Returning to the Scene of the Crime
Want to get a Pirate fan all riled up? It's pretty simple really. All you have to do is mention one of the following: Francisco Cabrera, Derek Bell, Aramis Ramirez or Abraham Nunez. Apparently, you can now add another name to the list: Bryan Bullington.
The name Bryan Bullington stirs many emotions in the hearts of Pirate fans. The first pick overall in the 2002 amateur baseball draft, Bullington has thus far failed to live up to expectations. Chosen over players with much higher ceilings, Bullington was thought to be able to step up to the majors with very little minor league seasoning. That didn't happen.
GM Dave Littlefield bears the brunt of the faithful's ire. It was widely reported that scouting director Ed Creech wanted to draft B.J. Upton, a talented five-tool high school shortstop, but Littlefield (and supposedly, team owner Kevin McClatchy) preferred to select someone that would reach the majors quickly as possible. That someone was supposed to be Bullington. Nearly three years later, Bullington has not yet pitched above AA, while Upton, who is four years younger, has already gotten his first taste of big league experience. The player destined for the fast track has been taking his time to get to the bigs.
Critics point to the missed opportunity of the 2002 draft as one of the Bucco front office's chief blunders. And yet, while I can understand the criticism, I am unwilling to join in on it for one simple fact: at the time, I thought the team had made the right move.
Hindsight has a way of making many arguments indefensible, and my intention here is not to justify the pick. Earlier this week, two separate newspaper articles profiled Bullington (here and here), and in both, the team's front office seemed to brush off any suggestions that they had made a mistake drafting Bullington. It came off as empty spin and many fans were torqued off. I can understand Littlefield not wanting to throw his pitcher under the bus, especially if there was still a chance to get some return for his investment. Still, his rhetoric (and apparent downplaying of Upton's potential) rubbed many people the wrong way.
No, I am not here to suggest that the Pirates made the right move. I am merely want to examine why I had thought that, given the circumstances of the time, Bullington was the right pick for the team to make. So let's go back to the halcyon days of the summer of 2002. Spider-man was swinging into friendly neighborhood metroplexes. The Osbournes finally brought together the F-word and good ol' family values together. And the world mourned as Brittany Spears, exhausted from prancing around in schoolgirl uniforms, put her career on hold for a well-deserved break. Oh, and the Pirates were preparing to draft first overall in the amateur baseball draft.
At the time, the 2002 draft class was not considered one to remember. In a May 24th article for Baseball America, Reds scouting director Kasey McKeon said, "There aren't a lot of premium guys up top, which is unfortunate when you pick up top." And many other baseball people agreed. A week before the draft, the picture wasn't any better. In a June 1 Baseball America report a scouting director said he'd never seen a year where his scouts differed so much on the top players' overall future potential grade. Later in the same article an anonymous scout is quoted, "You look on the board and nobody's really jumping out. The talent is really down around the country." And later an unnamed scouting director lamented, "It's less clear as we're getting closer to the draft, if that's possible. I thought it would start to take shape by now, but it hasn't." In addition to lacking a clear-cut no-brainer, the draft crop also was also noticeably lacking in college talent. Bobby Brownlie had been considered an early favorite for top pick the previous year, but injuries (and an affiliation with Scott Boras) caused his stock to plummet. If a team wanted to go the college route, the pickings were slim.
Bryan Bullington was one of the few top tier college talents available. He was a solid draft prospect his first two years at Ball State University, but exploded in his junior year when his fastball jumped up to 96 mph. He became a legitimate top 5 talent. He was considered to be very polished and nearly major league-ready. He also was considered to have very good stuff. BA rated Bullington as having the best breaking ball and the best command among college draft prospects, in addition to being rated "closest to the majors". Despite his polish, Bullington was not seen as a true ace, but rather he projected as a very good number three starter.
The Pirates eventually narrowed their focus to three players: Bullington, Upton and Canadian prep hurler Adam Loewen. Bullington was the organization's choice, but it is obvious that they considered all three more or less equal. Days before the draft, the Pirates settled on Bullington and tried to arrange a pre-draft deal. Bullington declined the $4 million bonus offer, so the Bucs turned to their second choice, Upton. Upton turned down the offer (he would later sign a $4.6 million bonus with the Devil Rays) so the team turned to Loewen, who turned down the same offer. Rebuffed, the Bucs reportedly briefly considered Virginia Tech southpaw Joe Saunders (who would later get drafted by the Angels with the 12th pick) before they redoubled their efforts for Bullington. They were unable to secure a pre-draft deal with the right-hander but drafted him anyway. On draft day, both sides seemed optimistic that a deal could be reached quickly, but Bullington wouldn't sign until October 30th (ironically settling for the the Bucs' initial $4 million signing bonus).
The story of the 2002 draft is a simple one. While Upton was the consensus top talent of the draft, he was far from a sure thing. He was only 17 and most observers assumed he would need four to five years to develop into a major league talent. Bullington was considered the surest thing of the draft, but didn't have Upton's upside. Since the draft, Upton showed he was far more advanced than anyone had any right to expect. Conversely, Bullington has not showed the same stuff that made the Pirates consider him in the first place. The 96 mph fastball he flashed at Ball State was no where to be found, instead he sometimes had trouble cracking 90 mph. More telling, Bullington was left off of BA's list of the top 20 prospects in the Eastern League (usually a gimme for such a high profile prospect).
History thus far has made it abundantly clear that the Bucs should have drafted differently. In addition to Upton, nine other players drafted in the first round alone have had a taste of the major leagues. To add insult to injury, two of those were high schoolers, and several more high schoolers are knocking on the door.
At the time of the draft, I thought Bullington was going to be a very good major league pitcher. Looking back, so did a lot of people. In a draft chat on May 31, 2002, BA columnist Jim Callis ranked only four players ahead of Bullington based soley on pure potential. Bullington was considered to have more potential (at the time) than high school standouts Jeremy Hermida and Zack Greinke. The following year, BA ranked Bullington as the third best talent drafted in the 2002 draft -- behind Upton and Scott Kazmir, but ahead of Jeremy Guthrie and Zack Greinke. Obviously, a player destined to be mediocre would not receive such accolades. The downturn Bullington's career took was entirely unexpected.
Critics will point out that the Bucs are getting their just deserts were going the safe route. Perhaps. Usually I abhor the safe route. After all, fortune favors the bold. However, when it comes to the 2002 draft, I thought the safe route was the prudent one. I was wrong. There are no givens in the draft and the safe bet can blow up in a team's face just as easily as the boldest gambles. It's funny, you don't hear anyone complaining that the team didn't draft Adam Loewen. Loewen was very nearly a Pirate, and was considered by many to be the best talent on the draft board (even more talented than Upton). He would have been a bold choice, but he has thus far been disappointing. It happens.
I have no desire to be a Pirate (or Bullington) apologist. If I possessed a magic DeLorean or Mr. Peabody's Wayback machine, I would go back and try to persuade the Bucs to take Upton. That ain't gonna happen. I merely want to add some perspective to that fateful decision. At the time, Upton was not the lock he now appears. At the time, Bullington, was not the posterboy for mediocrity that he now seems. And at the time, I thought the team made the right decision.

<__trans phrase="Comments">
I like reading your stuff.
I don't like reading your stuff against a black background.
<__trans phrase="Posted by:"> azibuck | March 3, 2005 9:32 AM
The black background may not be long for this world. I have begun working on a redesign. Hopefully it will be up by opening day.
<__trans phrase="Posted by:"> trev | March 3, 2005 11:22 AM
Saw my first video of Bullington in action. First thing that came to mind was Jeff D'Amico.
Second thing that came to mind is unprintable here.
<__trans phrase="Posted by:"> briankopec | March 4, 2005 9:19 PM
I'd like to posit that I'm not a genius-in-hindsight in the Bob Klapisch mold. I couldn't really concentrate on Moneyball's '02 draft chapter -- because I couldn't put picks one and two out of my mind.
B.J. Upton was never a lock; frankly, nobody is. You can't predict Josh Hamilton's drug dependency, or Brien Taylor's pubgoing proclivities, or that Dallas Green would do a Gaer Grimsrud impression on Paul Wilson's right arm.
This decision was a failure even on the team's own terms.
1. Take the signable player. Upton got a bonus of $4.5M. Bullington was offered a $4M bonus on draft day, and didn't accept that offer for four months. Failure.
2. Take the safe route. Bullington didn't pitch competitively for roughly nine months upon being drafted. Somehow, in that stretch, he lost a lot of life on his fastball. Failure.
3. Take the player who'll help soonest. Upton held his own in Tampa Bay at 19; Bullington's 24 1/2 and he's not on the 40-man roster. Failure.
Methodology concerns aside, the best parallel you can draw to this draft was 1993. That year had a relatively shallow pool, much like 2002.
The safe bet was a pitcher. Darren Dreifort had just finished a stellar career at Wichita State, college baseball's dominant pitcher for two years running.
The highest ceiling belonged to a toolsy but raw prep shortstop who put up huge numbers his senior year: .505/9/36, 35/35 SB in 33 games.
The Mariners took a chance on Alex Rodriguez. The Pirates should have done the same with Upton.
Look, I'm not saying I know it all before it happens. I liked the Kendall contract at the time. I thought Lieber-for-Brown was a decent trade when it was made. I'm still unable to reconcile Chad Hermansen's big league numbers with what I once expected.
I hated the Bullington decision on draft day. I hate it now.
<__trans phrase="Posted by:"> jeff tripodi | March 4, 2005 11:37 PM
Good comments, Jeff. I'm going to break my responses down into a couple of separate comments for readability (I got a bit chatty).
Before I respond, I just wanted to say that my Bullington post was in no way a reaction to your Bullington post on your site. I had been struggling with my post for about a week, trying to get my thoughts into some kind of coherent read (the success of which is somewhat debatable). Just as I thought I was ready to post it, I saw that you had posted your own thoughts on Bullington. I thought they served the valid criticisms of the Bullington selection pretty well, so I included a link to it in my own post (I also thought you did a good job calling out management for their spin-alley type defense of Bullington earlier in the week).
