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

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, atomic said:

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

I think Trout and Bonds are neck and neck through the same points in their careers.  

[atomic]

9 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

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

I never said I was an expert in the draft at all. I am just saying if I could tell Appel would be a bad pick as someone who barely follows the draft it is suprising someone who does it for a living couldn't see that.

Also in 1985 there were a lot of good picks before Bonds: Barry Larkin, BJ Suroff, Will Clark.  The only total bust before was the pick right before Bonds by the White Sox.  I doubt people would be to upset if they ended up with Larkin. 

[atomic]

6 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I think Trout and Bonds are neck and neck through the same points in their careers.  

Bonds put up 31.4 after age 38.  I doubt Trout will do that plus he has to stay injury free.  Very unlikely he passes Bonds. 

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

I think Trout and Bonds are neck and neck through the same points in their careers.  

No, Trout is miles ahead, 64 WAR to 41 WAR through age 26.    But I’m not expecting Trout to have a chemically-induced spike in the second half of his career.   

[LookinUp]

1 minute ago, atomic said:

Bonds put up 31.4 after age 38.  I doubt Trout will do that plus he has to stay injury free.  Very unlikely he passes Bonds. 

AYFKM? What is up with you? Why turn this into a Bonds vs. Trout argument in the first place? Then why rely on obviously steroid induced numbers to support your argument? 

The point is that any individual draft slot can turn out better than 1:1. However, there's no doubt that every team would prefer to have 1:1 if possible. It's the most advantageous position. If you're arguing that point, you should just walk away.

 

[atomic]

17 minutes ago, WalkWithElias said:

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. 

Big difference between missing out on the best player in the draft and picking someone who never played in the majors.  I guess it doesn't fit your narrative. 

[Moose Milligan]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

No, Trout is miles ahead, 64 WAR to 41 WAR through age 26.    But I’m not expecting Trout to have a chemically-induced spike in the second half of his career.   

I was totaling up their first 9 seasons, not ages.  Trout started younger, but not by a huge amount.

[WalkWithElias]

Just now, atomic said:

Big difference between missing out on the best player in the draft and picking someone who never played in the majors.  I guess it doesn't fit your narrative. 

 

[atomic]

6 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

AYFKM? What is up with you? Why turn this into a Bonds vs. Trout argument in the first place? Then why rely on obviously steroid induced numbers to support your argument? 

The point is that any individual draft slot can turn out better than 1:1. However, there's no doubt that every team would prefer to have 1:1 if possible. It's the most advantageous position. If you're arguing that point, you should just walk away.

  

No I am not arguing that.  But if you don't want Bonds and Ruth was too long ago I would say I doubt Trout catches Willie Mays.  Who put up 6 WAR season at 40 and missed two seasons due to military service.  

[atomic]

9 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

AYFKM? What is up with you? Why turn this into a Bonds vs. Trout argument in the first place? Then why rely on obviously steroid induced numbers to support your argument? 

The point is that any individual draft slot can turn out better than 1:1. However, there's no doubt that every team would prefer to have 1:1 if possible. It's the most advantageous position. If you're arguing that point, you should just walk away.

  

Someone mentions Trout as the best player in the history of the game.  I was going by total numbers. But yeah Willie Mays was a better player than Trout. 

[LookinUp]

4 minutes ago, atomic said:

Someone mentions Trout as the best player in the history of the game.  I was going by total numbers. But yeah Willie Mays was a better player than Trout. 

Fine. Just replace my original statement with "one of." It's immaterial whether Trout is the best or top 10 ever. Either way, he's great and was picked at #25.

[Luke-OH]

Let's not get into intense debate over the best player of all-time in this thread, that's a whole can of worms. 

[atomic]

5 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Fine. Just replace my original statement with "one of." It's immaterial whether Trout is the best or top 10 ever. Either way, he's great and was picked at #25.

Yeah.  A lot of great players picked in the second round too.   It is surprising that baseball is so bad at identifying who to draft there. In the NHL there are rarely busts at #1 overall and everyone is drafted at 18.  In Baseball a lot of the picks are college players and thus older so you would think they would have more success than they do. 

[atomic]

Good article on why you shouldn't draft high school pitchers in the first round.  

https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/11/19/mlb-draft-high-school-pitchers-velocity-tommy-john-surgery-problem

 

 

[DrungoHazewood]

55 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.

This is like being asked if you would rather have a raffle ticket with a 33% chance of winning, or a raffle ticket with a 25% chance of winning.  Picking #2 is saying you'd rather have the 25% chance because sometimes that works out better than the 33% chance.