world of difference. Right now, for a town that is deeply unsure whether it wants to fall for baseball, something special is required. Adam Dunn, Ryan Zimmerman and Josh Willingham will probably hit 100 homers and drive in 300 runs this year in the heart of a Nats order that is in the top half in the National League. That would be sufficient attraction, even in a last-place season, in some old-line baseball towns. Nyjer Morgan, a new leadoff man hitting .306, on pace for 52 stolen bases and with as much range as almost any center fielder in the game, would add spice. Even a crafty kid such as southpaw John Lannan would have a following.

But in Washington, where baseball is concerned, it is still better never to have loved at all; then you can't lose. Will the Strasburg seduction change that? Surely it was worth $15.67 million to find out. In a front-running big-event town, he could be a fine fit.

Sorry, kid, did they tell you about all this? Welcome to town. You're the gallant who just proposed to the old maid; you might collide with considerable gratitude.

For 33 years, baseball did not choose Washington. The town had to bribe the game back with a billion-dollar dowry of ballpark funding and Lerner family dollars to buy the ravaged Expos franchise. Once here, the sport has grudgingly acknowledged the town as a new/old dot on its map, but with a kind of invisible asterisk above the city's name, as if to say, "Lost two franchises. On probation."

Even the town's own internal cynics have guarded themselves against mockery by assuming failure as the city's baseball default setting. Now, for a day, let's mock mockers.

Now, the engines of acceptability -- ESPN highlights, chatter about K's, an alliterative name and a radar gun that flashes "101" as if it were "007" -- should work for the Nats, at least for a while. Maybe it's shallow, not the real hard-core fan's kind of thing. Perhaps it'll put too much burden on Strasburg. But that pressure is there already.

Sandy Koufax, Nolan Ryan and Randy Johnson confronted it. They each needed several years, full of nagging, to find their final form. Roger Clemens, Tom Seaver and Dwight Gooden arrived fully formed. Ben McDonald, David Clyde and Pete Broberg, the Senators' flame-throwing No. 1 overall pick in the secondary draft in '71, fell fairly fast.

Strasburg will find his place somewhere along that arc. Watching his progress will take at least a few years. For just $15 million, the Nats finally have everyone's attention.

The Nats should be forgiven if, at least temporarily, they seem relieved of an enormous burden, some monstrous thing on their shoulders that weighs roughly as much as the combined weights of Jim Bowden, Jose Rijo, Manny Acta, "Smiley" Gonzalez, Mark Teixeira, Lastings Milledge, Joel Hanrahan, Daniel Cabrera and every other organizational symbol of incompetence, malfeasance or just buzzard bad luck.

Oh, and add owner Ted Lerner to the pileup. Remember, the cheap billionaire? Now, in the last eight months, he has bid $188 million for Teixeira, signed Ryan Zimmerman to a $45 million contract, gotten a 40-homer free agent in Dunn for $20 million, added Willingham and lefty Scott Olsen for a $6 million payroll bump, eaten some of Nick Johnson's salary in order to trade him and now broken the record contract for a draft pick by 50 percent. And, 10 days ago, the 83-year-old flew cross-country to court the 21-year-old Strasburg personally.

So, get off his case. (Forget that I'm the one who has been on his case.) Well, at least until the offseason when, at a minimum, he needs to buy his last-place bunch a free agent starter and a quality reliever. For now, just say, "Thanks, Ted." Since he bought the team, he has barely heard the words. Maybe the novelty will spur more spending.

For now, the Nats are exhausted and at rest. Give credit, they read the Strasburg negotiations perfectly. Boras wanted a crusade to blow up baseball's slotting system for draft picks. That meant at least a $20 million contract for Strasburg, with threats he'd go play in an independent league for a year, then sign with somebody else -- as other Boras clients have done. The Nats were never playing that game. If Strasburg signed on for that battle, they were cooked. However, he wanted to start his career and made it clear that, at the end of the negotiating tussle, he wanted a contract finished.

"He's an independent thinker," said Rizzo, the Nats' lead negotiator. "This guy is going to make his own decisions. . . . He wanted to play, to win Cy Young Awards, to win titles. . . . That makes the signing process work. . . . The money was a nice perk."

Some Boras guys, such as Teixeira, go for the last dollar in every negotiation of their careers. But some don't, such as Matt Wieters of the Orioles and Strasburg. To his credit, Boras seems willing to represent some of both kinds, though he likes to get out his big-bucks bazooka more often. This time he fought for Strasburg, until 77 seconds were left.

"Scott was pretty darn good, very professional," said team president Stan Kasten, who has used Boras's name in sentences that would've made George Carlin blush.

"Wow," murmured Rizzo in disbelief, fresh from days of negotiations, including a shouting match between him and Boras filled with words that always get you ejected. Kasten simply listened to that one in awe: "A classic confrontation. I felt like a proud papa."

Now, the fray has ended.

"All's well that ends well," Kasten said. "But this proves you probably don't want to watch the process of a hot dog being made. Only the end result matters. We never want to get the overall number one draft pick again [for having the game's worst record]. I never, ever want to go through that again."

In the final minutes, contrary to consensus, it was the Nats stalling.

"We didn't need it done earlier than that. It would have cost us more," Kasten said. "But I did not need it much later than that. I looked at the [official] clock and saw '11:58:43.' Never forget it."

That's when the Nats signed Stephen Strasburg. Because he wanted to pitch, wanted to get into the fire, more than he wanted the last dollar. Because he chose here. Sometime, when he gets knocked out (if he ever does), remember that. Maybe give the kid a hand.

Degenerate39
08-18-2009, 02:30 PM
They'll have a LOT of money tied up in Strasburg and Harper come this time next year

Highlifeman21
08-18-2009, 02:40 PM
What are the odds he'll be the Nats Opening Day starter for 2010?

Degenerate39
08-18-2009, 02:43 PM
What are the odds he'll be the Nats Opening Day starter for 2010?

I'd say 0%. But 2011 is a different story

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 02:48 PM
Frankly, a team can't *not* sign a guy who can literally transform a franchise--all by his lonesome--as early as next season.

Well, the Reds could.

Highlifeman21
08-18-2009, 02:51 PM
Frankly, a team can't *not* sign a guy who can literally transform a franchise--all by his lonesome--as early as next season.

Well, the Reds could.

The Reds certainly are good at not drafting guys who can literally transform a franchise.

Missed on Lincecum by taking Stubbs, and while Alonso might be something one day, Beckham's playing in the bigs now and producing.

Imagine if we had one of those guys, let alone both of them, since we had a shot at both...

redsmetz
08-18-2009, 02:53 PM
Frankly, a team can't *not* sign a guy who can literally transform a franchise--all by his lonesome--as early as next season.

Well, the Reds could.

And we've done that?

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 03:19 PM
And we've done that?

The Reds took a pass on Porcello because of money and Lincecum because they're stupid.

Benihana
08-18-2009, 04:33 PM
The Reds took a pass on Porcello because of money and Lincecum because they're stupid.

:lol:

wait,

:cry:

PuffyPig
08-18-2009, 04:46 PM
True. They'll also look really bad if he blows out his arm before he makes it to Washington. The only way they win is if he becomes the stud everyone thinks he'll be, otherwise it's a risky gamble, and one I wouldn't want to have to choose to make.

Every time you commit money to a pitcher you make the same risk. Probbaly a lot smaller risk for $15M to Strasberg than $40M to guys like Lohse or $126M to guys like Zito.

Razor Shines
08-18-2009, 07:37 PM
The Reds took a pass on Porcello because of money and Lincecum because they're stupid.
:laugh::laugh:

dougdirt
08-18-2009, 07:40 PM
The Reds took a pass on Porcello because of money and Lincecum because they're stupid.

They did pass on Porcello for money. There is no reason to know why they passed on Lincecum. It could have been that he was short. Could have been he was short and skinny. Could have been his 6 walks per 9 innings in college. Could have been his incredibly unorthodox mechanics. It may have been something else. Stupid probably isn't one of the reasons.

_Sir_Charles_
08-18-2009, 08:06 PM
I love how the Reds FO gets blasted for NOT signing certain players. People look at things in hindsight and assume that the Reds should've KNOWN what these guys would turn out like. There were lots of reasons to pass on Lincecum at that time (doug mentioned them already), and the same can be said for Beckham. It's WAY too early to call those drafts busts for the Reds. Just because Beckham & Lincecum have reached the bigs quicker doesn't stop Stubbs & Alonso (and others) from doing the same, just at a NORMAL pace.

hebroncougar
08-18-2009, 08:25 PM
It's amazing to me how every 3-4 years there is "the greatest prospect" in the last 50 years. And very few pan out.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 09:02 PM
They did pass on Porcello for money. There is no reason to know why they passed on Lincecum. It could have been that he was short. Could have been he was short and skinny. Could have been his 6 walks per 9 innings in college. Could have been his incredibly unorthodox mechanics. It may have been something else. Stupid probably isn't one of the reasons.

Stupid is as stupid does...or doesn't. It's inarguable. It was inarguable at the time--tons of people were right about it, not just a handful. This organization had zero TOR pitching talent at the time and projected to have little on the horizon. It was a slam dunk choice; instead the Reds shattered the backboard and landed in the cameraman's crotch.

dougdirt
08-18-2009, 09:06 PM
Stupid is as stupid does...or doesn't. It's inarguable. It was inarguable at the time--tons of people were right about it, not just a handful. This organization had zero TOR pitching talent at the time and projected to have little on the horizon. It was a slam dunk choice; instead the Reds shattered the backboard and landing in the cameraman's crotch.

No one who walked as many players in college as Lincecum did is close to a slam dunk choice. Have you seen his walk rates from Washington? 5.68 walks per 9 innings. Thats far from a slam dunk. Evan Longoria was a slam dunk that year. Tim Lincecum wasn't.

jojo
08-18-2009, 09:08 PM
I think calling Lincecum a slam dunk is more based upon hindsight than anything else.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 09:09 PM
No one who walked as many players in college as Lincecum did is close to a slam dunk choice. Have you seen his walk rates from Washington? 5.68 walks per 9 innings. Thats far from a slam dunk. Evan Longoria was a slam dunk that year. Tim Lincecum wasn't.

Longoria wasn't an option for the Reds. Lincecum was on the board--right there. Right there in front of their faces.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 09:09 PM
I think calling Lincecum a slam dunk is more based upon hindsight than anything else.

Check the archives. This is utterly wrong.

dougdirt
08-18-2009, 09:12 PM
Longoria wasn't an option for the Reds. Lincecum was on the board--right there. Right there in front of their faces.
Who cares? That didn't make him anything close to a slam dunk. Was he probably the right guy to take? Yeah, he may have been. Still doesn't mean he was some slam dunk Ken Griffey Jr type of guy without a flaw in his game slam dunk.

dougdirt
08-18-2009, 09:13 PM
Check the archives. This is utterly wrong.
No, its not. Even if someone called what he would become still doesn't change the fact that he was not a slam dunk.

jojo
08-18-2009, 09:14 PM
Check the archives. This is utterly wrong.

I don't care how many people on redszone clamored for him. There were legitimate reasons to pass on him.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 09:15 PM
For the Reds, the choice was inarguable. As inarguable as saying Taveras was a poor acquisition. There was zero contemporaneous argument for anyone the Reds could have picked over Lincecum.

I don't care if he was not "historically" a slam dunk, but he was the undeniable choice the Reds needed to make in that year in that draft.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 09:17 PM
I don't care how many people on redszone clamored for him. There were legitimate reasons to pass on him.

Who cares? You're 100% in the abstract here. The Reds had a choice and among the choices they had, Lincecum was clearly the correct one in that year's draft.

Chip R
08-18-2009, 09:17 PM
Just remember, folks, FCB is always 20/20.

dougdirt
08-18-2009, 09:18 PM
For the Reds, the choice was inarguable. As inarguable as saying Taveras was a poor acquisition. There was zero contemporaneous argument for anyone the Reds could have picked over Lincecum.

I don't care if he was "historically" a slam dunk, but he was the undeniable choice the Reds needed to make in that year in that draft.

Nah. The Reds could have gone with Max Scherzer, Joba Chamberlain or Kyle Drabek and added something that the Reds needed in that draft. None of which were slam dunk picks at the time either.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 09:18 PM
Just remember, folks, FCB is always 20/20.

The fifth time is less funny. To hell with hindsight, bust out the archives.

Ltlabner
08-18-2009, 09:20 PM
No one who walked as many players in college as Lincecum did is close to a slam dunk choice. Have you seen his walk rates from Washington? 5.68 walks per 9 innings. Thats far from a slam dunk. Evan Longoria was a slam dunk that year. Tim Lincecum wasn't.

Isn't out-of-control walk rates one of the main reasons pitchers endure FCB's wrath?

Or is that only when they reach the major leagues?

jojo
08-18-2009, 09:21 PM
Who cares? You're 100% in the abstract here. The Reds had a choice and among the choices they had, Lincecum was clearly the correct one in that year's draft.

There is absolutely nothing abstract about suggesting a pitcher with demonstrable command issues, a non-projectable frame, and funky mechanics (which look to promote injury issues) was not a slam dunk.

No question he had the best stuff in that draft-I think that issue isn't debatable. But to suggest his selection was a no brainer for any team ignores an awful lot....

dougdirt
08-18-2009, 09:21 PM
The fifth time is less funny. To hell with hindsight, bust out the archives.

And nothing in the archives can ever prove that Tim Lincecum was a slam dunk pick like you claimed. All it proves is that you wanted him and thought he would be good. That means absolutely nothing to your initial statement.

HokieRed
08-18-2009, 09:24 PM
Just to comment on the history. As I remember the discussion leading up to that draft, there was substantial sentiment on RZ for Lincecum, substantial reservation about his throwing mechanics, size, and thus the possibility of injury. What I do not remember is any enthusiasm whatever for Drew Stubbs as the pick, so in that sense RZers seem to have been pretty prescient--not that he won't be a major league centerfielder, and maybe even a pretty good one, but it's been hard to be very enthusiastic about his track record so far. I don't say this as a Stubbs basher at all; I like the kid and think it was a defensible pick. Just trying to be fair.

redsmetz
08-18-2009, 09:56 PM
So here's the thread for the 2006 draft. Very interesting. Quite a lot of folks calling for Lincecum, a handful objecting to the risk of injury and a lot of hate for Stubbs. And, Doug, you were very against the pick, from the little I read, which surprised me because you've spoken up for Stubbs over the last couple of years.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47064

Enjoy the read.

Chip R
08-18-2009, 10:08 PM
The fifth time is less funny. To hell with hindsight, bust out the archives.


Only twice, pal, but maybe you're seeing double. :beerme:

I just checked the archives on draft day and you didn't make a peep on there before the Reds made their choice. Only about 2 or 3 people called for Lincecum before Miller (the people's choice) was drafted and after that the Lincecum bandwagon started rolling until it crashed when the Reds took Stubbs.

M2
08-18-2009, 10:58 PM
I don't care how many people on redszone clamored for him. There were legitimate reasons to pass on him.

Is there a different definition of legitimate than the one in the dictionary?

Because it would seem that Lincecum's performance has rendered all draft day 2006 concerns about him illegitimate. Whatever some might have thought was wrong with him clearly wasn't. Right and wrong do exist. In this case it's pretty simple to sort out.

jojo
08-19-2009, 01:25 AM
Is there a different definition of legitimate than the one in the dictionary?

Because it would seem that Lincecum's performance has rendered all draft day 2006 concerns about him illegitimate. Whatever some might have thought was wrong with him clearly wasn't. Right and wrong do exist. In this case it's pretty simple to sort out.