I included your post, but my own post was in no way intended as a rebuff of your comments. I merely intended to explore why I thought the pick was justified at the time.
<__trans phrase="Posted by:"> trev | March 5, 2005 10:04 AM
In response to your comments:
1. I am sure the Pirates would have liked to sign Bullington much sooner then they had, but I am not sure if I would label their inability to do so a failure, as such. Top picks often don't sign in time to get that first taste of pro ball in their draft year. Heck, the Bullington signing was a walk in the park compared to the ordeal the Orioles went through to sign Adam Loewen, or what the Angels are going though now to sign Jared Weaver. The fact of the matter is that Bullington did sign, and he signed for the amount the team had budgeted.
2. I am not sure what caused Bullington's drop in velocity, but I am not entirely sold that it had anything to do with his holdout. In fact, some people believe that it's best to shut down a college pitcher after they are drafted, since they tend to get overworked in college.
3. Can't argue with this one. Upton (and a bunch of other draftees) developed much faster than than Bullington. My only point is that Bullington, at the time of the draft, was considered to be a lock to get the majors in two years at the most. This wasn't just a miscalculation on the Pirates' part, but by other respected baseball people at the time. Heck, from all accounts the Devil Rays were happy to take Bullington if the Bucs had taken Upton. Lucky for them, the Bucs went with Bullington, and the Rays got the far superior player.
<__trans phrase="Posted by:"> trev | March 5, 2005 10:04 AM
I disagree with the parallels you make with the 1993 draft -- Upton was nowhere near in the same class as Alex Rodriguez as a draft prospect. A-Rod was the closest thing you could consider to a lock in draft history. The guy had a major league body coming right out of high school, five legitimate tools, and a plus makeup. There was even talk that A-Rod could jump directly into the majors, if needed. The Mariners didn't take a chance on Rodriguez, he has a no-brainer. If McClatchy/Littlefield/Creech had to make the same choice, they would taken A-Rod as well. They despearately wanted a no-brainer. Unfortunately, the 2002 draft didn't have any no-brainers. They thought Bullington could be, but it blew up in their face.
<__trans phrase="Posted by:"> trev | March 5, 2005 10:06 AM
I realize that there were a lot of fans who preferred Upton to Bullington. Obviously, history has proven this preference to be the correct one. The point I was trying to make with my long-winded post was that at the time, I personally thought the Bucs were doing the right thing. I was recently talking to a friend of mine recently about this. He, too is a Bucs fan, and he follows the baseball prospect world very closely. He agreed with the Bullington selection at the time as well. His reasoning was that he saw Bullington as a Kip Wells-type and Upton as a Shawon Dunston-type. If that scenario played out, I don't think there would be as many upset fans, but obviously it didn't go this way. There is no doubt that the Pirates should have taken Upton. My only point, is that I can see why they didn't.
<__trans phrase="Posted by:"> trev | March 5, 2005 10:07 AM
I'll have to find my box of old Baseball Americas. I don't remember the date, but it's right before the draft -- Will Lingo wrote a column about how the Mariners were finally turning things around as a franchise, and couldn't take a chance on an untested prep hitter.
I don't remember the exact phrasing. But I do remember that Alex Rodriguez was not the sure thing that hindsight has made him seem.
<__trans phrase="Posted by:"> jeff tripodi | March 5, 2005 11:01 AM
Jeff, I found an article that seems to jive with what you remember. It's from BA's Alan Schwarz care of ESPN.com (http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/schwarz_alan/1560103.html). It's not from the draft coverage at the time, but rather for a profile of Roger Jongewaard done circa 1999.
I wish I still had my Baseball America's from that draft. It's always more interesting to read scouting reports from before the draft. The article above is interesting, but I wonder if Jongewaard isn't engaging in a wee bit of revisionist history.
I seem to remember reading glowing draft reports for A-Rod. The only knock I can remember is that some scouts questioned if he was too big to play shortstop in the bigs. I remember Dreifort being highly rated as well, but I seem to remember him being regarded as a very talented consolation price in regards to Rodriquez. Unfortunately, I purged my stack of BA back issues when I moved up here to New England so I can't dig up those reports.
<__trans phrase="Posted by:"> trev | March 5, 2005 1:49 PM
You know the one factor in the Pirates' drafting Bullington that doesn't get discussed? They drafted a PITCHER because they wanted somebody "safe."
Bullington is a symptom of an ongoing problem with the Pirates' approach to scouting, which is to put most of their resources into young pitchers. It's like buying junk bonds, only worse. Junk bonds, when they pay off, are high yield. Young pitchers have the risk level of junk bonds, but the yield is no better than when a hitter pays off. A team that drafts a pitcher because he's "safe" is about on a level with somebody who buys stock in a company because the company's name has the same initials as their mother's name.
<__trans phrase="Posted by:"> Wilbur Miller | March 5, 2005 7:44 PM