Drew Storen is a success story for the Washington Nationals, and his meteroic rise through the system has generated attention from all corners of the baseball world.  Keith Law from ESPN pegged Storen as the #92 prospect in his Top 100 list coming into the season, and the #3 prospect in the Nationals system, and fantasy baseball publications consistently tab Storen as "One to Watch" when it comes to acquiring saves on the cheap for prospective owners. Yes, Drew Storen has been a success, but his meteroic rise is not just due to his talent, it is also due to the holes in the Nationals bullpen prior to the 2010 season.

Not many teams spend Top Ten picks on a "future closer", especially if one subscribes to the Billy Beane theory, or views the career ascensions of players like Mariano Rivera (converted starter), Joe Nathan (6th round pick by SF, then traded to MIN), or 2009 ROY Andrew Bailey (6th round).  For the Nationals however, signability was the key issue since this pick was reimbursement for Aaron Crow's failure to sign.  If the player chosen did not sign, the Nationals were out another pick, with no reimbursement pick.  As a result, Drew Storen was chosen, signed and sent to the minors almost the next day.  A sound management decision, a sound fiscal decision, and a good baseball decision.  The stars aligned.

Storen's rise is due to many factors, and to pick one as the reason is to not recognize the role of other, uncontrollable factors in sports. Was signing early, getting to work and putting in the time a big reason in his ascension? Absolutely.  Storen gave the Nats FO a chance to see him at multiple levels of the game, and to feel comfortable to assign him to the Arizona Fall League, where he worked well. Was another reason his immense talent, drive and work ethic? You betcha.  Storen attacked hitters like a bulldog and showed everyone why the Nats felt he was worthy of a top ten pick. Was another reason that Storen is completely unblocked in the system? Absolutely.

Storen's road to the majors is unlike some other players in that he does not have an established player in the minors or in the majors blocking his path.  Players like Chris Marerro, Danny Espinosa and Derek Norris are all future MLB players, but currently have players such as Dunn, Guzman/Kennedy and Pudge/Flores in their way.  With the struggles of the bullpen in the prior year, and the need to always have a spare arm, Storen's call up to the show will be sooner than most.

This is not meant to diminish Storen's success by any means.  Players still need to adapt to the rigors of the system while showing they can deliver consistent, competitive performances.  Storen has excelled at that in his young career, and that is difficult to do no matter if you have 0 or 15 players ahead of you in line. The Nationals have a strong faith in Storen's abilities and his performance on the field has borne that out.  Fortunately for him, they also have a strong need for his abilities too. 

Looking forward to seeing you at the park Drew!

      

Okay, so for months, the papers agonized over whether Stephen Strasburg was the "right" choice at #1, citing a laundry list of failed experiments for pitchers.  Seeing that no #1 pitcher has ever been a success, citing a college junior as an exception was met with scoff and guffaws.

Critics like Boswell and others across the spectrum highlighted the various success stories found in hitters.  Potential HOF'ers like A-Rod, Griffey, Chipper Jones and various others made the case very compelling on the surface (forget that those individuals might have been the best prospect in the draft rather than the position they played, a la Strasburg).

Well in 2010, the Nationals will push the limits of that discussion of position player or pitcher, when they could potentially go after presumed #1 pick Bryce Harper.  Harper, the 16-year-old phenom who last week opted to forego his final two years of high school to persue a GED and go to a Community College, all to make himself eligible in the draft for 2010 as a 17 year old (17!!!!!). 

Yes, the same Bryce Harper who last I checked is not a pitcher, and therefore, not as "risky" as a pitcher if you use the analysis heaped upon you during this last draft.  Forget that he is a HIGH SCHOOL SOPHOMORE, and that at present he is still only 16.  Historically, position players do better in the draft, right?

I am looking forward with zeal to see the comparison in draft logic between the Nationals this year and next year, when analysts all across baseball will say, "go for it, he is can't miss, outfielders make great draft picks", but somehow picking a college junior with a track record (who transformed himself from a non-drafted high schooler), an olympic experience, and a coach who is arguably the greatest contact hitter in the last 25 years was ill-advised.

Can't wait.

      

While there will be a lot of fun parlor games while we wait for Strasburg to get signed, the Nats are the owners of the worst record in baseball, and the likely #1 pick in the 2010 draft.   Signing Strasburg will take a huge chunk of their capital, meaning signing a top flight prospect #1 would be difficult, but has anyone heard of Bryce Harper!?!?!

In a report from MLBTradeRumors.com, Bryce Harper, the 16 year old Paul Bunyan hitter, has enrolled at community college, potentially making him eligible for the 2010 draft.  If you thought there was controversy about drafting a 21 year old college arm who has matured, just wait for the show that will be unveiled when talk centers around a then 17 year old phenom.

Get ready!

      

This morning, I saw an article from Mike Wilbon, whose analysis and counsel I find to be very good and level-headed.  He was throwing his hat in the Strasburg contract ring, and stating the Nationals should not pay the outrageous demands because they have other needs to fill (true on other needs), and that historically #1 pitchers do not pan out.  The last part is a blanket statement that while the data supports, I feel there is a bit more that needs to be unearthed. It then got me thinking, what then should they have done, pass on him? What then?

Well, then, Strasburg would have joined the list of famously successful (more so than #1 picks) pitchers taken in the 2-5 slot in the draft.  Proof?

Famously, in 2004, the San Diego Padres, scared off by contract demands of Justin Verlander, signed hometown boy Matt Bush to the #1 pick.  Bush smiled for the camera, put on his Padres hat and jersey, and I am sure the local papers highlighted the wise frugality of the pick.  The #2 pick fell to the hapless Detroit Tigers, who wisely drafted AND signed Justin Verlander with the #2 pick.  Verlander, all of 26, went 17-9 his rookie year, 18-6 the following year, and after a wofeul 11-17, is back with a 7-2 record, followed by a complete game last night.  In all discussions of pitchers going #1, Verlander is not in the conversation, though he was the consensus best player. Matt Bush? Out of baseball. 

In 1999, the famous Josh Hamilton draft.  I am not faulting the Rays for taking him #1, at all.  Josh Beckett went to the Marlins with the next pick.  This draft made sense.  All I will say, is that Beckett does not get talked about in the #1 pitcher discussion, because he went one pick later.

Other #2 pitchers?  Mark Mulder.  Not bad little run in Oakland, as discussed later in this piece.

Pitchers in the top 5?  Kevin Brown.  Jack McDowell.  Dwight Gooden. 

Ever hear these names when analysts throw out the "value" of a #1 pick.  No, not at all.  It is always about how great the other hitters ended up in comparison.  Well we have looked at the famous Matt Bush scenario, but how much better from 1999-2006 would the Rays had been with Beckett instead of Hamilton?  I know, "that's not fair", but if folks are going to take pot shots at Mark-freak injury-Prior, then I can take a potshot here too.

Philly took Pat Burrell over Mark Mulder.  A wash right?  Well, I dont know.  How much cheaper could a .252, 31 HR, 104 RBI bat (Burrell's 162 game average) had been via free agency vs. a pitcher who went 21-8, 19-7, 15-9, 17-8, 16-8 for consecutive seasons? Burrell's career comps? Geoff Jenkins, Jesse Barfield, Danny Tartabull, Nick Swisher, Tony Clark.  Mulder's? For nearly every season of his career: Andy Pettitte. I would take that.

Granted there were years when a freakish arm went #2 and thank god--A-Rod over Darren Dreifort; Phil Nevin over Paul Shuey--but in those cases the hitter was the better player.  In the case of Strasburg over Ackley, by all scouts analysis, Strasburg is the better player.

My point being, in baseball, if the Nats had passed on Strasburg to take Ackley in a financially conservative move, Strasburg would be among the growing legions of pitchers that show it is smarter to take a pitcher at the #2 position vs. the #3 position...just how many of them should have gone #1?