Stephen Strasburg writeup by Chris O'Leary

[TJ Wrangler]

http://www.chrisoleary.com/projects/Baseball/Pitching/ProfessionalPitcherAnalyses/StephenStrasburg.html

To go along with what I posted in my thread the other day, Chris O'Leary also thinks that Strasburg has a timing problem. O'Leary is a guy I draw heavily from, so this article doesn't come as a surprise to me, but hopefully everyone here will find this to be a good read.

[crawdad]

http://www.chrisoleary.com/projects/Baseball/Pitching/ProfessionalPitcherAnalyses/StephenStrasburg.html

To go along with what I posted in my thread the other day, Chris O'Leary also thinks that Strasburg has a timing problem. O'Leary is a guy I draw heavily from, so this article doesn't come as a surprise to me, but hopefully everyone here will find this to be a good read.

That was a pretty decent clip showing his W. I was talking with someone, maybe Stotle, about what it meant to sign Strasburg. As in, if you are a team with 10MM allotted for the draft . . . does it make sense to dole out 7MM to him and use the rest on slot? Or does it make sense to get a different highly touted guy at the no. 1 spot who would cost about 3-4MM and use the rest to go over slot in the other rounds? I'm not sure where that dividing line is. I think Strasburg's pitches are good enough to take the risk with him, but I would not fault the Nats for passing on him if it means they go all out in the rest of the draft.

[Stotle]

That was a pretty decent clip showing his W. I was talking with someone, maybe Stotle, about what it meant to sign Strasburg. As in, if you are a team with 10MM allotted for the draft . . . does it make sense to dole out 7MM to him and use the rest on slot? Or does it make sense to get a different highly touted guy at the no. 1 spot who would cost about 3-4MM and use the rest to go over slot in the other rounds? I'm not sure where that dividing line is. I think Strasburg's pitches are good enough to take the risk with him, but I would not fault the Nats for passing on him if it means they go all out in the rest of the draft.

What's nice about Strasburg is the lack of developmental time he'll need. That means you are getting almost an instant return on your investment. It's part of the reason that I just can't see passing on him for mechanical issues. As you point out, money is a different matter. Particularly with two top 10 picks, WAS may be better served grabbing someone who's willing to go closer to slot I don't see many mentioned in the Top 5 that would actually be "slot" in both picks. Personally, I think you take the hit and pay for the two best players you can get. Something like Strasburg and one of Oliver/Gibson/Minor/Volz.

[crawdad]

What's nice about Strasburg is the lack of developmental time he'll need. That means you are getting almost an instant return on your investment. It's part of the reason that I just can't see passing on him for mechanical issues. As you point out, money is a different matter. Particularly with two top 10 picks, WAS may be better served grabbing someone who's willing to go closer to slot I don't see many mentioned in the Top 5 that would actually be "slot" in both picks. Personally, I think you take the hit and pay for the two best players you can get. Something like Strasburg and one of Oliver/Gibson/Minor/Volz.

Right. He is so ready that he will probably give you 3-7 years of value before breaking down. So, i do not think he is the poster boy for this question. His stuff is just so good. I just wonder when it makes sense to go low on your top end first rounder in order to go hard after a large number of guys in later rounds. I just don't know the probability of such a play.

[Stotle]

Right. He is so ready that he will probably give you 3-7 years of value before breaking down. So, i do not think he is the poster boy for this question. His stuff is just so good. I just wonder when it makes sense to go low on your top end first rounder in order to go hard after a large number of guys in later rounds. I just don't know the probability of such a play.

It's a decision you'd have to make close to the draft after speaking with a bunch of different signability players. It's more effective for teams like BOS who 1) draft late enough that their pick isn't guaranteed to be a $3-5 mios pick, and 2) do a great job of creating a good relationship with potential draftees.

Finally, I think it comes down to how much more value the $$$ guy gives over the $$ guy. If the questions is Crow vs. Oliver + Shelby Miller in round 2 for round 1 money, I would probably choose the latter.

[TJ Wrangler]

That was a pretty decent clip showing his W. I was talking with someone, maybe Stotle, about what it meant to sign Strasburg. As in, if you are a team with 10MM allotted for the draft . . . does it make sense to dole out 7MM to him and use the rest on slot? Or does it make sense to get a different highly touted guy at the no. 1 spot who would cost about 3-4MM and use the rest to go over slot in the other rounds? I'm not sure where that dividing line is. I think Strasburg's pitches are good enough to take the risk with him, but I would not fault the Nats for passing on him if it means they go all out in the rest of the draft.

Interesting. I'm not sure there's a clear cut number 1 that would make it justifiable to pass up on Strasburg. If this were Price, then the argument could have been made to take Wieters. I couldn't see guys like Green, White, or Ackley being good enough to justify not taking Strasburg, despite his mechanical flaws. I could see them taking Green and one of Gibson/Matzek with their pick for not signing Crow if they think one of them will fall.