2009 Draft- Dustin Ackley

by jamesaustin on Sep 26, 2008 1:23 AM PDT Comment 49 comments

I've been informed that as a new comer it is best to not to be an asshole, and as gesture of my appreciation for that advice I will refrain from any pronouncements. Instead, I would simply request that those of greater sagacity than I consider the following question: Would the Mariners be better off grabbing the top available bat with pick #1 or #2? I understand that the "berg" is supposed to be fantastic and near major league ready, but isn't there a greater degree of systemic weakness on the offensive side? The organization just doesn't seem to have the equivalent of Felix, RRS, Morrow, and Aumont on the offensive side. Or is it always best to take the top pick talent wise?

Dustin Ackley would appear to be the natural choice if a) he chooses to leave UNC and b) the M's are interested in a power-hitting 1B/RF.

Here are a couple articles I spotted on him:

http://draftinfo.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/updated-2009-mlb-draft-prospects-1-20/

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/college/features/264400.html

I'd be interested in your thoughts on how the Mariners should approach this opportunity.

0 recs | Comment 49 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I have no idea who this guy is.

But, I would be quite happy to find a strong defender and bat over a pitcher. While having great pitching talent is important, I think this year has been proof that the season gets really long without people hitting and catching the ball.

If we could find someone reasonably ML ready, it’d be a huge win. 6 years of cheap offense.

by batura on Sep 26, 2008 2:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

We stink at pitching too.

This year is proof that if you stink at batting, pitching, and fielding the seasons gets “really long”

by DarkLou on Sep 26, 2008 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

With the qualifiers that Bedard comes back by April and Silva doesn't suck so much shit,

we enter next year with about a league average pitching staff. Offense and defense are the biggest problems on the team, however, that doesn’t change the fact that we need to take the best available talent.

by Double06 on Sep 27, 2008 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe if we were picking later in the round drafting for our needs first would be an okay idea

But with the #1 pick you have to take the best available talent regardless of position or it’s a waste. If you stand to take the best player in the draft you take him, regardless of where he plays and where your team is weakest.

by OlSalty on Sep 26, 2008 3:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It comes down to philosophy

If the belief is to pick the best available player, you do that.

If the belief is to pick the best player for a position you are planning for, you do that.

That being said, college pitchers like Strasbourg come around once a decade.

Also, growing your own pitching prevents you from over-paying for Free Agent or trrading the farm for pitching (see: Bedard, Silva, Weaver, Batista, HoRam, Baldwin). Look at the starters that came out of the M’s system (Pinero, Meche) who were bad to decent to great (depending on the year/start/whatever). They were much cheaper options (hence, better) than any of the ones we have today.

My philosophy: draft an amazing pitcher.

by TheEmrys on Sep 26, 2008 6:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

No question

When a pitcher like Strasberg comes along, forget your needs, you have to draft him. Unless something terrible happens between now and the draft, no one else should even be considered for that top spot.

by edddgar on Sep 26, 2008 8:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I blame you for this.

by Garces on Sep 28, 2008 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Grab the best available player. Always.

by Matthew on Sep 26, 2008 9:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

This.

9=8

by JI on Sep 26, 2008 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That.

by Wilder. on Sep 26, 2008 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The other thing?

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Sep 26, 2008 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unless, of course, you really need a right-handed pitcher for the 8th inning of games in which you are leading by three runs or fewer.

But save that dire problem, I like your idea.

by Teej on Sep 26, 2008 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Never draft for need when you have a top pick.

You take the best player on the board, and right now Strasburg is hands down, far and away the best player in this draft.

Teaming him with Felix and Morrow come 2010 or whenever gives the M’s a fantastic frontline of young realtively cheap starting pitchers and avoids us making having to make stupid decisions in the FA pitching market, as well as making dumb trades for starting pitching.

Get Strasburg, and then you can begin to place some emphasis on bats, with hopefully the 21st supplementary pick, we get for not signing Fields (assuming we dont), and the two comp picks we get for Raul (assuming he moves on).

by DarkLou on Sep 26, 2008 10:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The key reason you don't draft for need

is that, unlike in other sports, baseball draftees almost never immediately contribute to an MLB team. In the NFL, you can draft a linebacker knowing he could well step in at linebacker next season for the team. You draft a point guard in the NBA knowing his future is at guard, and that, with good fortune, he can help the team next seasons. But a baseball player needs several years of growth and development (hence the complex minor league system) to become a capable MLB player, if he ever becomes one at all.

