Comments on: Pittsburgh Pirates 2013 Top Prospects: #13 – Tony Sanchez Your best source for news on the Pittsburgh Pirates and their minor league system. Sat, 15 Nov 2014 14:34:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: NastyNate82 Fri, 18 Jan 2013 03:15:27 +0000 I understand its a crapshoot; I hear all kinds of people stating that the 2008 draft is a failure because it basically produced just Alvarez. Mainly, I think this is due because people compare the MLB draft to other sports (mainly the NFL when comparing the Bucs and Steelers) when the two drafts couldn’t be more different.
The thing that kind of…bothered me about the Sanchez pick was it just didn’t seem to be the type of talent a team desperately needing high-end talent should be taking. Under the old CBA they still could have spread $$ around on prep pitchers if they had taken a higher impact talent instead of Sanchez to begin with. Shelby Miller only got a few hundred thousand more than Sanchez.
I realize I’m using a lot of hindsight is 20/20 on this; we obviously wouldn’t be having this discussion if Sanchez had gone all Johnny Bench on us. I think the thing that his selection asks me now is how would you rather fail? By going with a safe pick or taking a risk on a higher end talent? I’d rather err with talent, because especially with a small market team, the draft is the only somewhat level playing field they have

By: Steve Zielinski Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:03:45 +0000 The conundrum is this: Teams should take the Best Player Available unless his salary demands are irrational when compared to his feasible projection. Teams have draft budgets, and GM’s authorized to spend within the limits of those budgets. Therefore, it makes a lot of sense to try to maximize the talent acquired by rationally allocating those scarce dollars. Only the elite talents break this kind of reasoning. A Harper, Trout, Strasburg, Cole, Bundy promise to produce enough baseball value that a team can expect to recover the costs met when acquiring him. They are risks worth taking. The lesser talents are more likely to fail and thus more likely to sink the costs met while acquiring them.

The draft is not akin to shooting craps. It’s more like betting on horses. One does due diligence, places a bet and hopes for the best.

By: NastyNate82 Thu, 17 Jan 2013 04:04:38 +0000 Would beg to differ with some of your assessments there. Miller and Wheeler look like pretty damn good prospects to me.
I’d agree with you up to a point on the strategy. If I remember right, they thought that there were two top talents in that draft (which everyone thought of as Strasburg and Ackley) and that the rest of the first round was pretty even. If thats their assessment, I can’t say its a terrible plan, but I think Sanchez was the “safest” option among their choices and it shows that even safe choices don’t necessarily pay off. So you if its such a crapshoot, maybe its better to go with a high-ceiling type guy.

By: Lee Young Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:13:21 +0000 one of these days, I am going to look at all 2009 over slots.

I am also following T Bay’s 637 comp picks they got.

By: Lee Young Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:12:16 +0000 yep…2009 draft hasn’t been kind to too many teams.

I remember how excited we were when we got ZVR, a supposed first round talent.

By: Steve Zielinski Wed, 16 Jan 2013 19:54:49 +0000 The 2009 draft class has not proven itself to be a strong one. Of the following, only Skaggs and Trout were available when the Pirates took Sanchez and have proven themselves worthy of #4-pick money.

Strasburg — all world
Trout — all world
Skaggs — looks good
Ackley — bust?
Myers — jury remains out (whiff machine)
Miller — jury remains out (inconsistent)
Hamilton — jury remains out (will he hit)
Singleton — jury still out (whiff machine)
Wheeler — seems overrated
Green — seems overrated
Marisnick — seems overrated
Davidson — jury still out (whiff machine)

One might claim that the Pirates would be better off if they had taken one of the above available players instead of Sanchez. But that claim or belief must be balanced against the strategy used by the Pirates in that draft. The strategy was not wrong. It just failed to produce the desired results. Drafts are gambles. The risk of losing one’s bet are high.

That said, it would be nice to have an outfield of Trout, McCutchen and Marte!

By: Tim Williams Wed, 16 Jan 2013 19:18:54 +0000 It was pretty much the slot price. Rather than going over-slot on a prep pitcher in the first round, they went over-slot on a bunch of prep pitchers in the middle rounds.

By: Ecbucs Wed, 16 Jan 2013 19:17:48 +0000 Didn’t the Pirates basically pay Sanchez slot money?

They just weren’t willing to go over slot with that pick. For Sanchez it was a good deal since he would have gotten a lot less (maybe a million or more) if taken towards the end of first round.

By: Tim Williams Wed, 16 Jan 2013 19:00:34 +0000 As Kevin pointed out, Baltimore picked Matt Hobgood one pick after Sanchez. BA had Sanchez rated 32nd and Hobgood rated 40th, so Hobgood was more of a reach.

Atlanta took Mike Minor 7th (ranked 35th). Cincinnati took Mike Leake 8th (ranked 14th). Both of those picks have worked out much better than Sanchez, although they’re both situations where teams passed over the high priced prep pitchers for signable college guys.

Baltimore went over-slot on 11th round catcher Michael Ohlman ($995 K), 22nd round lefty Cameron Coffey ($990 K), and had seven players who received $100-250 K bonuses after the tenth round.

Cincinnati and Atlanta didn’t really go over-slot. They had a few guys after the 10th round making $100-250 K bonuses.

Other teams who went over-slot on middle round guys include Detroit and Boston.

By: Kevin Creagh Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:43:04 +0000 Baltimore is one of them. They opted to select Matthew Hobgood, who is an absolute bust that may never get past A-ball. With Sanchez, expectations need to be adjusted, but the fact is that he will still be a major leaguer.

Whether he is a starter or backup is the point of contention.