[/quote]There is no such thing as a justifiable pitching #1 pick. Gagne was about as close as I have ever seen to being first round worthy and look how highly regarded he is in midseason drafts now.
May I ask why? I know this seems to be the prevailing attitude, but somehow I think 350k's 20+ wins and 1.0 WHIP are very valuable things and certainly worthy of the first few picks.
Tavish wrote:There is no such thing as a justifiable pitching #1 pick. Gagne was about as close as I have ever seen to being first round worthy and look how highly regarded he is in midseason drafts now.
May I ask why? I know this seems to be the prevailing attitude, but somehow I think 350k's 20+ wins and 1.0 WHIP are very valuable things and certainly worthy of the first few picks.
Which pitchers are going to hit those numbers? Midseason drafts makes taking pitcher with a higher pick abit safer, but the unpredictability of pitchers makes taking them within the first few picks a big gamble. It might work out great it might not, I would much rather take a gamble with my late round picks than with my first one.
In my first post I had said RJ 3 years ago - a legit number 1 pick. You responded with no pitcher is worth it. I then sighted what could be estimated for RJ during his heyday, and asked why that couldn't be a number 1 pick.
What you say does make sense about consistency, which is why I generally also go with a hitter in the first round. However, a few years back, I would take Pedro or RJ with a first round pick, although usually not top 5.
pokerplaya wrote:In my first post I had said RJ 3 years ago - a legit number 1 pick. You responded with no pitcher is worth it. I then sighted what could be estimated for RJ during his heyday, and asked why that couldn't be a number 1 pick.
And I thought I answered this from my prespective, guess I can try again.
You can take whoever you want as the #1 pick, no one is saying he couldnt be taken #1, I'm sure there are people who did. But the unpredictability of pitchers makes it a hugh gamble to invest a #1 pick in. You could have taken RJ as the #1 pick in 2002 after his great 2001 season and done fine. If you took him in 2003 after his great 2002 season you would have been burned. Most owners would rather take a consistant hitter with a top pick simply because they are lower risk with just as great of reward.
You made yourself more than clear the first time. I disagree with your assesment that there is no such thing as a pitcher with the number one pick, but do agree with your comments about consistency. That's all I'm saying.
I think that the original question, which sets the time of the draft as NOW, changes this argument about consistency. Halfway through a season, if a pitcher is playing like a first-round pick, then there is no way he should go below the first round. Thats because top pitchers generally stay consistent throughout a season. Barring an injury or another outside influence, a top pitcher will not blow up half-way through the season. Therefore it is ok to take a Schmidt in the first round. Prior would be another one to take then, but he has only one start under his belt (however magnificent it was), so we cant really say that he will pitch like he did last year.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by 
