In the baseball world, everyone is talking about one thing: Stephen Strasburg. Don't know who Stephen Strasburg is? You will soon, one way or the other.
For now, Strasburg is the phenom pitcher from San Diego State University who struck out 195 batters in 109 innings. From what I've read, he throws in the upper 90's, has a terrific curveball, and an improving change-up (i.e. it's getting better). He's also the perfect size for a pitcher at 6'4, 220 lbs, big enough to not break down under the strain of pitching in the majors, but small enough to be able to repeat his mechanics. Because of all of the above, Strasburg is the prototype for a major league starting pitcher.
In short, he's an ace in the making, and major league teams have been salivating over him for years. This year he was finally available in the draft, and was taken first overall by the moribund Washington Nationals.
Its not as if the Nationals went off on a limb by picking him either. Strasburg was the number one rated talent by everyone. I'm not talking two out of three dentists recommended drafting him, I'm talking everyone. The gap between him and the number two guy picked (Dustin Ackley) was huge.
Because of this, there was no question that Strasburg would be chosen first. In fact, in the ridiculous number of hours I spend reading about baseball, I have never encountered anyone who seriously suggested that the Nationals should not draft Strasburg.
[Warning: Plaschke Paragraph coming]*
Until yesterday, when Michael Wilbon did.
No way in the world I'd have taken Stephen Strasburg with the No. 1 pick in the draft. The risks are too great. [...] I wouldn't draft a guy who's going to play every fifth day to improve my team's attendance.
So, you wouldn't draft the consensus best player by a mile in the draft to improve your attendance? Let me quote something to you, sir:
You know how you build and keep a loyal fan base? Put a credible product on the field. Be competitive year after year.
Exactly. If Strasburg is the best player in the draft, the Nationals, who's needs on the field include just about everything, have to draft him first. Excellent point, anonymous author!
So, you might be wondering, who is the anonymous author of the above? The answer: Michael Wilbon! And lest you think I went hunting through the Washington Post archives to find a sentence that contradicts Wilbon's opening paragraph, I submit to you that the second quotation is from the same article as the first!
But let's not dwell on Wilbon contradicting himself within the span of 900 words. No, let's move on and attempt to tackle some of his other points. Like this one:
Yes, [the Nationals] need pitching, but they also desperately need everyday players, lots of 'em. And they don't need to drop $50 million, or even $35 million on a college pitcher. This kid isn't, as agent Scott Boras would like us to believe, Daisuke Matsuzaka, who had distinguished himself as a professional in Japan before getting millions to come to the majors.
As Strasburg hasn't signed yet, Wilbon's numbers are irrelevant, but let's say for the sake of argument that the Nats spend $50 million to sign him. Or $60 million. Where else are they going to get a pitcher of Strasburg's potential for that kind of money? The answer is nowhere. Last off season the Yankees signed two talented free agent pitchers. Combined they paid $240 million for them. You think the Yankees would spend $50 million on Stephen Strasburg? In a fucking second! So would Boston, and the Mets, and the Angels, Dodgers, Orioles, etc.
And it's a good thing, not a bad one as Wilbon contends, that Strasburg is coming out of college. College players are much easier (though admittedly not easy) to project as major league players than either high school players or Japanese league players. Do you think the Red Sox, knowing what they know now, would pay over $100 million for Daisuke Matsuzaka? Maybe, but I kinda doubt it.
Moving on:
Strasburg isn't any different from any of the other 13 pitchers selected with the No. 1 overall pick in the draft since 1973, none of whom ever won a Cy Young Award or anchored a staff for six or eight years.
When you really think about this argument, you realize how patently ridiculous it is. What about shortstops taken with the 18th overall pick? Never worked out before? Well, don't ever draft a shortstop with the 18th pick then! Can you imagine a GM actually saying, "Well, we looked it up and no catcher taken with the 6th pick has ever made an all-star game, so that's why we passed on the guy with all the talent." It's moronic.
So what if no pitcher taken number one over all has won a Cy Young award or anchored a staff for six or eight years? Well, first of all, that is wrong. Well, not technically wrong, because Wilbon adroitly and stealthily drops the year 1973 into his sentence. I've looked at it, and I must be missing something, because I can't figure out what about 1973 makes it a good cut off point. I mean, other than that it excludes Tom Seaver, who was drafted twice, the second time as the first overall pick, in 1965. As you may know, Seaver is a three-time Cy Young Award winner and a Hall of Famer.
I don't think anyone would dispute that drafting in any sport is an inexact science. 2008 World Series MVP Cole Hamels was picked 17th overall, Roger Clemens was 19th, and reigning NL Cy Young winner Tim Lincecum was picked 10th. Ultimately, who gives a shit where those players were picked? If baseball re-did those drafts, most of those guys would be the first player picked, and you wouldn't hear anything about how no pitcher picked number one has ever crap crap crap.
And yet, I'm still not done with this point, because Wilbon's statement shows a basic failure to understand how the baseball draft works. Contrary to that of the NBA or NFL, baseball has no salary cap and no cap on rookie salaries. Therefore, the best talent is not necessarily taken first for financial reasons. Some teams simply don't want to pay the asking prices for the top rated talent. The year Tim Lincecum was drafted 10th by the Giants, many people thought he was the best player available, but the Kansas City Royals passed on him with the first pick (as did the next eight teams) because he was asking for what they thought was too much money. The same thing happened to Rick Porcello of the Tigers two years ago. Porcello was the consensus best pitcher in the draft but fell to the 27th pick because of his salary demands.
[The Nationals have] made so many mistakes as an organization it's insane to give them the benefit of the doubt in this. Had the Red Sox drafted Strasburg, I'd be less likely to think this had "bad move" written all over it because the Red Sox, of recent vintage anyway, make decisions that lead to first place while the Nationals mostly look like the Charlie Brown All-Stars.
Well, if the Red Sox had the first over all pick, they would certainly have taken Strasburg. 100% guaranteed. How do I know? Because the Red Sox aren't stupid. Feel better now?
And one kid pitcher, even one with a great arm, is unlikely to change that because there's so much that can go wrong with the kid's shoulder or elbow, with the contract negotiations. Maybe, putting on my optimist's hat for a moment, Strasburg will be the exception to all this. Maybe he'll trump history and be the first star major leaguer to be chosen first overall in the draft. Maybe. Hopefully. But it's a bet, especially at $50 million, I wouldn't be willing to wager.
Sure, a young player can get hurt, or not develop. It happens all the time, even to 'sure thing' players. In fact, duh, most players drafted don't make the majors, but if you follow that logic through, a team is better off just eschewing the draft all together.
It is also true that there is an increased risk in taking a pitcher over a position player. The act of pitching places an extreme strain on the body and results in a higher risk of injury. In recognition of this fact, as of this writing, 20 of the Nationals 32 picks in the 2009 draft are pitchers. That's the way it has to be. Because until someone figures out how to win in the majors without good pitching, drafting pitchers is a risk that all teams are going to have to continue to take.
The Nationals made the right pick. But Wilbon is correct about one thing: one pitcher isn't going to turn the franchise around. If the Nationals are going to become anything other than a laughing stock, they're going to have to get more out of this draft and the one's following it than just Stephen Strasburg.
___
*Don't you like how my Plaschke Paragraph warning is, in itself, a Plaschke Paragraph?
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment