Pittsburgh Pirates: Defending Tony Sanchez - Pittsburgh Pirates

Jump to content

  • 11 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »

Defending Tony Sanchez

#1 User is offline   Willton 

  • GCL Pirate
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 137
  • Joined: 11-February 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Jersey City, NJ

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:18 PM

Though I imagine it will fly several country miles over the heads of several posters here, those limp-wristed apologists over at fangraphs.com have done the unthinkable and posted an article defending Huntington's draft strategy.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/i...of-tony-sanchez

The end of the article also has a link to a rather interesting article in The Hardball Times, but I'm sure that author there was bought off by Nutting & Co.
0

#2 User is offline   jeffr92 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10,187
  • Joined: 16-November 08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:20 PM

I read it and disagree with it. As a defensive catcher, he is a very risky selection and his ceiling is that of a 2-2.5 WAR player. To top it off we overpaid him by paying slot money. There is no justification for the selection.
0

#3 User is offline   The Lumber Company 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,151
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet Lovetron

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:23 PM

QUOTE (Willton @ Jun 25 2009, 04:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Though I imagine it will fly several country miles over the heads of several posters here, those limp-wristed apologists over at fangraphs.com have done the unthinkable and posted an article defending Huntington's draft strategy.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/i...of-tony-sanchez

The end of the article also has a link to a rather interesting article in The Hardball Times, but I'm sure that author there was bought off by Nutting & Co.

Yeah, that's exactly what I want from the fourth overall pick - "a 2, 2.5 win per season player." Why would I want an impact player from that spot, especially in an organization that has so many of them?
0

#4 Guest_sloshyj_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:24 PM

QUOTE (jeffr92 @ Jun 25 2009, 04:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There is no justification for the selection.

Let's watch the phrasing. To be so finite in your analysis, it's akin to "there is absolutely no downside to signing Adam Dunn," which leads to polarizing debates.

The fact is, fangraphs.com has provided some amount of justification for the selection. What you feel is that the justification isn't strong enough.

The concepts of "no justification" and "no downside" are too absolutist. I truly believe its why posters here are so equally polarized.
0

#5 User is offline   Willton 

  • GCL Pirate
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 137
  • Joined: 11-February 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Jersey City, NJ

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:26 PM

QUOTE (The Lumber Company @ Jun 25 2009, 04:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yeah, that's exactly what I want from the fourth overall pick - "a 2, 2.5 win per season player." Why would I want an impact player from that spot, especially in a an organization that has so many of them?

Can you identify an impact player available at that spot, other than the volatile high school pitcher?
0

#6 User is offline   jeffr92 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10,187
  • Joined: 16-November 08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:27 PM

QUOTE (sloshyj @ Jun 25 2009, 04:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Let's watch the phrasing. To be so finite in your analysis, it's akin to "there is absolutely no downside to signing Adam Dunn," which leads to polarizing debates.

The fact is, fangraphs.com has provided some amount of justification for the selection. What you feel is that the justification isn't strong enough.

The concepts of "no justification" and "no downside" are to absolutist. I truly believe its why posters here are so equally polarized.

At the price we paid to sign Tony Sanchez, and the names on the board that will sign for similar, or even less, I don't see anyway to justify it. It was a personal opinion. Obviously, others have the mental capacity to justify it any way that they wish.
0

#7 User is offline   The Lumber Company 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,151
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet Lovetron

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:29 PM

In addition, the Hardball Times article might demonstrate how much more risky drafting a pitcher in the first round is as opposed to drafting a position player, but it also highlights the drop-off between the success rates of first round pitchers, as opposed to second and third round pitchers. While I like the fact that the Pirates loaded up on supposedly high ceiling high school pitchers, (a) if they were first round talents, they would have likely been chosen there and (b) they still have to sign a high percentage of these pitchers in order to even out the odds, and they already paid slot money to a guy who was almost universally considered to be worth considerably less money.
0

#8 User is offline   jeffr92 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10,187
  • Joined: 16-November 08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:29 PM

QUOTE (Willton @ Jun 25 2009, 04:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Can you identify an impact player available at that spot, other than the volatile high school pitcher?

Bobby Borchering
Wil Myers
Alex White
Aaron Crow
Mike Leake
Chad Jenkins
Grant Green
Jared Mitchell

Anyone of them would have been much better selections, although I wanted Matzek or Turner.
0

#9 Guest_sloshyj_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:31 PM

QUOTE (jeffr92 @ Jun 25 2009, 04:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
At the price we paid to sign Tony Sanchez, and the names on the board that will sign for similar, or even less, I don't see anyway to justify it. It was a personal opinion. Obviously, others have the mental capacity to justify it any way that they wish.

Anything can be justified. A judge considering a murder case takes into account the defendant's justification and decides if it is reasonable enough under the letter of the law. If not, that person is sentenced. But no one claims that the judge has stated "there is no justification." Just that the justifications aren't strong enough.

The idea of "no justification" is a Republican term. It's like "I don't agree with the trade." Agree?! The use of phrasing is all wrong.

In arguing our points, I think it's only natural to take a polarizing stance, because it's easier to defend. Stating that there are "no justifications" just cuts out conversation, effectively ending it. And I would think, anyone on here should be open to knowing what NH's justification might be, if only to levy a more informed opinion.
0

#10 User is offline   Penguin 

  • Collective Wisdom
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 17,075
  • Joined: 16-November 08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:37 PM

A couple of points that are equally true:

1. Yes, college hitters are statistically more successful than high school pitchers. Nobody here has ever argued otherwise as it's been discussed in length.

2. Fatchez was an enourmous over draft.

3. Point #1 doesn't change point #2.

So to me, it all boils down to a philosophy. As jpbucco attempted to retardedly express last week, nobody knows for sure what the future holds for Fatchez. Perhaps he becomes the next Tom Pagnozzi. Perhaps he's the next A.J. Hinch. I don't fucking know. But I know the philosophy of using the fourth pick in the draft on a player like Fatchez is inexcusable. And I'm equally sure:

- The Florida Marlins are glad they took Josh Beckett instead of Jason Repko

- The Kansas City Royals are glad they took Zach Greinke instead of Jeremy Brown

- The Los Angeles Dodgers are glad they took Clayton Kershaw instead of Emmanuel Burriss

But here's the question NOBODY seems to be willing to answer. Last year the Pirates took high end talent with their first pick and followed it up with high risk slot busters later in the draft. Why didn't they take that approach this year?
"The business of baseball is to make money, not break even. I don't understand why you think the Pirates should run their team like a charity." - Willlton 6/18/2009

"The Bay trade doesn't look like it (a slam dunk winner), but if you take into account the fact that all they lost was eight months of Jason Bay's services, as well as the fact that even the Red Sox look like they won't be able to re-sign him, it's not nearly the loser many people seem to think." - tWTM 11/26/2009

"Morton is finding himself, now while this may sound weird and out there, but the fact he put on a solo concert at Piratefest shows he finally has the confidence that he lacked within himself that he didn't have in the lower minors." - aso513 2/8/2010

"Dave Littlefield vindicated." - Xiga 4/30/2011 after one scoreless inning of relief by Daniel Moskos.

"Hanrahan and Cedeno would be a gross overpayment for Belt. Sorry, but I'll stick with my realistic analysis of the market and the teams involved." - Steve Zielinski 5/25/2011

"He (Barmes) could have a .000 Batting Average and still be an asset." - bradlej31 5/28/2012

"The last time the Pirates won an extra-inning game in St. Louis that lasted at least 16 frames was April 20, 1986 at Chicago." - Kristy Robinson 8/19/2012

"I want to tweet something clever and interesting to you that will earn your respect and make you smile, since you do that to me all the time." - jpbucco to Colin Dunlap 4/12/2016

"If the Pirates had acquired Giancarlo Stanton from the Marlins, Im not sure they would have won the Benedict trade." - David Todd 11/11/2015
0

#11 Guest_defdog_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:42 PM

At least with Sanchez, we know we are getting a solid catcher.

Not a high school project like Neil Walker who pussies out at catcher soon after...

All this would be moot if DL would of picked Wieters over Moskos.

0

#12 User is offline   mvk112 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 14,305
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:42 PM

QUOTE (Penguin @ Jun 25 2009, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But here's the question NOBODY seems to be willing to answer. Last year the Pirates took high end talent with their first pick and followed it up with high risk slot busters later in the draft. Why didn't they take that approach this year?


Because they weren't looking to spend around $4M on one player in Latin America last year, probably.
0

#13 Guest_sloshyj_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:45 PM

QUOTE (Penguin @ Jun 25 2009, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But here's the question NOBODY seems to be willing to answer. Last year the Pirates took high end talent with their first pick and followed it up with high risk slot busters later in the draft. Why didn't they take that approach this year?

I tried to answer that. I actually believe they had no intention of signing Scheppers. I think it may have been that they knew they were going to pass on him, allowing those dollars to go toward Alvarez.

I could be wrong, but given the money saved there, NH may have skipped the 2nd round to get to cheaper signees later in the draft.
0

#14 Guest_sloshyj_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:47 PM

QUOTE (defdog @ Jun 25 2009, 04:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
All this would be moot if DL would of picked Wieters over Moskos.

True, but I suspect - for some reason - that we would have gone with another safe pick at another position. And I don't know why yet. I hope it is explained to us, or becomes more evident to us, as time goes on.

It's a real mystery. I don't think it had anything to do with needing a catcher. Or, rather, it wasn't largely about his position. It was about taking a safe, good-but-not-great player.
0

#15 User is offline   Willton 

  • GCL Pirate
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 137
  • Joined: 11-February 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Jersey City, NJ

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:48 PM

QUOTE (Penguin @ Jun 25 2009, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But here's the question NOBODY seems to be willing to answer. Last year the Pirates took high end talent with their first pick and followed it up with high risk slot busters later in the draft. Why didn't they take that approach this year?

Probably because they thought that the talent that was available at #4 was not worth the money for which they were asking. They felt the opposite way with Alvarez. It's called "talent evaluation."
0

#16 User is offline   Willton 

  • GCL Pirate
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 137
  • Joined: 11-February 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Jersey City, NJ

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:50 PM

QUOTE (sloshyj @ Jun 25 2009, 04:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I tried to answer that. I actually believe they had no intention of signing Scheppers. I think it may have been that they knew they were going to pass on him, allowing those dollars to go toward Alvarez.

I could be wrong, but given the money saved there, NH may have skipped the 2nd round to get to cheaper signees later in the draft.

I disagree. I think the money that didn't go to Scheppers went to Grossman and Miller. I'm pretty sure the Pirates knew what the price tag for Alvarez was going to be when they selected him.
0

#17 User is offline   Penguin 

  • Collective Wisdom
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 17,075
  • Joined: 16-November 08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:52 PM

QUOTE (Willton @ Jun 25 2009, 01:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Probably because they thought that the talent that was available at #4 was not worth the money for which they were asking. They felt the opposite way with Alvarez. It's called "talent evaluation."

Are these the same "talent evaluators" that gave Ramon Vazquez a two year/4 million dollar contract? The same talent evaluators that gave Craig Monroe a MLB contract? The same talent evaluators who drafted a 30th ranked prospect, but still have him 4th slot money?

Sweet.

I'd rather have wasted an additional 3-4 million on any of the players Jeffr listed than go the safe route with Fatchez.
"The business of baseball is to make money, not break even. I don't understand why you think the Pirates should run their team like a charity." - Willlton 6/18/2009

"The Bay trade doesn't look like it (a slam dunk winner), but if you take into account the fact that all they lost was eight months of Jason Bay's services, as well as the fact that even the Red Sox look like they won't be able to re-sign him, it's not nearly the loser many people seem to think." - tWTM 11/26/2009

"Morton is finding himself, now while this may sound weird and out there, but the fact he put on a solo concert at Piratefest shows he finally has the confidence that he lacked within himself that he didn't have in the lower minors." - aso513 2/8/2010

"Dave Littlefield vindicated." - Xiga 4/30/2011 after one scoreless inning of relief by Daniel Moskos.

"Hanrahan and Cedeno would be a gross overpayment for Belt. Sorry, but I'll stick with my realistic analysis of the market and the teams involved." - Steve Zielinski 5/25/2011

"He (Barmes) could have a .000 Batting Average and still be an asset." - bradlej31 5/28/2012

"The last time the Pirates won an extra-inning game in St. Louis that lasted at least 16 frames was April 20, 1986 at Chicago." - Kristy Robinson 8/19/2012

"I want to tweet something clever and interesting to you that will earn your respect and make you smile, since you do that to me all the time." - jpbucco to Colin Dunlap 4/12/2016

"If the Pirates had acquired Giancarlo Stanton from the Marlins, Im not sure they would have won the Benedict trade." - David Todd 11/11/2015
0

#18 Guest_sloshyj_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 25 June 2009 - 03:57 PM

QUOTE (Willton @ Jun 25 2009, 04:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I disagree. I think the money that didn't go to Scheppers went to Grossman and Miller. I'm pretty sure the Pirates knew what the price tag for Alvarez was going to be when they selected him.

Well, the fact is they had firm number they were spending on the draft, and those dollars are all fundgible. Whether that money went to pay for Alvarez or Grossman and Miller, Scheppers wasn't signed specifically to do one or the other. I think, in choosing a gimpy pitcher, they provided themselves a convenient out.

When is say they were waiting for cheaper players later, that could very well have been Grossman and Miller who, while signed above slot, were not demanding the same compensation Scheppers was.

0

#19 Guest_sloshyj_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 25 June 2009 - 04:00 PM

QUOTE (Penguin @ Jun 25 2009, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Are these the same "talent evaluators" that gave Ramon Vazquez a two year/4 million dollar contract? The same talent evaluators that gave Craig Monroe a MLB contract? The same talent evaluators who drafted a 30th ranked prospect, but still have him 4th slot money?

Well, NH presides over a number of talent evaluators. The buck stops with him, of course, but the materials generated supporting the acquisition of Vazquez were likely created by someone separate from those created in support of Sanchez.

It's like, the guy in charge of chocolate doesn't mix well with the guy in charge of vanilla, but ultimately it's the CEO's job to blend them together into a delicious mocha.

Mmmmmm... Sanchez.
0

#20 User is offline   Pjoma 

  • Bench Manager
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5,468
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Adirondacks

Posted 25 June 2009 - 04:08 PM

QUOTE (Penguin @ Jun 25 2009, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
- The Florida Marlins are glad they took Josh Beckett instead of Jason Repko

- The Kansas City Royals are glad they took Zach Greinke instead of Jeremy Brown

- The Los Angeles Dodgers are glad they took Clayton Kershaw instead of Emmanuel Burriss

But here's the question NOBODY seems to be willing to answer. Last year the Pirates took high end talent with their first pick and followed it up with high risk slot busters later in the draft. Why didn't they take that approach this year?


Agian, too many "ifs" are still in play here.......but.......I'll take a stab at this with my opinion.

1. After Strasburg, the Pirates felt that there were no Beckett's, Greinke's or Kershaw's in the first round of the draft, but there certainly were pitchers that wanted signing bonuses that were equal to or greater than pitchers of that caliber. It is already public info that 3-4 of them want bonuses in excess of Rick Porcello #'s.

2. With that stance and the fact that the Pirates would only go after a pitcher there is they felt it was worth the $ invested, they decided to go for a position player. Whether or not they took the position player that would have the greatest impact for the $ spent can only be answered in time.

3. "Last year the Pirates took high end talent with their first pick and followed it up with high risk slot busters later in the draft. Why didn't they take that approach this year?" The Pirates did assume risk with slot busters last year, but this year's draft of both HS pitchers and position playing slot busters dwarfs what was done last year. Again, the plan is only as good as the execution of the signings.

4. If we were to land 3-4 of the 7 (Pounders, Stevenson, Cain, VonRosenberg, Dodsen, Dermody, Nuncio), all who could have landed up being 1st-3rd round selections in 3 years and get them into camp now, at less $, the $ spent now will be such a value v. what would have been spent acquired for them later.

5. The plan is to spend near the same as last year's amount, but to get an overall amount of talent that is greater than the money spent last year.


Again, it's too early to tell if this plan was cutting edge, an epic failure or somewhere in between. To definitively label it as any one of them now is impossible. If they can't sign these slot busters, the draft was weak. If they sign them and they perform well and we get an MLB productive catcher to boot, then it was a smart strategy. This draft's success is not hinging on 1 player (Sanchez v. option). It's hinging on the huge potential of drafting, signing and developing a ton of slot busters that could have been top rounders in years to come. While I didn't want Sanchez as my first pick, even for a position player, I can remain open to see how this strategy pays off. Very risky, yet potentially paying big dividends. If nothing else, I'm glad we have a GM and scouting department that were willing to stick their necks out on the chopping block to attempt such strategy. For too many people, it would have been too convenient to take 2-3 prominent signings at the top, spending $6-$8M in doing so and using our next 48 picks signing a bunch of college guys.



"Huntington is doing exactly what he was hired to do, and that the fans and media in Pittsburgh cant quite grasp this, that they still hold the 2008-09 trades against him, is an indictment of their sensibilities." Joe Sheehan 6/6/10
0

Share this topic:


  • 11 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »


Fast Reply