http://www.miamihera...vision-but.html

 

 

Marlins’ Beinfest has vision, but needs luck and money

 

BY DAN LE BATARD

 

How good is Marlins president Admin Beinfest at his job? Do we know?

 

The core responsibility Beinfest has — the very unscientific projecting of what talent might one day become — might not even be a human skill in sports, not if you define skill as an ability, something that can be recreated with consistency. Given that visionary Bill Belichick just waived what little remained of his entire 2007 draft, and given that the World Series champion San Francisco Giants wasted $126 million on Barry Zito, and given that magical Bill Parcells chose players for the last decade without winning a single playoff game, and given that all of baseball agreed in 1999 that Albert Pujols wasn’t good enough to be taken within the first 400 picks, one could argue that talent evaluating is a mix of poker, meteorology and metal-detector searches for coins on a beach — sprinkles of data and effort mixed with an avalanche of luck.

 

And if it isn’t much of a skill, if so much of it is random and/or educated guessing, the idea that this team has a better GM than that team is kind of like alleging this team has better fortune tellers and crystal balls, too. It is human to crave understanding and control, so leaders in sports get assigned wisdoms for things that are sometimes random. But if everyone in sports is working hard and armed with the same kinds of scouting departments and information, and projecting talent with vision isn’t really a skill, aren’t you essentially hoping that your general manager is better at winning the Lotto than the other GM? For all his mustachioed bumbling, is Dave Wannstedt still here if he drafts Drew Brees instead of Jamar Fletcher? Couldn’t anyone in baseball have had Jose Bautista?

In terms of perception, Beinfest has made the journey from genius to bum about as fast as the Marlins went from champions to last place. That doesn’t happen a lot in other workplaces, brilliant people suddenly appearing dumb, but the standings can be cruel and absolute. And winning a trophy in Yankee Stadium, especially winning it with coupons, is always going to make you look smarter than you are, even if Josh Beckett is the one holding all the real brilliance in his right hand.

 

So, for a long time, it was perceived that Beinfest knew something that others didn’t. Saw the unseen like that little kid in Sixth Sense. We like doing that in sports, turning the leaders into war heroes and movie action heroes, mythologizing, giving them magical and winning powers, because the definition of a hope-filled fan is to be a follower, and the nature of the follower is to want to be led. But now it looks like that faded 2003 trophy shines in ways that illuminated falsely. And much of what has happened in all the years since, well, Beinfest doesn’t want that anywhere near any light.

 

Every time the Marlins have given a long-term contract, something they hate to do because of how unpredictable baseball can be to even the best players (See Minnesota Twins, Joe Mauer), it has been a failure. Every time. Mike Lowell, Luis Castillo, Josh Johnson, Ricky Nolasco, Hanley Ramirez and John Buck, for reasons that range from injury to baseball’s cruel whimsy, have all been worse for the Marlins after getting paid big guaranteed money by them. Rather literally, the Marlins can’t afford those mistakes when competing against teams with so much more money (re: margin for error). The Marlins don’t spend big, but when they do, they haven’t gotten value, somehow overspending even while getting shredded for never spending.

 

Fixing mistakes

 

It is impossible to predict that Johnson and Ramirez are going to get hurt, or that Lowell is going to slump for an entire year and reinvent himself in Boston, just like it is impossible for the Giants to know that giving Zito $126 million is going to contaminate him. The trick is to build enough around your errors to cover them, which is harder to do in Beinfest’s financial handcuffs than it is when, say, Boston wonder boy Theo Epstein is throwing mountainous mistake millions at Daisuke Matsuzaka or John Lackey and covering it all up with more dollars.

 

How do you correct that cheaply? Trades and draft. But Beinfest’s best trade since Beckett and Lowell for Ramirez and Anibel Sanchez has been either Mike Jacobs for Leo Nuñez or Juan Pierre for Nolasco. This isn’t saying much given how much turnover there has been, given how many chances Beinfest has had at getting lucky, given that he had a trading asset like Miguel Bleeping Cabrera and got nothing for him. Nuñez and Nolasco being the best you get in more than 50 trades since 2003 isn’t nearly good enough, but Beinfest’s drafts have been a lot worse than that. The draft is where poor teams find their affordable riches. Teams hit big in the first round at about a 49 percent clip.

 

But here’s what the Marlins have drafted in the first round over the last decade:

Jeremy Hermida, Jeffrey Allison, Taylor Tankersley, Chris Volstad, Aaron Thompson, Jacob Marceaux, Ryan Tucker, Sean West, Brett Sinkbeil, Chris Coughlan, Matt Dominguez, Kyle Skipworth, Chad James, Christian Yelich, Jose Fernandez, Pffffffffffft.

 

If you want to understand what you need to be doing in the first round to be competitive with limited dollars, consider what the Marlins did in the two years before Hermida: Beckett and Adrian Gonzalez.

 

They did get Mike Stanton in the second round, Johnson in the fourth and Logan Morrison in the 22nd. But that first-round list is damning and helps explain why the Marlins are nearly 30 games out of first today. The first round is where the risk is minimized, where you should fail least. Baseball’s best pitchers — Roy Halladay, Justin Verlander, Tim Lincecum, CC Sabathia, Jered Weaver, Cris Carpenter, David Price, Clayton Kershaw, Beckett — are all first-round picks. You can’t have your very best players from a decade of first rounds be Hermida and Coughlan. You can’t have the best arm be Volstad.

 

Beinfest has been good at identifying players in search of redemption — Dan Uggla, Cody Ross and a host of bullpen arms — but back to the original question: Is unearthing sports talent an ability? Or, more to the point, once you’ve climbed to the top of the game, where everyone is an expert and the difference in skill sets is negligible, can one team’s group of scouts really see the future more clearly than another team’s?

 

Where did it go?

 

Beinfest was assigned this ability once, with Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis, but he misplaced it? I know Parcells can see athlete potential better than we can, but can he do it better than Ozzie Newsome or Scott Pioli or any other expert running one of the other NFL teams? Who is good at it in sports? Seeing things others don’t? Finding value? The San Antonio Spurs? The Tampa Bay Rays? The Baltimore Ravens? The Spurs executives, who have found great players such as Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker late, stayed at Jimmy Johnson’s house in the Keys once, picking his brain about how to evaluate sports talent. But I remember distinctly standing close enough to Johnson that I could smell the Tostitos on his breath as he explained to me why Randy Moss shouldn’t have gone in the first round.

 

And I have to wonder how good the Spurs would have really been at drafting if not for getting a first pick everyone in the world would have used on Tim Duncan.

 

You know how to make drafting a skill? Get Peyton Manning. That way, every subsequent first-round pick you put around him will succeed. Marvin Harrison, Dallas Clark, Reggie Wayne, Edgerrin James, Joseph Addai and Anthony Gonzalez might have looked differently elsewhere. In Indianapolis, Ted Ginn Jr. might have been a success instead of a bust. Tony Dungy says a shopping cart with a mannequin arm would have averaged 40 catches and five touchdowns a season as the tight end in a Manning offense (that’s better, statistically than Anthony Fasano, by the way). Belichick’s drafts haven’t been very good since 2007, and he hasn’t won a playoff game in three years, but you can live off Tom Brady for a while the way Beinfest lived off Beckett and 2003.

 

Brady was taken in the sixth round, and Pioli, the former Pats GM, used to keep a picture on his desk. The photo was of the player the Patriots drafted the round before Brady, a player who wound up never playing a down in the league. You wouldn’t remember the player’s name, which is the point.

 

Pioli kept that picture on his desk to remind himself how smart he isn’t.

 

Beinfest isn’t dumber than he was in 2003. He has less money and less luck and fewer healthy players but not less vision. He just never had the ability we assigned him back when the scoreboard and standings and trophy reaffirmed our belief that he might.

Interesting read, to say the least. Not quite what you expect in that the article seems less based on an analysis of the facts than just a general philosophical rant, but a lot of us have been underwhelmed by Beinfest and his supposed genius for a long time.

also impressed to see that dan is ignorant enough to write "anibel" and coughlan".

Interesting read, to say the least. Not quite what you expect in that the article seems less based on an analysis of the facts than just a general philosophical rant, but a lot of us have been underwhelmed by Beinfest and his supposed genius for a long time.

 

 

So who would have done better?

Interesting read, to say the least. Not quite what you expect in that the article seems less based on an analysis of the facts than just a general philosophical rant, but a lot of us have been underwhelmed by Beinfest and his supposed genius for a long time.

 

 

So who would have done better?

 

Somebody who didn't decide to spend most first round picks on groundball pitchers who project as back-end starters at most, which potential they never even reach?

Interesting read, to say the least. Not quite what you expect in that the article seems less based on an analysis of the facts than just a general philosophical rant, but a lot of us have been underwhelmed by Beinfest and his supposed genius for a long time.

 

 

So who would have done better?

 

Somebody who didn't decide to spend most first round picks on groundball pitchers who project as back-end starters at most, which potential they never even reach?

 

Oh.

 

I forgot. My mistake.

Interesting read, to say the least. Not quite what you expect in that the article seems less based on an analysis of the facts than just a general philosophical rant, but a lot of us have been underwhelmed by Beinfest and his supposed genius for a long time.

 

 

So who would have done better?

 

Somebody who didn't decide to spend most first round picks on groundball pitchers who project as back-end starters at most, which potential they never even reach?

 

The same guy who was a consensus first round pick and top-100 prospect 3 years running prior to his call up (Highest being ranked #40)?

 

The article's point is very valid: If everyone agrees on the same stuff, and player A busts and Player B is blossoms, should credit be given for acquiring player B and discredit for acquiring Player A even though the process was the same? No, it shouldn't.

 

And you have to wonder, how many teams were "saved" by draft pick position? Let's say Player A is a top-10 pick and Player B is a bottom-10 pick. The team that took player B would have taken Player A, but were "left" with Player B, and it ended up being better for them.

 

Saying Beinfest sucks for making Volstad a first round pick is saying everyone who would have been in Beinfest position sucks because of Volstad.

 

Which also then brings up the next major question that I think the article ignores: The article being: Beinfest was lucky early and now he's talent shows, rather than Beinfest had luck earlier, but now he was unlucky.

 

Here's a list of our top-100 prospects not traded for post-'03. This isn't "OMG Beinfest messed up", this is "OMG EVERYBODY messed up":

 

Volstad (Saw drop in 10% in GB rate between minors and majors; Nobody saw that coming)

Sinkbeil (Forgot how to throw strikes)

West (Always injured)

Jason Stokes (Injury)

Hermida (Forgot strike zone judgement)

Scott Olsen (Lost fastball velocity)

Jeff Allison (Drugs)

 

Josh Johnson worked out of that group. So far, Stanton (132 career OPS+) and LoMo (119) have too, and too late to say on Dominguez.

 

So from 03-09, 7 years, he's produced 11 top-100 prospects. So, that's 1 and a half prospects he has drafted and developed each year that the vast majority agree are among the best in the game.

 

He had great luck with the '03 batch of rookies. He had bad luck with the '06 batch of rookies. So far, the '09 batch of rookies are pretty damn good.

Personally I feel like the last couple of years of 'signability' picks by the Marlins in the first round have been very questionable (Skipworth is the big one, but Chad James isn't wowing anyone, and Jose Fernandez is a very raw prospect in an organization that needs fewer of them, especially in a pitcher-heavy draft).

 

It's really hard to say what went wrong with the Cabrera trade (poor scouting I guess?), but that's hurt this team significantly as a result. At the time it looked like you got quality back, but unfortunately neither Miller nor Maybin had really had much professional experience by that point, so it was a decent gamble despite both of them being very highly rated prospects.

Personally I feel like the last couple of years of 'signability' picks by the Marlins in the first round have been very questionable (Skipworth is the big one, but Chad James isn't wowing anyone, and Jose Fernandez is a very raw prospect in an organization that needs fewer of them, especially in a pitcher-heavy draft).

 

 

None of them were especially big reaches, and I don't see how you can knock him for not spending money when he doesn't control his own budget.

Interesting read, to say the least. Not quite what you expect in that the article seems less based on an analysis of the facts than just a general philosophical rant, but a lot of us have been underwhelmed by Beinfest and his supposed genius for a long time.

 

 

So who would have done better?

 

Somebody who didn't decide to spend most first round picks on groundball pitchers who project as back-end starters at most, which potential they never even reach?

 

The same guy who was a consensus first round pick and top-100 prospect 3 years running prior to his call up (Highest being ranked #40)?

 

The article's point is very valid: If everyone agrees on the same stuff, and player A busts and Player B is blossoms, should credit be given for acquiring player B and discredit for acquiring Player A even though the process was the same? No, it shouldn't.

 

And you have to wonder, how many teams were "saved" by draft pick position? Let's say Player A is a top-10 pick and Player B is a bottom-10 pick. The team that took player B would have taken Player A, but were "left" with Player B, and it ended up being better for them.

 

Saying Beinfest sucks for making Volstad a first round pick is saying everyone who would have been in Beinfest position sucks because of Volstad.

 

Which also then brings up the next major question that I think the article ignores: The article being: Beinfest was lucky early and now he's talent shows, rather than Beinfest had luck earlier, but now he was unlucky.

 

Here's a list of our top-100 prospects not traded for post-'03. This isn't "OMG Beinfest messed up", this is "OMG EVERYBODY messed up":

 

Volstad (Saw drop in 10% in GB rate between minors and majors; Nobody saw that coming)

Sinkbeil (Forgot how to throw strikes)

West (Always injured)

Jason Stokes (Injury)

Hermida (Forgot strike zone judgement)

Scott Olsen (Lost fastball velocity)

Jeff Allison (Drugs)

 

Josh Johnson worked out of that group. So far, Stanton (132 career OPS+) and LoMo (119) have too, and too late to say on Dominguez.

 

So from 03-09, 7 years, he's produced 11 top-100 prospects. So, that's 1 and a half prospects he has drafted and developed each year that the vast majority agree are among the best in the game.

 

He had great luck with the '03 batch of rookies. He had bad luck with the '06 batch of rookies. So far, the '09 batch of rookies are pretty damn good.

 

Judging first round draft picks and guys on the top 100 prospects lists is not the same. And I wasn't referencing just Chris Volstad, that would be awful silly considering (sad to say) he's actually the most successful Beinfest draft pick.

Looks more like Dan is playing to the crowd. Pretty easy to knock anything Marlins right now and look good doing it. Have to wonder why he never mentions how the GMs of teams have done that had mega bucks to spend to surround their high draft picks with veterans that could help in not only developement but but experienced bats around them to protect them. How well have those teams done? Came close when he mentioned the Tigers, but he moved on. He didn't hesitate to mention the BoSox, but fell short by not bringing up the Mets and Jays. The list is very long the other side of the coin.

 

Also, sounds like he's already written off Matt. Little unfair, IMO. But putting this article out there right now when the NFL is near the top of most peoples' minds is a bit unfair. Two completely different drafts that yield different types of picks. The NFL that is a NOW type of pick vs MLB that is a LATER type pick. And the NFLs 1st rounders are college grads, for the most part, vs MLB's high school players, for the most part. Comparing first round picks in different sports is nonsense.

So I would say, I disagree with the title of the thread. It's not a very good article. It's Dan being Dan. Leave out all the facts and center on the ones that seem to prove your point. Bird cage material.

Couldn't agree more.

 

The job of the media is to stir the pot, even if for no good reason at all, which is usually the case.

 

Next year's payroll will be 10 to 30 million higher. What they do with whatever it turns out to be remains to be seen.

 

It raises some good possibilities. It'll be interesting to watch, which is all we get to do, arm-chair general managers notwithstanding.

 

I'll wait until the end of next year to see whether the results turn out to be good, bad or indifferent.

Couldn't agree more.

 

The job of the media is to stir the pot, even if for no good reason at all, which is usually the case.

 

Next year's payroll will be 10 to 30 million higher. What they do with whatever it turns out to be remains to be seen.

 

It raises some good possibilities. It'll be interesting to watch, which is all we get to do, arm-chair general managers notwithstanding.

 

I'll wait until the end of next year to see whether the results turn out to be good, bad or indifferent.

 

Couldn't agree more about what? BroncoBob or something else?

Looks more like Dan is playing to the crowd. Pretty easy to knock anything Marlins right now and look good doing it. Have to wonder why he never mentions how the GMs of teams have done that had mega bucks to spend to surround their high draft picks with veterans that could help in not only developement but but experienced bats around them to protect them. How well have those teams done? Came close when he mentioned the Tigers, but he moved on. He didn't hesitate to mention the BoSox, but fell short by not bringing up the Mets and Jays. The list is very long the other side of the coin.

 

Also, sounds like he's already written off Matt. Little unfair, IMO. But putting this article out there right now when the NFL is near the top of most peoples' minds is a bit unfair. Two completely different drafts that yield different types of picks. The NFL that is a NOW type of pick vs MLB that is a LATER type pick. And the NFLs 1st rounders are college grads, for the most part, vs MLB's high school players, for the most part. Comparing first round picks in different sports is nonsense.

 

What?

 

He's not knocking the Marlins; he's saying that Benifest doesn't deserve the criticism he's gotten lately, yet also probably doesn't deserve all the praise he once got.

 

He did not mention the tigers. And he noted the Red Sox and Giants making mistakes, and instances across other sports, as well. I don't know how you can criticize him for not mentioning particular teams, because the list of examples is massive, and the few he mentions suffice to establish his point.

 

I'm not sure if he's written off Dominguez, which indeed would be unfair; but, even if Dominguez became an All-Star, the end result of those 1st-round draft picks would still ultimately suck (Volstad and Coghlan are the only other big-leaguers on the list, and they're not great).

 

The timing makes perfect sense. Right here on this board, the grumblings about Beinfest have been swelling recently. I would not be surprised if similar things in Le Batard's circles, as well.

 

He could have mentioned that MLB picks are even more "variable" in a sense, since they are indeed so much further from the league than NFL draft picks. But I'm not sure what that would have added to the article, or what its absence detracted from the article. He pointed out how even in the NFL context, GMs still have the same issue MLB ones do.

And you have to wonder, how many teams were "saved" by draft pick position? Let's say Player A is a top-10 pick and Player B is a bottom-10 pick. The team that took player B would have taken Player A, but were "left" with Player B, and it ended up being better for them.

 

Just look at the Marlins, who supposedly would have jumped at the chance to get Buster Posey. This worked the other way for them - they got screwed by being a pick or two lower.

 

Saying Beinfest sucks for making Volstad a first round pick is saying everyone who would have been in Beinfest position sucks because of Volstad.

 

Which also then brings up the next major question that I think the article ignores: The article being: Beinfest was lucky early and now he's talent shows, rather than Beinfest had luck earlier, but now he was unlucky.

 

Here's a list of our top-100 prospects not traded for post-'03. This isn't "OMG Beinfest messed up", this is "OMG EVERYBODY messed up":

 

Volstad (Saw drop in 10% in GB rate between minors and majors; Nobody saw that coming)

Sinkbeil (Forgot how to throw strikes)

West (Always injured)

Jason Stokes (Injury)

Hermida (Forgot strike zone judgement)

Scott Olsen (Lost fastball velocity)

Jeff Allison (Drugs)

 

Josh Johnson worked out of that group. So far, Stanton (132 career OPS+) and LoMo (119) have too, and too late to say on Dominguez.

 

So from 03-09, 7 years, he's produced 11 top-100 prospects. So, that's 1 and a half prospects he has drafted and developed each year that the vast majority agree are among the best in the game.

 

He had great luck with the '03 batch of rookies. He had bad luck with the '06 batch of rookies. So far, the '09 batch of rookies are pretty damn good.

 

I'm unsure what the bolded sentence means, but the top-100 prospects thing is pretty interesting.

 

I will say, though, that over 7 years, there are 700 top-100 prospects. Obviously there are duplicates; including duplicates, each of 30 teams should have about 23-24 spots in the top-100 prospects.

 

Someone can feel free to count, but if the Marlins are coming in under 23, and maybe even just a little above, I'm not terribly impressed considering Beinfest ise frequently trading veterans for prospects, thus giving him more opportunities to get Top-100 prospects.

Well written article but it makes it kind of hard to buy into the article when you can't spell Coghlan or Anibal. A rookie of the year and no- hitter thrower. Makes you wonder how much they are actually following the team.

 

But other then that well written. We are indeed not the only team that has been bitten on long term deals and draft days. But how long do you let it go, it's 8 seasons since 03.

Well written article but it makes it kind of hard to buy into the article when you can't spell Coghlan or Anibal. A rookie of the year and no- hitter thrower. Makes you wonder how much they are actually following the team.

 

But other then that well written. We are indeed not the only team that has been bitten on long term deals and draft days. But how long do you let it go, it's 8 seasons since 03.

 

 

Yes it has been 8 full seasons (almost), and the Marlins farm system is considered one of the worst. Considering that they don't have the big money for free agents, the Marlins HAD to do better with the scouting and minor league intructioning, than every other team, or at least try to, because it was vital to their being competitive. Its all come to fruition this year, trying to own and run an MLB team on the cheap.

 

I am scared about what I read in another thread though. As bad as Beinfest has been, the talk is that Loria & Samson will be "more involved" in making personnel of the team. This cannot happen, please say this won't happen, please God noooooooooooooooooooo.

I'm unsure what the bolded sentence means, but the top-100 prospects thing is pretty interesting.

 

I will say, though, that over 7 years, there are 700 top-100 prospects. Obviously there are duplicates; including duplicates, each of 30 teams should have about 23-24 spots in the top-100 prospects.

 

Someone can feel free to count, but if the Marlins are coming in under 23, and maybe even just a little above, I'm not terribly impressed considering Beinfest ise frequently trading veterans for prospects, thus giving him more opportunities to get Top-100 prospects.

 

 

Typo, 6 years (2004-2009) so 600 prospects.

 

They have the lists of 2004-2007 easily listed out so easy and quick to sort it out: http://www.baseballa...2007/26983.html

 

For those 4 years, there were a total of 267 prospects (So 66.75% of the 400). Applying that same percent for the 6 years, each team should draft and develop 13 top-100 prospects in that time period, making Beinfest roughly average.

 

Tack on his disadvantages (Cannot buy international free agents, among lowest [if not lowest] draft budget in that time span, picking normally in the middle of rounds) and I'd say that's not something to be disappointed about.

I'm unsure what the bolded sentence means, but the top-100 prospects thing is pretty interesting.

 

I will say, though, that over 7 years, there are 700 top-100 prospects. Obviously there are duplicates; including duplicates, each of 30 teams should have about 23-24 spots in the top-100 prospects.

 

Someone can feel free to count, but if the Marlins are coming in under 23, and maybe even just a little above, I'm not terribly impressed considering Beinfest ise frequently trading veterans for prospects, thus giving him more opportunities to get Top-100 prospects.

 

 

Typo, 6 years (2004-2009) so 600 prospects.

 

They have the lists of 2004-2007 easily listed out so easy and quick to sort it out: http://www.baseballa...2007/26983.html

 

For those 4 years, there were a total of 267 prospects (So 66.75% of the 400). Applying that same percent for the 6 years, each team should draft and develop 13 top-100 prospects in that time period, making Beinfest roughly average.

 

Tack on his disadvantages (Cannot buy international free agents, among lowest [if not lowest] draft budget in that time span, picking normally in the middle of rounds) and I'd say that's not something to be disappointed about.

But he also traded for a lot more prospects over that span, which should mitigate those effect. Beinfest's performance, based only on those parameters, is at best average. Whether that's disappointing or not, I don't really know.

Can't we just continue to blame wes helms?

 

That's perpetually implied, no?

Looks more like Dan is playing to the crowd. Pretty easy to knock anything Marlins right now and look good doing it. Have to wonder why he never mentions how the GMs of teams have done that had mega bucks to spend to surround their high draft picks with veterans that could help in not only developement but but experienced bats around them to protect them. How well have those teams done? Came close when he mentioned the Tigers, but he moved on. He didn't hesitate to mention the BoSox, but fell short by not bringing up the Mets and Jays. The list is very long the other side of the coin.

 

Also, sounds like he's already written off Matt. Little unfair, IMO. But putting this article out there right now when the NFL is near the top of most peoples' minds is a bit unfair. Two completely different drafts that yield different types of picks. The NFL that is a NOW type of pick vs MLB that is a LATER type pick. And the NFLs 1st rounders are college grads, for the most part, vs MLB's high school players, for the most part. Comparing first round picks in different sports is nonsense.

 

 

After reading the article, this is what you actually thought?

Looks more like Dan is playing to the crowd. Pretty easy to knock anything Marlins right now and look good doing it. Have to wonder why he never mentions how the GMs of teams have done that had mega bucks to spend to surround their high draft picks with veterans that could help in not only developement but but experienced bats around them to protect them. How well have those teams done? Came close when he mentioned the Tigers, but he moved on. He didn't hesitate to mention the BoSox, but fell short by not bringing up the Mets and Jays. The list is very long the other side of the coin.

 

Also, sounds like he's already written off Matt. Little unfair, IMO. But putting this article out there right now when the NFL is near the top of most peoples' minds is a bit unfair. Two completely different drafts that yield different types of picks. The NFL that is a NOW type of pick vs MLB that is a LATER type pick. And the NFLs 1st rounders are college grads, for the most part, vs MLB's high school players, for the most part. Comparing first round picks in different sports is nonsense.

 

What?

 

He's not knocking the Marlins; he's saying that Benifest doesn't deserve the criticism he's gotten lately, yet also probably doesn't deserve all the praise he once got.

 

He did not mention the tigers. And he noted the Red Sox and Giants making mistakes, and instances across other sports, as well. I don't know how you can criticize him for not mentioning particular teams, because the list of examples is massive, and the few he mentions suffice to establish his point.

 

I'm not sure if he's written off Dominguez, which indeed would be unfair; but, even if Dominguez became an All-Star, the end result of those 1st-round draft picks would still ultimately suck (Volstad and Coghlan are the only other big-leaguers on the list, and they're not great).

 

The timing makes perfect sense. Right here on this board, the grumblings about Beinfest have been swelling recently. I would not be surprised if similar things in Le Batard's circles, as well.

 

He could have mentioned that MLB picks are even more "variable" in a sense, since they are indeed so much further from the league than NFL draft picks. But I'm not sure what that would have added to the article, or what its absence detracted from the article. He pointed out how even in the NFL context, GMs still have the same issue MLB ones do.

Knocking Beinfest, or any part of the team is knocking the team. It's not just Admin, it's the entire org that decides on draft picks. From the scouts to the draft room groups. Including, I believe, Trader Jack at the mike doing the selections. Anyone that thinks it's just Admin is kidding themselves. Or worse.

 

Can't believe you would use "right here on these boards" as any type of example. Like everyone here is some kind of expert on baseball?? More like most complain about certain players, FO personnel, or whatever, and then when/if they do pan out, just move along like nothing bad was ever said.

Didn't mention the Tigers? Gee, I thought that was where we sent Miggy and DTrain. My mistake then.

 

And you are ,issing the main point. Probably, like Dan, it dosen't fit your argument. You don't look at the MLB draft anything like any other sport. 1st round picks are more of a crap shoot. The latter rounds are actually more interesting. And then filling in with FA is the key. Some can fill in better because they have an open checkbook to help them. Some can't because they have very limited finances to work with. Comparing the two different types is silly.

Looks more like Dan is playing to the crowd. Pretty easy to knock anything Marlins right now and look good doing it. Have to wonder why he never mentions how the GMs of teams have done that had mega bucks to spend to surround their high draft picks with veterans that could help in not only developement but but experienced bats around them to protect them. How well have those teams done? Came close when he mentioned the Tigers, but he moved on. He didn't hesitate to mention the BoSox, but fell short by not bringing up the Mets and Jays. The list is very long the other side of the coin.

 

Also, sounds like he's already written off Matt. Little unfair, IMO. But putting this article out there right now when the NFL is near the top of most peoples' minds is a bit unfair. Two completely different drafts that yield different types of picks. The NFL that is a NOW type of pick vs MLB that is a LATER type pick. And the NFLs 1st rounders are college grads, for the most part, vs MLB's high school players, for the most part. Comparing first round picks in different sports is nonsense.

 

 

After reading the article, this is what you actually thought?

Basically. And some of it is because I don't have the exploded ego to think I can do better putting together an overall team with such limited funds as Admin has done. Do you?

 

I have always made my thoughts on the MLB draft obvious. And not just the first round. 18 YOs, guys that haven't developed either emotionally or physically, get drafted at one position and end up somewhere else. The whole thing is one major crap shoot. Nothing more.

 

Want to compare Admin? Fine. But do it with other GMs that have basically the same handicaps. And use ALL those GMs, not just the ones that seemingly prove your point. And then compare team records for each year. Post 2003 wil be fine. Because I look forward to seeing what Admin can do with a middle of the road payroll to work with. Until he has that, I'll cut him some slack.

Looks more like Dan is playing to the crowd. Pretty easy to knock anything Marlins right now and look good doing it. Have to wonder why he never mentions how the GMs of teams have done that had mega bucks to spend to surround their high draft picks with veterans that could help in not only developement but but experienced bats around them to protect them. How well have those teams done? Came close when he mentioned the Tigers, but he moved on. He didn't hesitate to mention the BoSox, but fell short by not bringing up the Mets and Jays. The list is very long the other side of the coin.

 

Also, sounds like he's already written off Matt. Little unfair, IMO. But putting this article out there right now when the NFL is near the top of most peoples' minds is a bit unfair. Two completely different drafts that yield different types of picks. The NFL that is a NOW type of pick vs MLB that is a LATER type pick. And the NFLs 1st rounders are college grads, for the most part, vs MLB's high school players, for the most part. Comparing first round picks in different sports is nonsense.

 

 

After reading the article, this is what you actually thought?

Basically. And some of it is because I don't have the exploded ego to think I can do better putting together an overall team with such limited funds as Admin has done. Do you?

 

I love this.