Several years from now, the makeup of the team could be dramatically different, plus the player you have by then may not be the player you thought you drafted in terms of ability and role.

by Gomez on Sep 26, 2008 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In baseball you draft the best player available

And as of right now the best college position player available is suppose to be Grant Green the shortstop out of USC

Don't believe the lies Bill!!!! look at the sparkly ERA!!! Sparkly, Sparkly!!! - McCovey Chronicles

by Trenchtown on Sep 26, 2008 10:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The Bedard Principle

Pick your “Ace Pitcher traded for valuable package of young players”…Colon…Bedard…Johnson, et. al. Top-flight starting pitchers are (rightly or wrongly) the most highly-valued commodities in baseball. With a rotation that is far from set for next season, we can clearly use Strassburg (assuming he’s ready) in 2009. And we’ll put ourselves in position to be the ones on the receiving end of one of these prospects-for-aces deals down the road, if we choose not to keep Strassburg for his entire career.

by short on Sep 26, 2008 10:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Uh...

A. Strasburg
B. He’s not pitching in the major in 2009. If he does, it’s a mistake.
C. #1 pitchers are not universally over-valued. Teams have gotten smarter. Dan Haren was a huge haul because he has three cheap years left on his contract, but the D-backs didn’t give up anyone projected off their 25-man. Bedard was a huge haul because Bill Bavasi was not a competent general manager.

by seattlebruin on Sep 26, 2008 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lincecum or Longoria

If you could have either one right now, who would you take? I’m guessing most of you guys would take Lincecum. I’d take Longoria.

I think there’s going to be a legitimate case for Grant Green next summer. I might even be the one making it.

by davidcameron on Sep 26, 2008 11:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

But Lincecum is an injury risk!

I think for any other team in a neutral situation, I’d have to go with Longoria once you factor in defense. Another small factor for me would be club control – IIRC, Longoria is under relatively cheap control for seven years, whereas Lincecum hasn’t signed an extension and figures to make a truckload, even in arbitration, two years down the line.

The only case for taking Lincecum to me would be the hometown factor for the Mariners and the PR hope that he could sell some extra tickets.

by seattlebruin on Sep 26, 2008 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

That was supposed to be a metaphor for the Strasburg/Green discussion we’ll probably end up having at some point, especially if Fontaine is still the scouting director next summer. The M’s absolutely love Cape Cod performances (it’s the whole reason they took Raben), and Green was the man in the Cape this summer – he’s getting comped to Tulowitzki and Longoria, with most people saying he can stick at SS and has a bat more like Longoria than Tulowitzki.

So, if you’ve got a potential franchise SS on the board, Strasburg isn’t as clear cut the obviously correct pick as it may seem.

by davidcameron on Sep 26, 2008 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We may have to put a ban on draftbating until May '09.

There’s just far too much time between then and now and most likely a lot will change. Either way, let’s just hope we get that first overall pick and we’ll be well enough off. Now, a worthy topic for discussion would be Josh Fields and what the Ms should do with him re: signing or waiting him out and grabbing another first round pick.

by Matthew on Sep 26, 2008 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let him walk and take the pick.

by grSHit on Sep 26, 2008 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Definately.

by DarkLou on Sep 26, 2008 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Fields situation isn't going to affect us quite like Washington and Crow correct?

by Robert on Sep 26, 2008 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't think so, I was under the impression that the Mariners have/are willing to spend more than the Nationals

plus the bonus for the 22nd pick should be significantly lower than the bonus for the #10 pick

by seattlebruin on Sep 26, 2008 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oops

by seattlebruin on Sep 26, 2008 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, it's at least encouraging that there is another player that is worthy of some debate. Contract issues aside

we should walk away with one of them.

by DarkLou on Sep 26, 2008 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Longoria - hitters are innately less volatile than pitchers

by Graham on Sep 26, 2008 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lincecum - He's better.

You’re completely right that pitchers are more volatile, but at this point, Lincecum is an elite pitcher and Longoria may become an elite hitter. If you’re going to account for attrition/injury/sucking risk with Lincecum (and again, you should), then we at least need to be clear that he’s starting from a position of much more value. Longoria added 18 runs above average this year (with the 44th best wOBA) compared to Lincecum’s 23 pRAA…in his abbreviated ‘rookie’ season in 2007. This year, Timmy was at +38. Lincecum had the 3rd best tRA.

So yes, by all means account for injury risk (as Longoria’s injury proves, it’s not like hitters are immune here), but you have to make a massive adjustment to Lincecum while inflating Longoria’s stats for an expected career arc, defense, etc. before they even out.

by marc w on Sep 26, 2008 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

To be fair to Longo, you have to add some defensive value for him in there.

It’s a good debate and even the big booster of Lincecum that I am, I’m not sure which I take first, but suffice to say that I’d be thrilled with either. If that’s what Green vs Strasburg ends up looking like in 2011, then I’ll be a pleased person (assuming we drafted one of them).

by Matthew on Sep 26, 2008 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

and signed.

by AZSEAfan on Sep 26, 2008 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're comparing Lincecum's peak to Longoria's development period

Yes, that’s right, this is Lincecum’s peak. Now, obviously, that’s pretty good and darn valuable, but you have to account for the difference in upside when doing this kind of thing.

If Longoria wasn’t ever going to get any better, or if Lincecum had somewhere to go besides down, you might overlook the massive attrition of pitchers and take Lincecum. But that’s not the case here – in a couple of years, Longoria could easily be the best player in baseball, and regardless of whether Lincecum sustains this level of performance or not, you take that over a pitcher.

by davidcameron on Sep 26, 2008 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why is this his peak, and how do you know?

Longoria has quite a ways to go before he becomes the best player in baseball. He’s yet to have a season like Tulowitzki did in 2007, and he’s faaar behind Hanley Ramirez at the plate. If Hanley Ramirez gets his defense to near average, he’s clearly ahead (and he has, at least according to RZR).
Longoria had a great, if injury plagued year. There’s a lot of projection in him, to be sure, but he’s also got a looong way to go to be included in the discussion of ‘best player in MLB.’ You might give him better or worse odds than I, but there’s no debating the fact that he’s not in that group, and, I would think, no debating that he’s not at the top of the subset of players who are under 25.

As for Lincecum, if this is his peak and he gets no better from here on out, then he’s a Cy Young pitcher. I know you’re not exactly calling him chopped liver, but I just don’t know what you mean here: “but you have to account for the difference in upside when doing this kind of thing.” OK, I’ll try and keep that in mind. Meanwhile, Lincecum is easily one of the top 5 pitchers in MLB and may win a Cy Young award. We have no idea what will happen with Longoria – it’s possible he will become an MVP candidate and it’s possible he won’t. But we don’t have to wonder with Lincecum! It just happened!

by marc w on Sep 26, 2008 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have a hard time seeing any pitcher maintaining this type of strikeout rate

His control is going to have to get better and he will need to stay healthy.

9=8

by JI on Sep 26, 2008 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pitchers peak early, then decline

It’s very common for pitchers to never be any better than they were at 23-24. The aging curve for pitchers is more like a gradient, with an early peak and then a slow decline.

And Lincecum’s results are clouding the discussion of his real talent level. His xFIP is 3.44 this year, 3.99 last year. Yes, I know, his tRA is awesome, but even Graham will admit that it’s not as good at measuring true talent level as it is past value while the HR rates aren’t being regressed. There’s basically no way he sustains these kinds of HR rates, which is the driving force in his run prevention right now.

You’re also undervaluing Longoria by a pretty huge margin. /- has him at +11 plays in 119 games, or about +15 over a full season. That’s Beltre/Rolen level defense with a .375 wOBA as a 22-year-old. Right now, he’s basically Josh Hamilton with defense that would allow him to play a passable SS. His RV600 puts him at +2 wins offensively, +1 win for defense, no position adjustment for 3B – that’s a +3 WAA/5 WAR player that is several years from his peak.

For Lincecum’s current value to outweigh Longoria’s ridiculous upside and the attrition differences, he’d have to be a +6 or +7 WAR true talent guy, and he’s just not (to be fair, Pujols is probably the only +7 WAR guy alive).

by davidcameron on Sep 26, 2008 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're really not going to be happy until we have tRA* published, are you? :P

by Graham on Sep 26, 2008 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It will make me dance a thousand dances

tRA is a great replacement for FIP. I’m greedy – I want the replacement for xFIP.

by davidcameron on Sep 26, 2008 8:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That script just writes itself

9=8

by JI on Sep 28, 2008 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

9=8

by JI on Sep 26, 2008 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I haven't had that advise yet

So I guess I’ll be the asshole.

Our system doesn’t have the hitting equivalent of RRS?

Holy crap!

by dnc on Sep 26, 2008 2:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The hitting equivalent of RRS is like Mike Wilson

by Graham on Sep 26, 2008 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mike Wil-son

by appleshampoo on Sep 26, 2008 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm gonna wait till the draft before I decide.

Strasburg seems to be the number 1 talent so everybody says at least… But HEck anything can happen between now and the draft and who knows maybe Strasburg will struggle or Green, Ackley or some unknown player might hit an extreme streak of awesomeness that puts them in the number one spot. Then I want to see if any one can support that a pitcher like Strasburg only comes once a decade since TheEmrys says they do.

by Slurvey on Sep 26, 2008 5:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs