Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: AdamKilgoreWP and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Sports and Redskins  |  RSS

Nats, First-Round Pick Storen, Agree To Terms

The Washington Nationals plan later this afternoon to officially announced the signing of Drew Storen, the 21-year-old Stanford pitcher selected yesterday with the 10th overall pick in the amateur draft. Terms of the deal were not immediately available.

Storen's quick signing represents a welcome turn of events for a franchise that couldn't sign its lone first-round pick last year and still must negotiate a deal with No. 1 overall pick Stephen Strasburg.

Washington's acting general manager Mike Rizzo described Storen as a closer with a starting pitcher's repertoire. But the team plans to use Storen in the ninth-inning role. With Stanford this season, as a sophomore, Storen was 7-1 with seven saves and a 3.80 ERA.

I'll have more on this deal from the ballpark later this afternoon.

By Chico Harlan  |  June 10, 2009; 12:31 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Strasburg And Boras Hold Court
Next: Storen's Bonus: $1.6 Million

Comments

just a thought, branching off the NFA article I linked to in the last post.

it seems like we are intent on doing 2 things with this draft:

1. Loading up on Pitchers, specifically college arms.

2. Loading up on high-character people. offsetting the "Last Chance for any Headcase/Toolsy Outfielder" policy of the previous regime.

I'll come right out and admit, that as much as the Holder pick puzzles me....I LOVE this approach. absolutely love it. I hope this policy begins to extend from the Draft to the whole of our Organization.

Draft/Develop Pitching, Buy/Trade for Bats.

sounds like a recipe for success to me. not instant success of course, but we are gonna be LOADED with pitching to do with what we please.

I'm suddenly very happy about this draft, and with Rizzo.

Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

at this point, the only real questionable pick is Holder at 81, I think.

beyond that, we've done relatively well.

Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I think this is shaping up to be a very clever draft. Long gone are scouting reports with 'if he can limit his strike outs' and 'although poor in the field'. These guys all look like steady fundamental players.

Posted by: soundbloke | June 10, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

You've got Holder and Andrew Weaver from UGA's rotation. College World Series experience. So, they have pitched against decent competition.

Posted by: periculum | June 10, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Only 2 high school types needing long-term development. All the others from college programs.

Posted by: periculum | June 10, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Rizz was placed in a horrible position: taking over as GM of an organization filled with errors in judgment. With the triage done in the bullpen, the change in pitching coach, the promotion of the young arms, and now this quick action, I'm starting to see good things that keeps me positive.

Posted by: joemktg2 | June 10, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Holder has pitched many more innings than Storen and Strasburg in college. He appears to have a great deal more experience at the highest levels (college world series experience). Weaver has faced similar experiences.

Give the UGA boys a chance to show what they can do.

Posted by: periculum | June 10, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Following the MLB draft online is so much more frenetic than the NFL draft. Hardly have time to google the last guy drafted that you've never heard of before they announce that they've drafted yet another guy you've never heard of. Nice.

Posted by: Cavalier83 | June 10, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Wow...Storen is locked up before the draft is even over.

Thank goodness Nats management honored the board. Storen, afterall, was not picked because of signability, but because he was the Nats highest rated player.

Posted by: LosDoceOcho | June 10, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Good move. Ideally, I could see him spending a month or so in Potomac, then Harrisbrg and/or Syracuse, then come up to the big club in late August or early September.

Posted by: VPaterno | June 10, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

"The Washington Nationals plan later this afternoon to officially announced the signing of Drew Storen"

Looks like Chico's been paying too much mind to that Curly W clock lately. His internal sense of timing is all screwed up. Will Steinberg be writing next about Nats Beat Writer Fail? (Part Deux, I guess. We already had the food writer fracas, didn't we?)

Posted by: nunof1 | June 10, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I only have one comment: Yay!

Go Nats!

Posted by: ihatewalks | June 10, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Well, Rizzo had to replenish the higher minor league levels fast because there is nothing there. Highly favouring college arm is a good way to do this.

By the way, when it it still undignified to start the Bryce Harper watch? He's represented by Boras too...

Posted by: soundbloke | June 10, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

"Wow...Storen is locked up before the draft is even over.

Thank goodness Nats management honored the board. Storen, afterall, was not picked because of signability, but because he was the Nats highest rated player."

Just like Ryan Zimmerman in 2005, so I've been told.

Posted by: nunof1 | June 10, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I think his name is Dan Weaver not Andrew?

Posted by: periculum | June 10, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Only Nat's fans could find a way to spin this clever business into something negative.

Posted by: soundbloke | June 10, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

outsider6 wrote:

It seems when Kasten built the Braves a million years ago he focused on character and the mental makeup of the kids he drafted. And it started with pitching. I don't follow the college game closely but I put ZERO stock in pre-draft ratings... seriously, how often do top round picks actually turn into everyday players, much less stars of the game?

If these young pitchers turn out to be tireless workers with bulldog mentalities on the hill, I say Go Rizzo!

Let me count the inconsistencies in this post:
1. Kasten had nothing to do with building the Braves. He was running the NBA Hawks when Ted Turner needed somebody to sign checks at his MLB franchise. StanK signed.
2. You admit you put "ZERO stock" in pre-draft ratings but what else can you base your opinion that Rizzo has stocked the club with Tom Seaver clones? You must at least be putting some stock in these touts, unless you've personally scouted amateur baseball yourself.
3. Rizzo hasn't proven anything to anybody yet. Right now he is a placeholder. He gets the job if the Lerners are satisfied he can continue to run this club on the cheap, using big-market revenue to operate s small-market budget, while contributing the the Lerners' considerable family fortune.

I think you can equally make the case that Rizzo is just a convenient, work-on-the-cheap lifer baseball stooge who is either a) a placeholder for somebody who works even cheaper or b) craps out under the considerable financial restraints of the the Selig/Lerners/StanK triumverate.

There is no justifiable cause for elevating Rizzo to, say, Pat Gillick status. He has shown nothing yet except the ability to sort of run a team that is 15-and-41 and is the laughingstock of baseball.

Posted by: jdschulz50 | June 10, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Making decisions against the odds is always problematic--in public, even moreso.

"So do I walk this guy, and let *that* SOB beat me?"

"and nobody, nobody knows what's going to happen to anybody besides the forlorn rags of growing old..."

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Draft picks (which cannot be traded) are always against the odds, because playing the game at all is going against the odds. This is baseball--if you have no stomach for failure, and lots of it, you're in the wrong sport.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

>>This is baseball--if you have no stomach for failure, and lots of it, you're in the wrong sport.Posted by: Sec3mysofa

POST OF THE FREAKIN YEAR!!!

Posted by: dovelevine | June 10, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Thank goodness Nats management honored the board.
Posted by: LosDoceOcho | June 10, 2009 12:51 PM

but remember, according to our resident Nationals Scouting Staff Member, nunof1, the "board" doesn't exist. Rizzo was just lying to us when he was talking about how the Scouting Staff put together their draft board. there is no draft board. right nunof?

Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Nobody, NOBODY knows what's going to happen to anybody...
There is no objective, omniscient list of Who Will Prosper. The consensus #1 pick, everybody's BPA, is, at best, even money to see two years in the bigs, nevermind get his own Joe Hardy Wing in Cooperstown. But we can almost guarantee that some guys drafted today or tomorrow, in the later rounds, will achieve greatness, at least in baseball.

And yet ... GMs have to draft players anyway. They have to make good decisions on the whole, and sometimes on specific players, knowing that even a good decision might come up empty.

It's like closers who have to throw their best pitch, even if this same guy hit it 450 feet last night. Because they know they'll get him tonight. Or not.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

MrMadison, c'mon, dude. you're being deliberately obtuse, which is not like you.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I don't think we've drafted a single player in this draft that is not a Pitcher or a Middle Infielder.

talk about re-stocking areas of need. *grin*

Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

MrMadison, c'mon, dude. you're being deliberately obtuse, which is not like you.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I'm being nunof1.

in the meager hope that he might see just how ridiculous he comes off.

i'm not holding my breath on it though.

and just for the record, I'm pretty much happy with this draft. just a little puzzled about Holder.

Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Can't we all just get along?

Posted by: combedge | June 10, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Can't we all just get along?

Posted by: combedge | June 10, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I get along with everyone.

I just make fun of foolishness when I see it.

and nunof1's "sarcasm in lieu of a cogent argument" is just that. foolishness.

Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

I think his name is Dan Weaver not Andrew?

Posted by: periculum | June 10, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

----------------------

BA has him listed as Dean Weaver, but you know how little stock we Nats Journal people place in BA info! Oh wait, turns out that's what the UGA site has too.

Dean Weaver it is...and it looks like he was Georgia's primary closer.

40.0 IP
3.60 ERA
10 SV
40 H
32/11 K/BB

Posted by: combedge | June 10, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse

"but remember, according to our resident Nationals Scouting Staff Member, nunof1, the "board" doesn't exist. Rizzo was just lying to us when he was talking about how the Scouting Staff put together their draft board. there is no draft board. right nunof?"

Wrong, Boy Wonder. MANY boards exist. Every team has their own board, as do BA, ESPN and other prognosticators and blowhards. But only the Nationals know the contents of their board. They don't share it with other teams, the press, anyone. So if someone from outside the organization says "they told us they were going to draft the best player available, but they lied because when they chose X, they should have picked Y and Z who were higher on the board" well then you know that person is talking out of his a**, don't you? Not that you, MrMadison would ever do anything like that, of course.

Posted by: nunof1 | June 10, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

from the last post:
* By the way, up until the draft, he hadn't been following the Nats. He was focused on pitching for the Aztecs.

Yeah right. So I wonder how he felt when he learned that his future team is on pace to be nearly the worst in baseball history. Welcome to reality, son.

Posted by: Section222 | June 10, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

"Making decisions against the odds is always problematic--in public, even moreso."
____________________

In Viera, even better . . .

Posted by: lowcountry | June 10, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

so far: (am I missing any?)

1. Stephen Strasburg RHP San Diego State
10. Drew Storen RHP Stanford
SECOND ROUND
50. Jeff Kobernus, 2B, California
THIRD ROUND
81. Trevor Holder, RHP, Georgia
FOURTH ROUND
112. Anthony Morris, RHP, Kansas State

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Now, the long-term watch will be on whether Storen winds up being better than Crow. See you here in ten years.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

"Now, the long-term watch will be on whether Storen winds up being better than Crow."

First piece of data will be whether Storen signed for more than Crow gets. See you here Aug 17. BTW, anyone know what Storen got?

Posted by: nunof1 | June 10, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse


Now, the long-term watch will be on whether Storen winds up being better than Crow. See you here in ten years.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Equally exciting will be to watch whether Storen signs for more than Crowe does (and/or more than Crowe wanted last year).

Posted by: cdstej | June 10, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

MANY boards exist. Every team has their own board, as do BA, ESPN and other prognosticators and blowhards.
Posted by: nunof1 | June 10, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse


"Next player on the board" - that implies the existence of some definitive ranked list of players in numerical order in which they should be picked under the "best player available" philosophy. There is no such list.

Posted by: nunof1 | June 10, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

so which is it?

is there a Draft Board or not?

you are the expert, you clear this up.

also, since you are clearly on the Nats Staff and you clearly have seen this mythical board that may or may not exist, can you confirm without any doubt for us, that Drew Storen was on the top of that Board at pick #10 and that there wasn't a single player that the Nationals could possibly have considered to be better than him in any way? and can you do the same for Holder?

the point is, none of us truly know. no, not even you.

everything we say here is speculation and/or opinion. none of it is fact, and I don't recall seeing anyone passing anything off as fact. for some reason you seem to be the only one here who hasn't been able come to grips with that.

so what's your deal? can't tolerate criticism for your favorite team?

some people expressed doubt that the Nats honored their board. none of those people have proof of this, they are merely speculating. by the same token, YOU don't have proof that they DID either. so you resort to the tired, cliche "you aren't a major league scout so you aren't qualified" phil wood routine.

If that's truly the case, then everyone who posts here should shut up and not post anymore until they get jobs working for major league front offices. including you.

deal?

Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

wow - guess nonof1 types faster than me.

Posted by: cdstej | June 10, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

holy cow...

we actually drafted someone who doesn't play in the middle of the diamond!

Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

First piece of data will be whether Storen signed for more than Crow gets. See you here Aug 17. BTW, anyone know what Storen got?

Posted by: nunof1 | June 10, 2009 1:39 PM

"undisclosed amount"

in other words, nah, we don't know.

they likely had the deal in place before the draft, I'd assume.

hopefully he can get right back to work and we'll see him in September.

Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Next pick, round 12:

Nathan Karnes, RHP, Texas Tech

we are going to be absolutely loaded with pitchers if we sign most of these guys.

good grief.

Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

"we are going to be absolutely loaded with pitchers if we sign most of these guys."

Reduces the organizational value of Martis, Lannan, Stammen, and Detwiler, freeing them up for a trade.

Posted by: Section506 | June 10, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Draft seems so much more focused this year than it was with Bowden.

with Bowden we'd kinda just hop all over the place. This year it seems like we know exactly what we want and what we don't want, and there seems to be a definite method to the madness.

very comforting.

Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

and I don't think we've drafted a "toolsy HS outfielder" yet.

which is pretty much awesome.

Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Round 5 Miguel Pena LHP
6 Michael Taylor SS
7 Andrew Weaver RHP
8 Roberto Perez SS
9 Taylor Jordan RHP
10 Paul Appleby LHP
11 Justin Bloxon LF
12 Nathan Karns RHP

The rounds are flyin' by fast!

Posted by: 1of9000 | June 10, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

""Next player on the board" - that implies the existence of some definitive ranked list of players in numerical order in which they should be picked under the "best player available" philosophy. There is no such list.

Posted by: nunof1 | June 10, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

so which is it?

is there a Draft Board or not?

you are the expert, you clear this up."

As I have written already several times today, there is no definitive ranking of available players (i.e. a board) that blowhards, pundits, casual fans or idiots such as yourself can point to and accuse the Nats (or any team for that matter) of violating their promise to draft the best player available. Why? Because only the Nationals know how they have ranked the players, and for their purposes "best player available" means best player available ACCORDING TO THEM.

Can you really be as dense as you seem to be, or are you just winding me up with all this BS you're putting out today?

Posted by: nunof1 | June 10, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

I think the main issue I have with folks who want to say, "This is a signability pick, nothing more, and we were, therefore, lied to," is that we have no idea who was on the draft board. It may very well be that the top 4 guys on the Nats board were Strasburg, Storen, Kobernus and Holder. Do I believe that to be the case? No. But, since I haven't seen the board, nor has anyone else posting here, it seems pretty ridiculous to exclaim that these were pure signability picks without at least acknowledging that they could just have been Strasburg and then three guys that the Nats covet.

Posted by: Cavalier83 | June 10, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Hey, guys, what's the point of this board debate? I've skipped most of it, what's the summary? There is a board or there isn't? Who really cares a flying Robert Fick?

The real story, it seems, is that the Nats signed based on need with Storen, which is a rare thing in baseball.

Posted by: Section506 | June 10, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

You say that like it's a bad thing.
Well, if they're bad pitchers, I guess it is.
Otherwise, no.
*******
we are going to be absolutely loaded with pitchers if we sign most of these guys.
good grief.
Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 1:49 PM

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

From BA - obviously, some information is missing (like Taylor's first name, etc)

Round Overall Player Position School
1 1 Stephen Strasburg RHP San Diego State
1 10 Drew Storen RHP Stanford
2 50 Jeff Kobernus 2B California
3 81 Trevor Holder RHP Georgia
4 112 A.J. Morris RHP Kansas State
5 142 Miguel Pena LHP La Joya Texas
6 172 Taylor SS Wesminster Academy Fla
7 202 Dean Weaver RHP Georgia
8 232 Roberto Perez SS Dorado Academy, P.R.
9 262 Taylor Jordan RHP Fla.
10 292 Paul Applebee lhp UC Riverside
11 322 Justin Bloxom OF Kansas State

----------------------

AJ Morris's 2009 stats look really good...and that's against Big 12 competition. Could be a solid pick in the fourth round.

Posted by: combedge | June 10, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

The man to trade may be Tyler Clippard at AAA. He's shown all he can show at that level. He hasn't really gotten a chance to demonstrate what he can do as a major league reliever. We just drafted and signed a reliever in Soren who is now higher on the organizational chart than Clippard. Can we trade Clippard for a decent outfield prospect?

When do we have enough pitching prospects so that we can trade for some outfield prospects? I get it. We're trying to have enough eggs in the basket at pitcher, catcher, and middle infield so that there is competition and quality at these positions. Until we have a logjam at any of these positions, which may be more projectable than outfield(?), I get a sense of what the organization is doing by drafting middle of the diamond guys.

Posted by: souldrummer | June 10, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Guys, I think I'd rather watch Daniel Cabrera pitch again than to continue the board debate.

Posted by: baltova1 | June 10, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

506, count yer blessings you missed it.
Short version: category problem. Some are arguing the Nats did not "honor the board," in Rizzo's words, by picking Storen, because most of the public estimations had him going much lower. Outside the various draft rooms of MLB teams, no one knows how highly rated Storen was by the only people who matter, the actual drafters. Some discussion ensued about the non-existence of an objective standard for assessing amateur baseball talent.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

"also, since you are clearly on the Nats Staff and you clearly have seen this mythical board that may or may not exist, can you confirm without any doubt for us, that Drew Storen was on the top of that Board at pick #10 and that there wasn't a single player that the Nationals could possibly have considered to be better than him in any way? and can you do the same for Holder?

the point is, none of us truly know. no, not even you."

All I have are these words straight out of Mike Rizzo's mouth in the press conference after they drafted Storen:

Question: Where was Storen on your drafting board?

"He was the next guy on our board."

Sounds pretty damn definitive to me.

As for Holder, apparently Rizzo was not asked the same question about him. But if you read the transcripts of all the various press availabilities from yesterday, it's pretty clear that Holder was indeed the highest ranking player left on their board when they picked him.

Posted by: nunof1 | June 10, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Post 18. Jack Kerouac.

---

so far: (am I missing any?)

1. Stephen Strasburg RHP San Diego State
10. Drew Storen RHP Stanford
SECOND ROUND
50. Jeff Kobernus, 2B, California
THIRD ROUND
81. Trevor Holder, RHP, Georgia
FOURTH ROUND
112. Anthony Morris, RHP, Kansas State

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 1:34 PM

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 10, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

So, there's the Platonic Board, which is really more like consensus media picks averaged out, and the Nats board, to which none of us (presumably) is privy.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

As I have written already several times today, there is no definitive ranking of available players (i.e. a board) that blowhards, pundits, casual fans or idiots such as yourself can point to and accuse the Nats (or any team for that matter) of violating their promise to draft the best player available. Why? Because only the Nationals know how they have ranked the players, and for their purposes "best player available" means best player available ACCORDING TO THEM.


Posted by: nunof1 | June 10, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

of course we can't see the Nats Draft Board. the most we can do is speculate and offer opinions, but none of us know for sure. that includes you, as much as you wish it did not. I'm pretty sure that's been acknowledged many times over.

now do you know some sort of undeniable fact that we don't? I doubt it.

so then how can you definitively say that they DID pick the best available player?

there is room for doubt there, which you seem unwilling to allow for some reason. why?

the fact is, they picked who they picked, and we are well within our rights as fans to speculate on reasons behind the pick.

because that's ALL IT IS. speculation.

so what's your problem here?


Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Argument for argument's sake? In other news, perhaps you've not heard that we traded Robert Fick for Ron Villone in the [] department. :-D

---

Hey, guys, what's the point of this board debate? I've skipped most of it, what's the summary? There is a board or there isn't? Who really cares a flying Robert Fick?

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 10, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Oh, speaking of Robert Fick, I'm way behind in reading blogs and I just noticed that the We've Got Heart site had an update last month on where Fick is playing these days.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 10, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

and just to be clear:

I LIKE our picks. except Holder.

I LIKE the Storen pick.

I LIKE that we are loading up on Pitchers and High Character guys.

I'm arguing more against the "you aren't qualified to render an opinion" mentality moreso than the picks.

Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"It may very well be that the top 4 guys on the Nats board were Strasburg, Storen, Kobernus and Holder. Do I believe that to be the case? No."

It's a lock that these were not the top four guys on their board going into the draft. Strasburg of course was #1, but beyond him there may have been intervening guys between each of the others who got taken by other teams before those picks came around.

Posted by: nunof1 | June 10, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Knew I could count on you, 1a. Care to try for the other quote?

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"I'm arguing more against the "you aren't qualified to render an opinion" mentality moreso than the picks."

No one's saying you're not qualified to render an opinion. We're just saying the opinion you're rendering is wrong. All of us are equally qualified to render opinions and be wrong, or on rare occasions even be right.

Posted by: nunof1 | June 10, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I'm willing to go out on a limb and assert vociferously (against all contrarians) that Strasburg was at the top of the Nats board . . .

Posted by: lowcountry | June 10, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

"So, there's the Platonic Board, which is really more like consensus media picks averaged out, and the Nats board, to which none of us (presumably) is privy."

HAH! Platonic Board! I imagine it being composed of shadows...

Posted by: Section506 | June 10, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

It's not the "not qualified" part that seems to be getting in the way, MM--I mean, this IS a blog, after all: we bloviate, therefore we are--but fingernails-on-a-blackboard rhetorical strategy.

*******
I'm arguing more against the "you aren't qualified to render an opinion" mentality moreso than the picks.
Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 2:05 PM |

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

MrMad, what does it matter whether or not anyone thinks you (or any other poster) is qualified? We don't need no stinkin' qualifications - we're bloggers. ;-)

On another note, thanks for sharing your insights about the change in draft philosophy. Very interesting points.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 10, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Wow, coming from you, my stuff begins to make actual sense...
That's exactly what it is.

*******
HAH! Platonic Board! I imagine it being composed of shadows...
Posted by: Section506 | June 10, 2009 2:11 PM

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

eh, sec3 said it sooner, and better, than I, and, reading back further, nunof said it before both of us.

I liked the Platonic Board, too, 506.

hmmm, I think I must have missed the other quote, sec3.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 10, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

All I have are these words straight out of Mike Rizzo's mouth in the press conference after they drafted Storen:

Question: Where was Storen on your drafting board?

"He was the next guy on our board."

Sounds pretty damn definitive to me.

---------------------------------

so then the question becomes...why?

what is it about Storen that put him higher on the Nats Draft Board than Grant Green(SS USC) and Alex White (P, NC), who were both available at the time, both were widely regarded as among the top players available based on talent, and both projected to go within the top 10? just for general info, i believe Storen was projected to go in the late teens or 20s. I could easily be wrong about that, as I haven't read *everything* about the guy.

but even so,as I said,the Storen pick does not bother me. The Holder pick is really the only pick i didn't like. This guy was just really...mediocre from everything I've seen and read,and it just seems like a real stretch to draft him where we did. I think the guy we drafted after him (AJ Morris, P KState) is a better pitcher. IN MY OPINION. my highly uneducated, simpleton opinion.

with that said,I gotta run. catch you guys later.


Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

College of the Desert and Coffee High School. At least they are taking guys from interesting sounding places with back-to-back picks.

Posted by: larryn703 | June 10, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

"what is it about Storen that put him higher on the Nats Draft Board than Grant Green(SS USC) and Alex White (P, NC), who were both available at the time, both were widely regarded as among the top players available based on talent, and both projected to go within the top 10?"

Closer, Chad Cordero (success story until injured). They need a new closer. So, they drafted based on need? They have plenty of potential starters from good college programs to work with, two from UGA. Apparently, the desperately need relievers. This could change the complexion of their board I suppose?

Posted by: periculum | June 10, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"College of the Desert and Coffee High School. At least they are taking guys from interesting sounding places with back-to-back picks."

I'm pretty excited about the first guy, actually. There's a great picture of him consulting with his catcher on pitching strategy in an intense ninth inning moment making its round on the internet:

http://tinyurl.com/nvhftf

Posted by: Section506 | June 10, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"College of the Desert and Coffee High School. At least they are taking guys from interesting sounding places with back-to-back picks."

That's only because the Lerners are too cheap to draft anybody from Starbucks High School. They're going generic.

Posted by: nunof1 | June 10, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

If the latter was a college, I'd suspect that it might be a diploma mill, larryn. I'll have a tall, half-caff mocha latte, please.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 10, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

OK, "What did you guys see in Storen that BP etc. missed, in taking him higher than the Platonic Board predicted he'd go?" would be a good question, and I'd be interested in the answer, but I can't imagine why they'd answer it. "According to our estimation, he was the BPA." should be all they'll tell you, and rightly so. Still a good question, and I'd ask just in case, but we'll likely have to just wait and see if they were right about him.

Some folks have mentioned various draftees' stats. I wouldn't rely on those much. It's too hard to know what they mean. The levels of competition vary so much, coaching varies, the quality of the teams they're on varies... it's comparing apples to PBJ sandwiches.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Holder looks like a workhorse. Just needs some coaching and some tuning. He pitched a lot of innings in his college career.

Posted by: periculum | June 10, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Holder has the record for most wins at UGA (22).

Posted by: periculum | June 10, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the laugh, 506. p.s. I think that I know which one is the "catcher."

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 10, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

On a side note, the College of the Desserts sounds like a great idea for a culinary school.

Posted by: larryn703 | June 10, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I've got them taking only 4 HS kids so far through the 15th round. Obviously, the Rizzo philosophy is to take college kids who may be more ready and more mature.

I'm stunned that Nunof1 is in a raging debate with someone. That is very unlike him.

Posted by: Section505203 | June 10, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

wait a minnit... "College of the Desert and Coffee High School" ??

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Oh. College of the Desert (note: ONE S), and also, before that, Coffee High School. Two places.

OK

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Hilarious, 1a!!

Posted by: Section506 | June 10, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

I went back to look at the other quote, sec3, but I don't know who it is. SWAG = Jim Bouton?

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 10, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Can Storen pitch tonight?

Posted by: AsstGM | June 10, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

still, anyone who would go to that much trouble to have a funny transcript is my new favorite player.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

is it just me or do the nats draft a lot of SS prospects?

Posted by: sect104 | June 10, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Wait, two different guys??
nevermind.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

505203: Wanna hear the REALLY weird part? I think nunof1's actually right this time. :)

Posted by: outsider6 | June 10, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"So do I walk him, and let *that* SOB beat me?"
is Tommy Lasorda, miked in the dugout, wondering out loud whether to pitch to Jack "The Dude" Clark with first base open and Andy Van Slyke on deck, late in a soon-untied game 6.
Skip insists to this day that if he had it to do over, he'd still pitch to Clark. (Plato is pretty much unanimous in thinking he's crazy to do so.)

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Wow the draft could not have come at a better time for one Manny Acta. Completely got everyones mind off of him. Haven't read one word today concerning him or the Nats losing. Tic Toc Tic Toc.

Posted by: dovelevine | June 10, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

"OK, "What did you guys see in Storen that BP etc. missed, in taking him higher than the Platonic Board predicted he'd go?" would be a good question, and I'd be interested in the answer, but I can't imagine why they'd answer it."

The Nats never seem to publicly compare players in any given draft class against each other. (Do any teams do this?) What they do is tell you the things they like about the player in the generalized baseball terminology. Plus this or that, five-tool player, yada yada yada. If they compare a drafted player to any other player, it's a current or previous major leaguer, as in this Q&A sequence with Nationals scouting director Dana Brown.

Question: How does Chad Cordero compare to Drew Storen?

“I like Storen better than Cordero. I know we were very fortunate to get Cordero. He pitched in an All-Star Game. But Storen has more power to his stuff. And he has a better breaking ball. A more powerful fastball.”

Posted by: nunof1 | June 10, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

mmmmm...

PBJ Sandwiches
Apples
Dessert
Coffee

Posted by: combedge | June 10, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

So is the platonic board where you go if you don't want to get screwed?

Posted by: twinbrook | June 10, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Dang - I whiffed on that one, sec3.

And I think that would be the Lysistrata Board.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 10, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Oh, but a homer on this...
(ok, aristophanes, technically, not homer)
*******
Dang - I whiffed on that one, sec3.
And I think that would be the Lysistrata Board.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 10, 2009 2:49 PM

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

sorta like an allez-oop pass, twinbrook to 1a for the bada-boom.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"is it just me or do the nats draft a lot of SS prospects?

Posted by: sect104 | June 10, 2009 2:33 PM |"

Perhaps, but it misses a few things.
1) The position listed is their current position, which might not be the position they are projected to play.
2) I'd rather see a middle infielder fill out to be a corner infielder or corner outfielder rather than seeing a corner infielder filling out to be a DH/defensive liability
3) And a few of the middle infielders will get switched to CF if they don't have quite the arm strength.

Anyway, I'm not reading too much into position other than pitcher vs. fielder, especially for HS and CC players.

Posted by: cbm92 | June 10, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

There are days I remember why I still do this.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Good points, cbm. I think they don't usually draft corner outfielders, they draft hitters, who play OF. Maybe CFs. So many shortstops wind up elsewhere (see Zimmerman) on the diamond.

********
Anyway, I'm not reading too much into position other than pitcher vs. fielder, especially for HS and CC players.
Posted by: cbm92

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Uh oh.
Yes boss...

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Glad you liked it, sec3. I couldn't have done it without twinbrook.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 10, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Boras is an a major a**hole. The owners plantation mentality of the first 100 or so years of the game was wrong and now the outlandish demands of the player agents for the past 30 years is wrong.

We are looking into the abyss with SS, I'm telling ya, Boras could give a rats a** about the Lerner story, the StanK story or the Rizzo story. If he feels his client is not going to get WHAT HE thinks is fair compensation there will be NO DEAL. Who the hell is Scott Boras? Just another wise guy lawyer with a smart mouth and a penchant for using the old bromide, something about standing up for the little guy! This player is a 20 year old "wet behind" the ears college kid who by all means needs to prove that he can play at this level.

Posted by: TippyCanoe | June 10, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Sweet - can he pitch tonight? :)

Posted by: PattyinSJ | June 10, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Question: How does Chad Cordero compare to Drew Storen?

“I like Storen better than Cordero. I know we were very fortunate to get Cordero. He pitched in an All-Star Game. But Storen has more power to his stuff. And he has a better breaking ball. A more powerful fastball.”

Posted by: nunof1 | June 10, 2009 2:43 PM

everything I've read and seen about Storen makes him seem pretty much like the reincarnation of Chad Cordero....except with a legit fastball. Chief never had one of those.

I've even seen a picture of Storen pitching...and he's wearing that same Ironed-Flat Brim that Chief was known for.

if he turns out to be anything close to what Chief was prior to his injury, then this pick will be a steal.

Chief was absolute money with icewater in his veins, but he tempted fate a lot because he did not have a legit fastball that he could dial up to get quick strikes when he needed them.

Chief's fastball was consistently 89-ish, with an occasional venture into 90/91 land. with a good slider, and impeccable command.

this kid Storen throws a constant 95, as far as I know. with a good slider and impeccable command.

the thought of Chad Cordero with a legit fastball gives me warm fuzzies.

which is why, in the end, I like the Storen pick.

Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Re: Shortstops.

first a few things...

Zimmerman was a 3B when we drafted him. He was a 3B that was CAPABLE of playing SS if we wanted him to, according to the projections. But we drafted him as a 3B. as I recall, Zimmerman played SS in HS, but was moved to 3B because of an upperclassman (whose name I forget) who was already entrenched at SS for Virginia.

next, we are drafting a lot of middle infielders...cause WE NEED EM! have you seen our organizational depth for middle infield? it's like Ian Desmond(aka the most overrated "prospect" in the entire system), Danny Espinosa and........? we are really, really hurting for middle infielders, organization-wide. if Guzman walks after next season, we might well be screwed as far as SS goes.

Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

"it's like Ian Desmond(aka the most overrated "prospect" in the entire system), Danny Espinosa and........? "

Smiley Gonzales!

Posted by: Section506 | June 10, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

That's true, Zimmerman moved to 3rd before the draft. Point was, lots of shortstops move, at different points in their development, before they get to the majors.

and Tippy, I think you're missing the point, although Boras may well be an [alpha hotel]--I don't know the man. "What *he* thinks is fair" is completely beside the point, to him and everyone else. It's his job to get the best deal for his client--and if that exceeds somebody else's idea of "fair" so be it--he just did a good job. Don't hate the player, hate the game if you must. Capitalism does many things poorly or not at all, but setting salaries for ballplayers too high is surely not one of them. Baseball didn't crash and burn because of free agency, it prospered. Not paying a player market price is, arguably, the only unfair thing about it.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone accused Boras of skimming out of his clients' bank account.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | June 10, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of $$, new post.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 10, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Um, we are already screwed with Guzman at SS. Have you seen his (severe lack of) range?! Liability.

His .300 average is the only asset he's got (that was a nice homer last night though!).

Posted by: combedge | June 10, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I wonder what the general reaction was when the Expos picked Cordero back in the day.

Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

I wonder what the general reaction was when the Expos picked Cordero back in the day.

Posted by: MrMadison | June 10, 2009 4:18 PM

People followed the Expos? Weren't their TV numbers even worse than the Nats? (Didn't they fail to get their games on the air one of the last years? (maybe it was radio...))

I kid of course. I just imagine that it was hard to care about a draft when the team was packing the moving trucks.

Posted by: cbm92 | June 10, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Well, they weren't quite packing the trucks up in 2003, though the threat was there. Maybe some of the Expos heritage fans among us could share their memories on that front.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | June 10, 2009 6:23 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company