Rizzo: "We felt it was important to not ... make us an OK major league team"

[JCA-CrystalCity]

PB 69 and post #222 for POY! 

I could quibble a point or two.  I don't think that any team can deliberately go for a well timed #1 pick, so I don't say Bowden executed a preconceived strategy well.   There's no way they knew what talent would be available in 2009 and 2010 back in 2006/07 offseason.  They were actually targetting the Tank for 2008, IIRC, but surprised themselves when they did not quite stink enough to draft higher than the pick that ended up being Crow.  But, overall, this analysis makes a lot of sense.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Bowden also drafted Zimmm when he wasn't a slam dunk easy pick like Stras and Harper.

You realize that 2005 draft was so good you did not even need your monkey to be accurate when he threw his poop at your draft board to have it hit the name of a stud? 

Tulo and Braun went right after Zim, later in the round Ellsbury, Gardner didn't even make the first round, and even guys like Pennington and Lowrie are MLB regulars.  That's just position players.

[HalfSmokes]

You realize that 2005 draft was so good you did not even need your monkey to be accurate when he threw his poop at your draft board to have it hit the name of a stud? 

Unless you're the mariners

[MarquisDeSade]

Agree to disagree - this is saying that you'd be fine with a retirement investment strategy in lottery tickets.

And I think it's WAAAAAY too soon to judge whether it paid off or not.

Right.  If not for the incompetence and cheapness we might not be looking at a half-filled stadium that requires Buy two get two season ticket offers and $2 Tuesdays.  It's PATHETIC that in Washington, DC, one of, if not THE, most overpaid place in America you can't get 30,000 people to show up to watch an MLB game for next to nothing you've really freaked up.  That's like running a whore house on a military base in Frog Ballz, Arkansas that has nothing but 10s waiting for customers.

[Coladar]

Right.  If not for the incompetence and cheapness we might not be looking at a half-filled stadium that requires Buy two get two season ticket offers and $2 Tuesdays.  It's PATHETIC that in Washington, DC, one of, if not THE, most overpaid place in America you can't get 30,000 people to show up to watch an MLB game for next to nothing you've really freaked up.  That's like running a whore house on a military base in Frog Ballz, Arkansas that has nothing but 10s waiting for customers.

But that's DC. It's always been a market full of the most Fairweather fans alive. Except for the Redskins, if the Caps or Wizards aren't playoff bound for a year or two, attendance drops to nothing. They can't give Wizards tickets away right now. The only way to fill the seats in DC is to make the playoffs. So using that bit if logic, one might say the Rizzo gamble was the only way to fill the seats. Go for broke and take a huge risk to net a Strasburg and a Harper. Because I guarantee you, five seasons of this team being 81-81, the seats would be about the same as they are right now. crap, the last couple Strasburg starts were half empty, this city can't even be gotten to come out to see one of 12 or so starts a year by the best pitcher in baseball, and a near guaranteed win, even when the team is on an unprecedented win streak. This city is playoffs or I don't give a crap.

As far as chief's comment any draft pick is a lottery ticket... I get the point, but it's insane to say a 32nd pick nets the same chance for talent as a 5 pick. The higher the pick, the better talent you get. Even if we didn't get Strasburg and Harper, two or three years of a #2 or 3 pick nets drastically improved teams five years down the road than picking 16, what one might expect with a mediocre instead of horrid team. Yes, no one is guaranteed to pan out, but it's insane to say years of a second pick would result in a tea that kicks years of a 16th picks ass excluding any other players.

[Smithian]

That's like running a whore house on a military base in Frog Ballz, Arkansas that has nothing but 10s waiting for customers.

I don't know where this Frog Ballz place is and I live in Arkansas 

You ever make it to Arkansas, I'll let you know where to have a good time.

[LostYudite]

this is saying that you'd be fine with a retirement investment strategy in lottery tickets

That's like running a whore house on a military base in Frog Ballz, Arkansas that has nothing but 10s waiting for customers.

Chief, I think you made a bad hiring decision on who should write your posts for you.  His analogies are much more colorful than mine. 

[The Chief]

Yeah but he's unruly, just like me.  The Man™ is not supposed to be unruly

[LostYudite]

As far as chief's comment any draft pick is a lottery ticket... I get the point, but it's insane to say a 32nd pick nets the same chance for talent as a 5 pick. The higher the pick, the better talent you get. Even if we didn't get Strasburg and Harper, two or three years of a #2 or 3 pick nets drastically improved teams five years down the road than picking 16, what one might expect with a mediocre instead of horrid team. Yes, no one is guaranteed to pan out, but it's insane to say years of a second pick would result in a tea that kicks years of a 16th picks ass excluding any other players.

Strawman #1 - there was no way the 2006-2010 Nats were ever going to be good enough to get higher than the 20th pick (only 30 teams in baseball) - that would be a top-ten record and a likely playoff spot.  The argument is really whether they were significantly advantaged by having two top5s (which turned out to be #1s) vs. two in the 5-10 slot.

Strawman #2 - "excluding any other players."  Great jumping jiminy, that's the whole point.  Why does it have to be "excluding all other players?"  In what bylaw is it written that the Nats couldn't have added mid-level guys, ended up with a comfortably mediocre 72-90, drafted Mike Minor at #7 and then thrown more serious money at Fielder or Reyes or Greinke or Hamels or whoever. 

Who's to say that the Atlanta Braves, who did exactly that and added Minor to their stable of young arms, traded for Jurrjens and signed Hudson and others as free agents won't be better than the Nats for years to come?  Oh, by the way, the Braves never bottomed out to worse than 72-90 - that was their one down year among consistent NL East contention.  They also seem to find good arms in the middle of the draft and elsewhere.  Amidst their whole rotation, Minor's the only first-rounder.

You don't have to suck for years before you get good.  If you do suck for years, that's not a guarantee that you will get good. 

[Coladar]

Strawman #1 - there was no way the 2006-2010 Nats were ever going to be good enough to get higher than the 20th pick (only 30 teams in baseball) - that would be a top-ten record and a likely playoff spot.  The argument is really whether they were significantly advantaged by having two top5s (which turned out to be #1s) vs. two in the 5-10 slot.

Strawman #2 - "excluding any other players."  Great jumping jiminy, that's the whole point.  Why does it have to be "excluding all other players?"  In what bylaw is it written that the Nats couldn't have added mid-level guys, ended up with a comfortably mediocre 72-90, drafted Mike Minor at #7 and then thrown more serious money at Fielder or Reyes or Greinke or Hamels or whoever. 

Who's to say that the Atlanta Braves, who did exactly that and added Minor to their stable of young arms, traded for Jurrjens and signed Hudson and others as free agents won't be better than the Nats for years to come?  Oh, by the way, the Braves never bottomed out to worse than 72-90 - that was their one down year among consistent NL East contention.  They also seem to find good arms in the middle of the draft and elsewhere.  Amidst their whole rotation, Minor's the only first-rounder.

You don't have to suck for years before you get good.  If you do suck for years, that's not a guarantee that you will get good. 

I meant a team made up of draft picks with the #16 pick versus a team of a #2 or 3 pick, excluding any other players, the team made up of the #2 or 3 pick would own the #16 team, and not how you interpreted it.

[tomterp]

All it takes is for one of the fruits of The Plan (Stras or Harper) to flame out and the gains from those 100 loss seasons evaporate, so there is certainly risk involved. 

You're overlooking the fact that every pick in every round that the Nats had, was higher due to their last place finish than would otherwise have been the case.  Not just the first round, to which you refer.

[The Chief]

You're overlooking the fact that every pick in every round that the Nats had, was higher due to their last place finish than would otherwise have been the case.  Not just the first round, to which you refer.

But this has already been covered ad infinitum.  Aside from getting lucky on a pair of generational talents, a couple of spots difference in draft position really doesn't mean much.

[tomterp]

But this has already been covered ad infinitum.  Aside from getting lucky on a pair of generational talents, a couple of spots difference in draft position really doesn't mean much.

BS, nobody would surrender their # 45 pick for the # 75 pick without compensation.  Of course in MLB you can't trade picks, so it's not possible to prove, but logically, who would not prefer to pick ahead of their competition, regardless of the round?   

[Tyler Durden]

The Braves never sign any free agents of consequence.  They traded for Jurrjens, Hudson, Uggla, etc.  They have always drafted well.  And maybe you could call it luck that some of their low draft picks like Tommy Hanson have become solid ML players.  They're not really a good example of a team building the way you describe - going out and throwing money at Jose Reyes, etc. 

Sucking for years is no guarantee of getting good.  Sometimes it works (Rays).  Sometimes not (Royals, Pirates). 

[blue911]

The Braves never sign any free agents of consequence.  They traded for Jurrjens, Hudson, Uggla, etc.  They have always drafted well.  And maybe you could call it luck that some of their low draft picks like Tommy Hanson have become solid ML players.  They're not really a good example of a team building the way you describe - going out and throwing money at Jose Reyes, etc. 

Sucking for years is no guarantee of getting good.  Sometimes it works (Rays).  Sometimes not (Royals, Pirates). 

Roy Clark was the person behind those Atlanta drafts

[HalfSmokes]

BS, nobody would surrender their # 45 pick for the # 75 pick without compensation.  Of course in MLB you can't trade picks, so it's not possible to prove, but logically, who would not prefer to pick ahead of their competition, regardless of the round?   

Are the odds of hitting on a number 1 in round 2 really that much better than a 15? I would imagine the difference narrows further in later rounds

[tomterp]

Are the odds of hitting on a number 1 in round 2 really that much better than a 15? I would imagine the difference narrows further in later rounds

The very fact that they have a draft at all says it matters.

[PowerBoater69]

BS, nobody would surrender their # 45 pick for the # 75 pick without compensation.  Of course in MLB you can't trade picks, so it's not possible to prove, but logically, who would not prefer to pick ahead of their competition, regardless of the round?   

The difference involved in dropping a few slots isn't 30 draft positions and in any case they didn't lose over 200 games in two years in order to get the #45 pick.

[Smithian]

Roy Clark was the person behind those Atlanta drafts

Roy Clark sounds like a cool guy. Where does he work now?

[blue911]

Roy Clark sounds like a cool guy. Where does he work now?

He works for Rizzo.

[PowerBoater69]

So glad that The Plan is done now that we have a team that can win every night that we hold the opposing team to two runs or less.

[Kevrock]

[PowerBoater69]

Great job by Rizzo, this is not an OK major league team.