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

[atomic]

18 minutes ago, WalkWithElias said:

It's not about just the #1 pick. It's about having a very high pick in each and every round with a big bonus pool to be able to get as many chances as possible. If the Marlins manage to out-suck the Orioles this summer and we have the #2 pick next year, we'll still have just as good a chance at re-stocking the farm. 

And next year might not have someone who is a clear number 1 overall pick. So #2 could be just as valuable as #1 .  

[theocean]

42 minutes ago, WalkWithElias said:

Strasburg has the 14th highest WAR for a #1 overall pick and the second most of any active player, behind David Price. He should easily move into the Top 10 in the next 3 seasons. Baseball Reference List

I'm a little surprised there are only 3 hall of famers who have been taken with the top pick. A-Rod is by far the most WAR, but he's not in the hall and we'll see what happens there. Then Chipper and Griffey Jr. .... then Baines. 

Looking through that list, it makes you reassess the absolute demand and expectation that the #1 overall pick be a franchise defining player. Among the most successful #1s of all time, we see such luminaries as BJ Surhoff, Rick Monday, and the incomparable Darin Erstad.

It's been 2 decades, and our last #1 overall pick Ben McDonald is the 21st most successful player to be taken at the top of the draft and most would say he didn't meet the hype. 

I think having the first overall pick in baseball is overrated. Certainly nice to have, but there is plenty of high-caliber talent throughout the first round. The Astros always get credited for having the top pick - but Correa was really the only good pick they made with the top spot. They passed on Kris Bryant to draft Mark Appel. They missed out on Aaron Nola, Michael Conforto, Trea Turner, Matt Chapman, Luke Weaver, Kyle Schwarber to draft Brady Aiken and not sign him. Bregman might be their best player and he was a second overall pick.

I'm far more concerned about Elias and Sig being able to put together a good development system - especially one that can develop an all-star caliber starting pitcher for the first time since Mussina.

[Luke-OH]

28 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Anyone know if the college balls are considered to be also be "juiced" this year? How about the minor league balls? Is this all speculation?

Just AAA. They are using the MLB balls this year. 

[DrungoHazewood]

40 minutes ago, WalkWithElias said:

Possibly.

My point is that you never want to miss on the #1 pick, but the vast majority of them don't pan out and very few ever reach expectation.

Franchise defining #1s are as follows: A-Rod, Chipper Jones, Griffey, Mauer, Harper. 

#1s who had very good careers who I'd say "panned out" for the team that picked them: David Price, Harold Baines, Darryl Strawberry, Justin Upton

#1s who had big seasons eventually for someone else: Adrian Gonzalez, Josh Hamilton,

#1s who were guys in the majors: Andy Benes, BJ Surhoff, Darin Erstad

Carlos Correa is still early in his career. Gerit Cole eventually found success and looks like he'll get a big free agent deal. 

The player we pick #1 (who I hope is Rutschman, but if not I won't lose my mind) will hopefully at least fit into the second list of guys who panned out. But if they don't (which is fairly likely), the team can still build a strong farm system with other selections, trades, international signings, player development. 

1 pick does not define a front office. 

You know what pick has not been as valuable as the #1 overall pick?  All of them.  Starting with the #2.  If you fit a curve to the data to smooth out the noise, basically every pick is a bit more valuable than the next pick.  Once you get a few rounds in the difference is negligible, but early on there are significant and obvious advantages, even if the individual data points are noisy.

[DrungoHazewood]

32 minutes ago, atomic said:

And next year might not have someone who is a clear number 1 overall pick. So #2 could be just as valuable as #1 .  

But if today you're asked the question "next year would you rather have the #1 or the #2 pick?" your answer is always #1, without exception.  It is demonstrably more valuable in an average draft.

[LookinUp]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

But if today you're asked the question "next year would you rather have the #1 or the #2 pick?" your answer is always #1, without exception.  It is demonstrably more valuable in an average draft.

To be clear, you're talking about player value only, right? By that , I mean that when you smooth the noise, the higher pick has more value on average.

However, in addition to the player value, there should also be the overall draft value (because of higher picks in every round AND more slot $ to spread around). I'm guessing the slot $ part of this is a relatively newer phenomenon, so the data on that might be less clear but the extra value should be real over time.

[atomic]

5 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

But if today you're asked the question "next year would you rather have the #1 or the #2 pick?" your answer is always #1, without exception.  It is demonstrably more valuable in an average draft.

Yeah but this year I would say having the #1 pick is more valuable when you have a clear cut #1 than in years when there are a bunch of guys with question marks.  For example from 2002 to 2008 there were 5 busts pick #1 overall out of 7 picks.  The next two years you had Strasburg and Harper which were labeled sure things and generational talent.  And both of those guys have produced over 27 WAR so far.   

 

[atomic]

Also I am not sure where they get picking catcher #1 overall is a mistake. Joe Mauer has the 4th most WAR of any player picked #1 overall. 

[LookinUp]

5 minutes ago, atomic said:

Yeah but this year I would say having the #1 pick is more valuable when you have a clear cut #1 than in years when there are a bunch of guys with question marks.  For example from 2002 to 2008 there were 5 busts pick #1 overall out of 7 picks.  The next two years you had Strasburg and Harper which were labeled sure things and generational talent.  And both of those guys have produced over 27 WAR so far.   

 

Nobody's saying #2 can't work out better. Heck, #17 can work out better. #25 can turn out to be the best player in the history of the sport. However, you'd rather have your choice in every round and the extra slot. There's no doubt you'd rather have #1.

[atomic]

8 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Nobody's saying #2 can't work out better. Heck, #17 can work out better. #25 can turn out to be the best player in the history of the sport. However, you'd rather have your choice in every round and the extra slot. There's no doubt you'd rather have #1.

Best player in history of the game was picked 6th overall. 

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, atomic said:

Best player in history of the game was picked 6th overall. 

Babe Ruth?  Didn't know they had a draft then.

[LookinUp]

1 minute ago, atomic said:

Best player in history of the game was picked 6th overall. 

Ok. Not starting a new argument. I was referring to Trout, who was picked 25th. I think you get the point. 

[mdbdotcom]

1 minute ago, atomic said:

Best player in history of the game was picked 6th overall. 

That means five GMs didn't call you before they picked.

[WalkWithElias]

2 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

That means five GMs didn't call you before they picked.

Every one of those GMs should've been fired on the spot for passing on a guy who everyone knew was going to be the GOAT. 

[atomic]

8 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Ok. Not starting a new argument. I was referring to Trout, who was picked 25th. I think you get the point. 

I am just going by career WAR.  Trout is way behind Bonds.  I think it will be pretty hard to catch him.