36 replies to this topic

[SportsGuy]

Avery or our new draft pick that we won the other day?

[Mike B]

Interesting Question. I think we have others like Avery in the system, Hoes for one, so let's see what our new regime can do with 3 picks in the first 50 or so next year.

[Greg Pappas]

I like Avery, and have hopes for him in our future, but feel that despite the predictions of a weak draft in 2013, I'd still rather get a draftee that may provide higher upside, than hold onto Avery. Good question... and a close call for me.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Drafting a guy with higher upside with that pick is intriguing. Given where I hope we are as an organization, I'd rather have major league ready, solid depth like Avery at our disposal though, so I voted to trade the draft pick.

Part of this decision is that I think a "seller" would covet the draft pick more than Avery, but I could be wrong.

[Nuclear Dish]

I don't trust us to draft wisely. We've got too long a history of blown picks. I keep Avery and hope for the best.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Even if you don't believe Avery will ever be more than a 4th OF, presumably you would be trading him to improve the current roster. If your worry is improving the current roster, it probably makes more sense to have Avery around as depth that could contribute to the current team, vs. adding a pick that is multiple years away from possibly contributing at all.

The flip side is you basically know what Avery is, and the pick remains a question, with possibly greater upside.

[Oriole85]

I don't trust us to draft wisely. We've got too long a history of blown picks. I keep Avery and hope for the best.

Give the new regime a chance, not saying they'll be good but I wouldn't rush to judgment until they get more time.

[You Play to Win the Game]

I don't trust us to draft wisely. We've got too long a history of blown picks. I keep Avery and hope for the best.

I think our problem has been much more around Player Development than it has been the drafting itself. I thought Jordan was fine (minu a few blunders). I think Duq is making this a priority (finally), and so I'm not sure the above stance is the right one to have at this time, JMO.

[JeremyStrain]

I think our problem has been much more around Player Development than it has been the drafting itself. I thought Jordan was fine (minu a few blunders). I think Duq is making this a priority (finally), and so I'm not sure the above stance is the right one to have at this time, JMO.

Yeah but you have to ask, if Jordan really was fine, how did he miss on so many guys. I know a lot of teams miss on players that fall, but it's also my view that the later first round teams are the ones with the better GM/SD teams and don't miss where the worse teams are either scared or just not as good and miss guys all the time.

Trout and Trumbo, Gary Sanchez come to mind. Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but I feel like more of those 20-32 picks have been panning out than the early picks recently.

[SammyBirdland]

With the way we draft and develop, deal the draft pick. Avery could be worth something with consistent playing time.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Yeah but you have to ask, if Jordan really was fine, how did he miss on so many guys. I know a lot of teams miss on players that fall, but it's also my view that the later first round teams are the ones with the better GM/SD teams and don't miss where the worse teams are either scared or just not as good and miss guys all the time.

Trout and Trumbo, Gary Sanchez come to mind. Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but I feel like more of those 20-32 picks have been panning out than the early picks recently.

Did he miss, or did his players come into our system and not receive the appropriate coaching to develop properly?

[Mackus]

Did he miss, or did his players come into our system and not receive the appropriate coaching to develop properly?

He missed.

We may not have a great system, but Jordan wasn't very good at finding talent, IMO. He's got a couple nice later round gems - Arrieta, Britton, Hernandez - but beyond the first round very few of his players have made it. And even in the first round he screwed up pretty much every time there wasn't an obvious choice (I consider Wieters, Matusz, Machado, and Bundy to be obvious choices who were considered to be the top player at that point in the draft, Bundy may be the one exception).

[JeremyStrain]

Did he miss, or did his players come into our system and not receive the appropriate coaching to develop properly?

Mackus hit it I think. He was too obsessed with Juco guys, and guys recovering from injuries. Aside from the slam dunk picks, his % wasn't very good.

Comparison's sake: The Yankees would have taken Trout if they were picking in the top 10. Good scouting.

[You Play to Win the Game]

He missed.

We may not have a great system, but Jordan wasn't very good at finding talent, IMO. He's got a couple nice later round gems - Arrieta, Britton, Hernandez - but beyond the first round very few of his players have made it. And even in the first round he screwed up pretty much every time there wasn't an obvious choice (I consider Wieters, Matusz, Machado, and Bundy to be obvious choices who were considered to be the top player at that point in the draft, Bundy may be the one exception).

Okay, yes, he missed some, but it's not that black and white.

How can you not put any of this on the D system when even the obvious choices, or very talented arms have been bad? It's definitely been a combination of both.

AS - again, I think his hit % wasn't very good because we didn't properly develop our talent.

I'm no Jordan apologist, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's fair to put that all on him - it was definitely a combination of both.

[SportsGuy]

Mackus hit it I think. He was too obsessed with Juco guys, and guys recovering from injuries. Aside from the slam dunk picks, his % wasn't very good.

Comparison's sake: The Yankees would have taken Trout if they were picking in the top 10. Good scouting.

He also loved athletes and felt he could turn them into baseball players.

His strategy was usually pretty poor IMO.

As his time went on, I couldn't wait for him to get out.

He was a good negotiator and had a good idea of what the players would want though..I will give him that.

[Oriole85]

With the way we draft and develop, deal the draft pick. Avery could be worth something with consistent playing time.

Again no confidence in the new regime? I know Stockstill is still there, but a new GM/Scouting Director.

[Oriole85]

I'm no Jordan apologist, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's fair to put that all on him - it was definitely a combination of both.

That's the conclusion I've come too. It's just very hard to say IMO definitely which one it is.

[Oriole85]

Comparison's sake: The Yankees would have taken Trout if they were picking in the top 10. Good scouting.

So just based on that one move, the Yankees have a good scouting department?

[You Play to Win the Game]

That's the conclusion I've come too. It's just very hard to say IMO definitely which one it is.

Yeah, I agree - I think it's a combinaion of both. I don't think I should have said "Jordan was fine" in my initial post. I was a little more definitively hinting at the PDev being the issue rather than Jordan. I think in fairness, it was most likely both.

[Mackus]

He was a good negotiator and had a good idea of what the players would want though..I will give him that.

You're absolutely right here and that's not a negligible talent. It's a major asset to a scouting department. I'm not sure I'd want him running my amateur draft (it'll be real interesting to see how he does in Philly with a different development team), but I would absolutely love to have him in a role as head negotiator or advising in the planning stages as to what he expects each player would ultimately sign for. He was an artist at that aspect of the job, which is certainly important, and perhaps moreso now that there is a cap.