07-15-2017, 06:42 AM
This interview with Brian Sabean, while I appreciate its apparent transparency, leaves me wondering what exactly the plan is. http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/11/qa...ow-to-win/
When I last looked, every single Giants team from the MLB club all the way down to Low A, was in last place in their league. Sabean talks about the key to success being a team that scores 4 runs per game as if that is the goal of the organization. Does any other team in MLB think this way? He seems to lament how hard it is to develop guys who can really hit, and then points out the lack of athleticism of the players in the Giants' system. Then he goes on to say Crawford, Posey, and Bumgarner are untradable, but then adds that nobody should assume the Giants will be sellers at the trade deadline.
A Giants friend of mine discussed this topic recently and he said the Giants draft guys who produce in high school or college, that they don't pick guys based on pure athleticism and upside, that they can maybe develop into players. I don't know if this is true, but the evidence certainly suggests this is the case.
Why not draft guys who can hit the ball 500 ft or run like gazelles, who maybe don't have great power numbers or averages, and then coach them up? Why not draft guys who can throw 100 MPH or have maybe a devastating slider, but have high ERAs and/or bad walk to K ratios? At least take flyers on athleticism and upside with 50% of your picks? I don't get it. Drafts are about getting guys with high upside.
It's a different sport, but look at a guy like Dillon Brooks in college hoops. One of the most productive college players, but the NBA didn't draft him until the 45th selection because though he was tremendously productive in NCAA hoops, there was a lot of skepticism that his game would translate to the NBA level. Now he looks good in the Summer League, but it is Summer League, and it remains to be seen if he can make it in the NBA. Guys were drafted higher than him who haven't produced as much, but are better athletes more more upside at the NBA level. The Giants' philosophy would draft Brooks in the first round. Doesn't seem all that wise.
When I last looked, every single Giants team from the MLB club all the way down to Low A, was in last place in their league. Sabean talks about the key to success being a team that scores 4 runs per game as if that is the goal of the organization. Does any other team in MLB think this way? He seems to lament how hard it is to develop guys who can really hit, and then points out the lack of athleticism of the players in the Giants' system. Then he goes on to say Crawford, Posey, and Bumgarner are untradable, but then adds that nobody should assume the Giants will be sellers at the trade deadline.
A Giants friend of mine discussed this topic recently and he said the Giants draft guys who produce in high school or college, that they don't pick guys based on pure athleticism and upside, that they can maybe develop into players. I don't know if this is true, but the evidence certainly suggests this is the case.
Why not draft guys who can hit the ball 500 ft or run like gazelles, who maybe don't have great power numbers or averages, and then coach them up? Why not draft guys who can throw 100 MPH or have maybe a devastating slider, but have high ERAs and/or bad walk to K ratios? At least take flyers on athleticism and upside with 50% of your picks? I don't get it. Drafts are about getting guys with high upside.
It's a different sport, but look at a guy like Dillon Brooks in college hoops. One of the most productive college players, but the NBA didn't draft him until the 45th selection because though he was tremendously productive in NCAA hoops, there was a lot of skepticism that his game would translate to the NBA level. Now he looks good in the Summer League, but it is Summer League, and it remains to be seen if he can make it in the NBA. Guys were drafted higher than him who haven't produced as much, but are better athletes more more upside at the NBA level. The Giants' philosophy would draft Brooks in the first round. Doesn't seem all that wise.