NFBC Message Boards

There are times during drafts where we wonder if we're doing the right thing. Many, many scenarios that have us questioning ourselves.
Let's talk about one here.

Alright, we are in the 18th round of a draft, the pick is coming to you.
Here is your roster...

C- Occupied
C-
1B- Occupied
2B- Occupied
3B- Occupied
SS- Occupied
MI-
CI-
OF- Occupied
OF- Occupied
OF- Occupied
OF- Occupied
OF- Occupied
U- Occupied

You also have 6 of your nine pitchers covered and have two Closers.

In seeing this, my first thought is that the Catcher can be back burnered, unless somebody like Rupp fell farther than usual.
So, we're deciding between the two infield spots or another Starter, right?
Let me throw in a monkey wrench here. As you know, no draft goes smoothly.
Each at one point, designed specifically to SCREW US!
We sort of put ourselves in a bind by taking the sixth outfielder in the 17th round.
Now, in the 18th round, needing a MI, CI, or P,,,Hunter Pence is still there.
We love Hunter Pence.
And half of our brain is cursing other drafters for not taking him, while the other half of our brain is saying SCREW IT. I'll take Pence since they're not showing the respect.

Personally, if I had a thing for Pence, I would draft him in DC's.
In DC's, we know that injuries are going to kill at least a third of our roster and that Pence will get plenty of time.
DC's are like playing Chess. We know we still have a chance as long as injury stays away from our best pieces.
If Pence stands out over every other infielder or Starter, I'd take him.

What about a 30 round draft?
This is a lot harder.
We are drafting our first bench spot with the 18th pick if taking Pence. Bench spots are not near as important in 30 rounders as they are 50. FAAB sees to that.
The best thing would have been to never put ourselves in this situation, but it was just too hard to resist Inciarte in the 17th.
We didn't know our competitors would slow draft outfielders.
Cesar Hernandez and Gurriel and Daniel Norris are next on our positional lists.
We know that Pence will probably be the best bet for stats. Common sense tells us to draft the position because Pence will be riding pine and no matter how good Pence stats are, they don't do us any good on the bench.

I've been in this sort of position many times. I usually take the talent over the position and try to figure the rest out later.
What about you?
Have you had this happen?
What was your solution?

I'd draft Daniel Norris.

(See, I'm trying to be briefer in my replies. )

The way I think of these predicaments is need v. want. You want to draft Hunter Pence because your opponents have left him like a gift for you. But, you don't need Pence because you already have six OF. Taking a reserve player this early, while tempting, probably is not the best way to go. (Now, maybe if one of your OFs is hurt, and you see a path for getting Pence regular starts, maybe you can make a case.)

I have found, usually the hard way, that in most cases I am better off taking the player I need over the player I want. Sure, I may give myself a want pick every now and then, but if you take Pence here, you run the risk of being very weak at a starting position. (Even if you are prepared to "punt" your 2nd catcher and wait to take a leftover in the reserve rounds, you still are sacrificing getting a better CI, MI or SP.)

Without really knowing who's left, I think I'd need pitching the most based on your example. You said you've drafted six pitchers including two closers. That means you've only drafted four starters. Most starting lineups will include seven starters, meaning you need at least three more prior to the reserve rounds (or two more if you are taking a closer-in-waiting or Fernando Rodney and going with six starters). I don't mind having playing musical chairs with my SP7 slot, or even SP6, but I personally prefer to have at least five starters that I can confidently put into my lineup most weeks. Therefore, under the scenario presented, I'd probably opt for an SP. One exception would be if the available player pool was down to the last or next-to-last acceptable CI. Then, I might give that some consideration. I think you have more flexibility to fill MI a little later, because you could go for a player with speed, a player with some pop, a decent average "all-arounder" type player, etc. For my starting CI, I feel more pressure to get a steady contributor in the power categories (and would want to avoid being stuck with that non-HOF'er, Joe Mauer).

Mike

Gotta lay off the Pence there. It's what I call being cute. Also holds true to drafting a low level 3rd CL(most likely to fail) or a TOP minor league prospect starting at AAA(likely to kill a bench spot,then suck anyway).

The house you're building still needs plumbing. Makes no sense to add a second car just to have it sit unused in the driveway.

Let's go with another scenario...and I try to leave out Catchers and Closers in these scenarios because not only are they handled differently by each drafter, they could also be handled differently by each drafter in different draft flows dependant on whether they fly off the Boards or being slow drafted.

Here it is...

You are amazed at your luck. You absolutely KNOW that your team has the makings of an Overall contender.
And it's only the fourth round!
The players that you coveted have dropped.
Picking eighth, your team has started with Nolan Arenado, Miguel Cabrera, and Nelson Cruz.
Giddy, you can't wait for your next pick.
One pick away, the realization hits that a big decision is to be made.

Jon Lester and Justin Verlander are both available.
But, so are Dee Gordon and Billy Hamilton.

What is more important?

Beginning your starting staff with a quality pitcher, almost knowing that Lester and Verlander will not make it back to you?

Or....

Fortifying your offense with the only element that is missing from your first three picks, speed?

(This is also another commercial in how 'value' plays such a small role in our actual thinking in drafts. Roster construction takes precedence in a lot of our drafting decisions. Thank you for listening )

I would go with dee gordon. With the scenario you've outlined, you're basically deciding whether you want to be weaker in sb's or k's. Also, by taking Gordon, you can take some calculated risks to get k's and you don't have to play catch up the rest of the draft with sb's.

in example #1 i would say "dan that is what you get for taking starling marte instead of VOTTO in round #2". 6 OF's before round 18? yikes