Hindsight is always perfect. In fact if the Reds hired him as their GM, they might win something sometime....

But I think it was clear that I was arguing that based upon what was known at the time, the decision to pass on TL was defensible.

redsfandan
08-19-2009, 06:41 AM
I love how the Reds FO gets blasted for NOT signing certain players. People look at things in hindsight and assume that the Reds should've KNOWN what these guys would turn out like. There were lots of reasons to pass on Lincecum at that time (doug mentioned them already), and the same can be said for Beckham. It's WAY too early to call those drafts busts for the Reds. Just because Beckham & Lincecum have reached the bigs quicker doesn't stop Stubbs & Alonso (and others) from doing the same, just at a NORMAL pace.
I can actually understand teams passing on Lincecum (although not for Stubbs). But Alonso over Beckham?? I've never understood that decision.

M2
08-19-2009, 09:11 AM
Hindsight is always perfect. In fact if the Reds hired him as their GM, they might win something sometime....

But I think it was clear that I was arguing that based upon what was known at the time, the decision to pass on TL was defensible.

Rationales like that are how organizations don't learn from their mistakes.

What you should have typed is "Hindsight is always perfect. Lincecum was rated as having the best fastball and best breaking ball in the draft. He had huge upside and was the consensus best player on the board when the Reds made their pick. Despite their misgivings about his height and mechanics, they should have drafted him."

The Reds talked themselves out of the pick that could have radically altered the franchise. At no juncture is that something that should be excused away.

jojo
08-19-2009, 10:04 AM
Rationales like that are how organizations don't learn from their mistakes.

What you should have typed is "Hindsight is always perfect. Lincecum was rated as having the best fastball and best breaking ball in the draft. He had huge upside and was the consensus best player on the board when the Reds made their pick. Despite their misgivings about his height and mechanics, they should have drafted him."

The Reds talked themselves out of the pick that could have radically altered the franchise. At no juncture is that something that should be excused away.

Sure, there is a lot to be learned by reevaluating the process that went into a decision. However, Lincecum is basically best characterized as an exception to the rule. There was a ton of risk associated with Lincecum and it was certainly defensible at the time for teams to pass on him. That's not even close to a rationalization.

Simply put, a reasonable scouting director could have decided to pass on Lincecum while using a sound process to arrive at the decision.

As it turns out, with the exception of Tampa's decision, knowing what is known now, 8 teams would change their picks. That however, doesn't mean the decision was a de facto poor one based upon what was known at the time.

Was the Reds process a poor one? Maybe (I'm not sure what their rationale was for what they did). But if so, its not because of how Lincecum's early career has turned out.

Falls City Beer
08-19-2009, 10:11 AM
Sure, there is a lot to be learned by reevaluating the process that went into a decision. However, Lincecum is basically best characterized as an exception to the rule. There was a ton of risk associated with Lincecum and it was certainly defensible at the time for teams to pass on him. That's not even close to a rationalization.

Simply put, a reasonable scouting director could have decided to pass on Lincecum while using a sound process to arrive at the decision.

As it turns out, with the exception of Tampa's decision, knowing what is known now, 8 teams would change their picks. That however, doesn't mean the decision was a de facto poor one based upon what was known at the time.

Was the Reds process a poor one? Maybe (I'm not sure what their rationale was for what they did). But if so, its not because of how Lincecum's early career has turned out.

You're ignoring context: if Longoria were an option at the time and the choice was Longoria vs. Lincecum, then yes, of course, there was certainly an argument for taking Longoria over Lincecum. The problem was that this organization was able to talk itself into the decision of Stubbs (or anyone else left on the board) over Lincecum (that was the choice, not Lincecum vs. anybody you wish to draft); how is that in any way defensible?

princeton
08-19-2009, 10:12 AM
It's WAY too early to call those drafts busts for the Reds.


if you don't call them early, you make the same mistakes again and again. you MUST know how this game works early. it's like hitting a fastball-- you can't whack it if it's already in the catcher's mitt.

if Lincecum had been drafted, Reds would have a future and a present. WayneK would still have a job. the pick was a job-buster and an organization-changer. what else do you need to know?

princeton
08-19-2009, 10:17 AM
btw, I say that the draft (finally) changes massively after Strasburg and Harper go through it.

that's a LOT of cash yet a lot of teams say they're in big trouble financially. Lots of cash finally flowing in Latin America too. System to rebuild poor teams is nearly severed, at last.

flyer85
08-19-2009, 10:18 AM
There is no reason to know why they passed on Lincecum. It could have been that he was short. Could have been he was short and skinny. Could have been his 6 walks per 9 innings in college. Could have been his incredibly unorthodox mechanics. It may have been something else. Stupid probably isn't one of the reasons.certainly they lacked an ability to think outside the box and draft a short skinny pitcher with incredble stuff and unorthodox mechanics. A lot of other teams passed on Lincecum as well. I felt ill when they picked Stubbs and passed on TL.

jojo
08-19-2009, 10:28 AM
You're ignoring context: if Longoria were an option at the time and the choice was Longoria vs. Lincecum, then yes, of course, there was certainly an argument for taking Longoria over Lincecum. The problem was that this organization was able to talk itself into the decision of Stubbs (or anyone else left on the board) over Lincecum (that was the choice, not Lincecum vs. anybody you wish to draft); how is that in any way defensible?

If Lincecum was 6 inches taller, weighed 30-40 lbs more, had more conventional mechanics, had no red flags concerning command and didn't have a college coach that rode him harder than a mustang used by the pony-express, you might have a point concerning the decision not being defensible.

Longoria has nothing to do with it.

M2
08-19-2009, 10:35 AM
However, Lincecum is basically best characterized as an exception to the rule.

What rule is that? Don't draft the pitcher with the best stuff? Stay away from the kid with the jaw-dropping numbers? The consensus best player on the board is never any good?

And you know better than to make the short pitcher argument, seeing that we're living in an era of excellent sub-six-foot pitchers. In fact I believe you pointed out just yesterday how baseless the short pitcher argument is.

Stubbs was the guy who was picked to be the exception to the rule. Go ahead and check out the tawdry history of UT position players.

Based on what was known at the time, the Reds passed on the top available talent, a power pitcher at that, to draft a CF with a questionable stick.

Best player available would have led the Reds to Scott Kazmir, Jered Weaver, Tim Lincecum and Rick Porcello. At least those are the four that were the unquestionable alpha dogs when the Reds made their selections.

But, hey, don't learn. Tell yourself egregious mistake have been for all the right reasons. The Reds had a shot at four top three talents and selected none of them. Everytime they've done it, it's turned out poorly.

The pattern isn't hard to spot.

westofyou
08-19-2009, 10:39 AM
If Lincecum was 6 inches taller, weighed 30-40 lbs more, had more conventional mechanics, had no red flags concerning command and didn't have a college coach that rode him harder than a mustang used by the pony-express, you might have a point concerning the decision not being defensible.

Longoria has nothing to do with it.

If he had different plumbing he'd be pitching fast pitch softball too right?

jojo
08-19-2009, 10:44 AM
What rule is that? Don't draft the pitcher with the best stuff? Stay away from the kid with the jaw-dropping numbers? The consensus best player on the board is never any good?

It's the rule that says there is no such thing as a pitching prospect and short skinny pitchers with unconventional mechanics, a history of poor command, and a college work load that is best characterized as excessive especially for their age don't generally fair well.....


And you know better than to make the short pitcher argument, seeing that we're living in an era of excellent sub-six-foot pitchers. In fact I believe you pointed out just yesterday how baseless the short pitcher argument is.

To be accurate my comment yesterday was pointing out the vacillating position of another ORG's member's take on pitching frame.....

I think all other things being equal, take the pitcher with a more projectable frame.....

M2
08-19-2009, 10:47 AM
btw, I say that the draft (finally) changes massively after Strasburg and Harper go through it.

that's a LOT of cash yet a lot of teams say they're in big trouble financially. Lots of cash finally flowing in Latin America too. System to rebuild poor teams is nearly severed, at last.

Yep, looks like slotting bonuses will be the top issue for owners at the table, and that the players will be all too happy to oblige. Jayson Stark wrote a good column on it yesterday - http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=4407622

He highlighted slotting, trading picks, worldwide draft and retaining the rights of high school picks if they don't sign.

Slotting will happen. Allowing picks to be swapped probably will happen. Rights retention is a nifty idea, the real question is whether teams prefer to let college sort 'em out before committing to a pick. My guess is that will be tabled for at least this CBA. The worldwide draft won't happen because international signings still aren't expensive enough to force the change.

flyer85
08-19-2009, 10:48 AM
For me anyway as was every bit as bothered by selection of Stubbs as the passing on Lincecum.

Drafting an OF with a questionable bat in the top 10 is absurd. There were a number of picks they could have made.

jojo
08-19-2009, 10:49 AM
If he had different plumbing he'd be pitching fast pitch softball too right?

If Lincecum had different plumbing, Max Scherzer would be the dead horse.

flyer85
08-19-2009, 10:52 AM
If Lincecum had different plumbing, Max Scherzer would be the dead horse.
which points out the problem ... the Reds got the guy they wanted.

M2
08-19-2009, 10:58 AM
It's the rule that says there is no such thing as a pitching prospect and short skinny pitchers with unconventional mechanics, a history of poor command, and a college work load that is best characterized as excessive especially for their age don't generally fair well.....

Who are these pitchers? You've officially described no one I've ever heard of. You certainly haven't described Lincecum, since you've left out the pertinent details of stuff, performance and consensus ranking.

The Reds and several other teams did what you just did. They made something up, concocted a bogus composite, in order to justify not taking the most electric arm in the draft. What they did was stupid and self-mutilating.

Again, this isn't tricky. The Reds had four shots to draft top three talents who were unquestionably the top rated player on the board. They passed all four times. All four turned into quality major league pitchers. Had the Reds not argued with the premise they'd have one of the most dominant rotations in baseball.

The excuses were completely wrong-headed. Every time. Without exception. The clear logic of taking the superior talent was right. Every time. Without exception.

Instead they got Gruler, Bailey, Stubbs and Mesoraco. That's bathos.

Chip R
08-19-2009, 11:14 AM
Yep, looks like slotting bonuses will be the top issue for owners at the table, and that the players will be all too happy to oblige. Jayson Stark wrote a good column on it yesterday - http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=4407622

He highlighted slotting, trading picks, worldwide draft and retaining the rights of high school picks if they don't sign.

Slotting will happen. Allowing picks to be swapped probably will happen. Rights retention is a nifty idea, the real question is whether teams prefer to let college sort 'em out before committing to a pick. My guess is that will be tabled for at least this CBA. The worldwide draft won't happen because international signings still aren't expensive enough to force the change.

I wonder if it will. Even though the players and owners are for it, the agents will be four-square against it. And they have some influence with the MLBPA.

princeton
08-19-2009, 11:20 AM
The worldwide draft won't happen because international signings still aren't expensive enough to force the change.

I'm hoping that line has finally been crossed. no more 16 year old ballplayers. it would change an entire country. Hillary Clinton would get involved.

Highlifeman21
08-19-2009, 12:06 PM
Instead they got Gruler, Bailey, Stubbs and Mesoraco. That's bathos.

Dude, I was eating when I read this.

Put a disclaimer or at least warn me before you're gonna make me throw up...

:barf:

redsmetz
08-22-2009, 08:00 AM
Little tidbit from today's Washington Post: Strasburg was in DC accompanied by his family and "an agent with the Scott Boras Corporation" - Kurt Stillwell. Who knew?

CaiGuy
08-24-2009, 10:47 AM
I tend to agree with both sides: Their was rational for not taking Lincecum at the time, but the Reds really wanted Stubbs anyways, and therein lies the problem. They got their man.