| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 02-01-2011 |
Five years ago this June, nine clubs, including the Seattle Mariners, passed on University of Washington right-hander Tim Lincecum in the First-Year Players Draft. Lincecum lasted until the San Francisco Giants tabbed him at No. 10, and has since won two Cy Young Awards in the four full years he's been a big leaguer, as well as leading the Giants to the World Series title last October. And the rest, as they say, is history.
But I'm here to suggest that perhaps it's not.
Subscribers can check out the rest of the premium feature by clicking here.
If you are not yet a subscriber, click here and become one.
future:-morrow-vs.-lincecum
Comments
The following 16 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: Adam P. Boyd on 02-01-2011 21:30:26 Really good stuff, Jason. A "1-2-3 punch" of Felix, Morrow, and Pineda would look awfully good, wouldn't it? |
| 2. By: Jason A. Churchill on 02-01-2011 21:58:27 It would. And just to make sure readers aren't confused, this isn't a what-if piece. |
| 3. By: griggs on 02-01-2011 23:19:29 I remember following the 2006 Draft, watching each pick on the MLB site. Luckily I lived the early part of my life in the Bay Area and still follow the Giants closely. If Lincecum can't pitch for the M's, I'd want him to pitch for the Giants. Here's to hoping the M's don't follow the same path with the #2 overall this June! |
| 4. By: jase411 on 02-02-2011 00:14:18 Jason, great article and insight as always. I can't lie though, this is painful to read!!! The mistake of passing on Lincecum and the later trade of Morrow, are both sore subjects. Can we stick to upcoming happiness in SoDo in the form of Smoak, Pineda, Franklin and Rendon (I HOPE!!) rather than reminding us of the painful mistakes of the past? It makes me want to cry! :) This is like saying the name Buckner in Fenway.. |
| 5. By: Jason A. Churchill on 02-02-2011 00:23:01 Well, now you're just setting yourself for disappointment hoping for Rendon when Pittsburgh selects 1-1. |
| 6. By: ThePatton on 02-02-2011 00:42:22 Well Keith Law said he thinks it's 50/50 Rendon goes #1. I'm rooting for Purke and Cole to go crazy so that Pittsburgh takes one of them instead. |
| 7. By: jase411 on 02-02-2011 00:46:10 Oh I know, I would have to think Cole will be the name that we call on draft day. Rendon sounds like the type of you you cannot pass on. Hard to be too disappointed with that though... |
| 8. By: Jason A. Churchill on 02-02-2011 00:51:15 ThePatton, Even if it's 50-50, that is a large window of disappointment to open yourself up to. It would take Rendon not deserving to be picked 1 for Pitt to pass. and if he truly doesn't deserve to go 1-1, does he deserve to go 1-2? Hey, it could happen, but I'm just saying you're asking to be let down if you that is what you are holding out hope for. |
| 9. By: DRWheelock on 02-02-2011 01:05:35 The only problem I see and read about this is that Pitts is not deep what-so-ever at 3B. I can't imagine them not picking Rendon at #1. Just my 2 cents. |
| 10. By: Jason A. Churchill on 02-02-2011 01:43:34 DRWheelock, Especially when Alvarez belongs at first base and will end up there soon. |
| 11. By: Adam P. Boyd on 02-02-2011 02:53:31 This Rendon stuff is going to turn into '09 all over again when everyone hoped that Strasburg would be too expensive for Washington. Cole or Springer or anyone else at 2 will be nothing to sneeze at. I watched Cole twice last year and will watch him another couple times this spring - he is a special arm, I like him a lot. |
| 12. By: Mackie on 02-02-2011 08:54:25 Thanks for the good article, Jason! I get awfully tired of the Morrow vs. Lincecum debate when it is presented in the context of "if only the Mariners had drafted Lincecum" and "the Mariners are inept now because they didn't draft Lincecum back then", etc. I'd love for all that stuff to just go away. Thanks for presenting the comparison without all that extra unnecessary stuff (I say unnecessary because I like to be forward-thinking, and because neither Lincecum or Morrow pitch for the Mariners and likely won't ever, IMO). Both are good pitchers and the comparison is interesting, and it's all good to look at. I had not realized they had as many statistical similarities as they did in 2010! What I am really hoping is that a combination of Michael Pineda and someone like Gerritt Cole will cause many Mariners fans to forget all about Morrow and Lincecum by the 2013 season. 8-) |
| 13. By: baseballman on 02-02-2011 10:58:01 Im not gonna lie JAC, this was a tough one to get through, it was well written of course, but the subject was tough for Ms fans. In regards to Rendon, Im going to have a little hope that theres a SMALL chance Pitt doesnt take him, but Im not making any bets. I hope Springer and Cole have huge years though. Just like other years, it could be better to pick #2. Would anyone trade Ackley for Stras right now today? In the NBA, Oden #1, Durant #2. Rendon has some ankle issues. Hes the best player, but we could be better off with Cole/Springer (Springer would have to explode to warrant #2 probably) |
| 14. By: SolusFood on 02-02-2011 14:14:21 I am not sure why everyone is putting their hopes on getting Rendon. You draft the best player available. Chances are that Rendon will not be available. Then we'll most likely end up with a pitcher. We have zero decent-to-elite starting pitching prospects within 2 years coming up in the minors (not counting Pineda, and barring a Taijuan Walker miracle). Even if Paxton signs, there will be immediate questions on whether he will pan out. Ending up with a pitcher at #2 just seems like a best case possible scenario. Do not confuse that with drafting based on need. But I am simply saying it seems like people think not getting Rendon is a huge blow. I figure we'll get a good player regardless, ideally a pitcher. But we'll find out what happens between now and the draft. Maybe some not-Rendon position players will emerge worthy of #2. |
| 15. By: micahjr on 02-03-2011 14:44:28 Why no durability concerns for Morrow? Why no mention that Lincecum had back issues this last year and pitched through them. Lincecum wasn't at 100% and matched Morrow. I agree that Morrow's advancement was astounding this year, but also think that it wouldn't have happened with the same treatment in Seattle this year. Sometimes starting over requires a new place. |
| 16. By: StandinPat on 02-04-2011 22:19:34 "Why no durability concerns for Morrow?" Apparently you just glossed over the following; "and it couldn't hurt if he continued to get stronger and put on more good weight to help with durability. " and "Morrow's conditioning will also be a big factor, as he's yet to log what's considered a full season -- the 146 1/3 he managed a year ago is a career high -- and will be monitored closely to avoid unnecessary risk." "Why no mention that Lincecum had back issues this last year and pitched through them. Lincecum wasn't at 100%" Some might file that under "durability concerns" |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
 |
|
|
| Copyright 2010 Prospect Insider | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |