If Elias doesn't select Rutschman...what would your reaction be?

[foxfield]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

Sure you can rationalize it.   Let’s say your evaluations and metrics say that Rutschman’s most likely outcome is Wieters, while the 1B’s most likely outcome is Steve Garvey.   Then you can rationalize it.    

As I’ve said before, I trust Elias, but if he chooses anyone other than Rutschman that guy had better turn out to be an absolute stud.    Whereas if he chooses Rutschman and he turns out to be a disappointment, nobody can really criticize the pick.   

I think this fairly depicts the position Elias is in.  A significant number of people expect Rutschman and of course there is no guarantee.  But because of that, he is also the safest pick.  But if their analysis says Witt or Vaughan, I hope they have the fortitude to follow their analysis.  I do think though that interest in either of them, is largely to keep negotiations with Rutschman honest.  And I would be very surprised if any other name outside of those three were called.

[atomic]

12 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Sure you can rationalize it.   Let’s say your evaluations and metrics say that Rutschman’s most likely outcome is Wieters, while the 1B’s most likely outcome is Steve Garvey.   Then you can rationalize it.    

As I’ve said before, I trust Elias, but if he chooses anyone other than Rutschman that guy had better turn out to be an absolute stud.    Whereas if he chooses Rutschman and he turns out to be a disappointment, nobody can really criticize the pick.   

You can see when your ceiling is Steve Garvey you have a hard time justifying the pick.  As Garvey career is comparable to someone like Nick Markakis or Harold Baines.  

[clapdiddy]

7 minutes ago, atomic said:

You can see when your ceiling is Steve Garvey you have a hard time justifying the pick.  As Garvey career is comparable to someone like Nick Markakis or Harold Baines.  

And if you can get someone to have a career like Markakis, Baines, or Garvey with the first pick of the draft, I'd say you've done a pretty good job.   Many 1st picks in the draft don't have careers like those guys. 

[LookinUp]

Just now, clapdiddy said:

And if you can get someone to have a career like Markakis, Baines, or Garvey with the first pick of the draft, I'd say you've done a pretty good job.   Many 1st picks in the draft don't have careers like those guys. 

I want my #1 overall pick to be Michael Jordan (the basketball version). Mike Trout. Barry Bonds. Roger Clemens. Someone who grades out to be not just good or border line great, but amazing. If the fall back is Steve Garvey, I'm not complaining. However, that's not the goal.

[foxfield]

2 minutes ago, atomic said:

You can see when your ceiling is Steve Garvey you have a hard time justifying the pick.  As Garvey career is comparable to someone like Nick Markakis or Harold Baines.  

Because any #1 pick should easily surpass a 10 time All Star and a newly minted HOF, even if the selection were debatable.  I could pull a list of #1 picks that would love to trade their careers for either player but that would not matter to you..but Delmon Young, Josh Hamilton and Tim Beckham from Tampa Bay alone in the last 15 or 20 years.  That's just off the top of my head.  They also took Price and maybe another one.  All of those guys would swap places with Garvey or Baines and most assuredly Markakis too.

You have created a spin where Elias has already failed his rebuild, and you assume he will whiff on his #1 pick unless he takes Rutschman, in which case if he is HOF you project, Elias gets no credit because...DUH?  

The pick will likely be Rutschman, but even IF he is the player you expect, the rebuild will require about 100 more good to great moves in order to be back in competition for a WS.  There will be 3 to 5 high picks over the next several years.  As well as several earlier picks in rounds 2 and three.  He doesn't have to hit everyone.  The first one would be nice, but it is not the slam dunk you seem to think it is, and it is only one building block along the way.  An important one, to be sure.

 

[clapdiddy]

1 minute ago, LookinUp said:

I want my #1 overall pick to be Michael Jordan (the basketball version). Mike Trout. Barry Bonds. Roger Clemens. Someone who grades out to be not just good or border line great, but amazing. If the fall back is Steve Garvey, I'm not complaining. However, that's not the goal.

I agree with you 100%.   I'd like our first pick to be the guy we can build the whole team around.  I'm just saying that no player is a "sure thing".    What if we draft Rutschman and he turns out to be Matt Wieters?   Not a bad player, but not the game-changer we need.

[Frobby]

25 minutes ago, atomic said:

You can see when your ceiling is Steve Garvey you have a hard time justifying the pick.  As Garvey career is comparable to someone like Nick Markakis or Harold Baines.  

I didn’t say ceiling, I said most likely outcome.   There’s a huge difference between those two things.    

[LookinUp]

30 minutes ago, atomic said:

You can see when your ceiling is Steve Garvey you have a hard time justifying the pick.  As Garvey career is comparable to someone like Nick Markakis or Harold Baines.  

I think you make so many contrarian arguments that when you're making a perfectly logical one, it gets taken the wrong way.

I'd wager that nobody here wants a guy with a ceiling of Steve Garvey. I know Rutschman and Witt have a higher ceiling. I'm guessing, but not really sure, that Vaughn actually does too. Still, the point is actually correct, IMO, that I want a guy with an elite ceiling if he exists, especially if he also has a high floor. I don't want to pass on him in the hopes that guys in the 2-5th rounds can be bought out of college agreements and hopefully grow into such a profile one day. 

This is a classic "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" scenario. Unless Elias et al find a real red flag in Rutschman's game, he needs to be the pick.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

8 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

I want my #1 overall pick to be Michael Jordan (the basketball version). Mike Trout. Barry Bonds. Roger Clemens. Someone who grades out to be not just good or border line great, but amazing. If the fall back is Steve Garvey, I'm not complaining. However, that's not the goal.

Problem is not every draft is going to have a HOF talent as the obvious first round pick. Even Jordan got picked third in the first round the year he was drafted.

Pick Garvey or a Baines and that is a win already. Unless you completely missed on the next Mike Trout in the first round. Trout still got passed on by 20 teams before the Angels selected him.

[LookinUp]

Just now, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Problem is not every draft is going to have a HOF talent as the obvious first round pick. Even Jordan got picked third in the first round the year he was drafted.

Pick Garvey or a Baines and that is a win already. Unless you completely missed on the next Mike Trout in the first round. Trout still got passed on by 20 teams before the Angels selected him.

Of course, but we're talking about this draft and this player. There's probably a 50% chance (or maybe much more) that he doesn't even turn out to be the best player. However, he has the best odds to turn out to be the best player by a wide margin, unless what I'm reading is wrong. You have to take that guy.

[Number5]

19 hours ago, Frobby said:

Hard to believe the draft is only 11 days away.    Looking forward to it!   It’s my wife’s birthday, so I may need to tape the proceedings.   I’m pretty sure that “sorry honey, I know you’d like to go out but I need to watch this!” isn’t going to cut it.   

If you were to do that, my guess is that you would soon have to hire one of your colleagues.  

[atomic]

11 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I didn’t say ceiling, I said most likely outcome.   There’s a huge difference between those two things.    

No the most likely outcome is not Steve Garvey.   That is if everything goes right and he reaches his potential, doesn't get injured and stays highly motivated until he is 38.   

 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

Just now, LookinUp said:

Of course, but we're talking about this draft and this player. There's probably a 50% chance (or maybe much more) that he doesn't even turn out to be the best player. However, he has the best odds to turn out to be the best player by a wide margin, unless what I'm reading is wrong. You have to take that guy.

I'm going to trust in Elias, but Rutschman appears to be the obvious pick in the draft. But in baseball, there is no guarantee that the first pick will be a stud like in football and basketball.

[atomic]

6 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Of course, but we're talking about this draft and this player. There's probably a 50% chance (or maybe much more) that he doesn't even turn out to be the best player. However, he has the best odds to turn out to be the best player by a wide margin, unless what I'm reading is wrong. You have to take that guy.

Yeah I have said that before. We are lucky that we have someone that is clearly a number 1 overall guy and odds are is going to have a successful career.  A lot of years it is a toss up and there is no super elite guy.   

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

2 minutes ago, atomic said:

Yeah I have said that before. We are lucky that we have someone that is clearly a number 1 overall guy and odds are is going to have a successful career.  A lot of years it is a toss up and there is no super elite guy.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_first_overall_Major_League_Baseball_draft_picks